More Creditfix Problems?

[Bumpkin]

Creditfix really are sailing close to the wind in my view.

I have been asking them to put forward a F&F proposal for me for a number of months, based on payments made to date. These exceed the total sum expected when the arrangement was agreed. My circumstances have changed and I'm not able to continue paying into the arrangement.

Today I had an email including the following wording:

'Before I can put a proposal forward to creditors, I would require confirmation of your consent to the changes of the terms of your IVA. I have attached a copy of the consent for your perusal.'

Basically, sign or we won't put your proposal forward.

As far as I'm aware, they have to put forward any proposal I ask them to. However, my concern is that if I force the issue they will put it forward but in a sloppy manner, with no conviction, and it will be rejected.

The new T&Cs are of no benefit to me and it's been previously confirmed by Clifford Watts that I have no PPI to claim. All it does is entitle Creditfix to higher fees for their terrible service, which will reduce the amount creditors get and I suspect might affect whether they would accept a F&F.

I think this could be considered blackmail and is highly unethical, and legally questionable.

Does anyone have any advice or opinions?

[relieved33]

In my opinion, it's unfair. Your full and final should not be conditional on accepting new terms. They should be pleased to be getting 15% for little work for the few months since takeover.

You could email stating that you do not agree, if you don't, but ask for confirmation that your offer will be put to creditors.

on the other hand, how quickly do you want it over? If they can get creditors to agree, isn't that more important than denying them additional fees on principle?

That's a question only you can answer!

[Bumpkin]

I agree with all your points - I guess my key concern is that at 15% fee rate the money available to creditors will be greater and therefore they're more likely to accept the F&F. At 23% it might just tip the balance so that creditors don't feel they're getting enough to accept it.

I've emailed them back to ask on what basis they can't put the proposal forward without me signing the new T&Cs.

[lifenoteasy]

Look at the iva news page and article about Harrington brooks(?) just before xmas about the consequence of delays to use as ammunition.

By linking f&f to changes in conditions it's likely to be regarded as unreasonable as 2 should not be linked and likely to be regarded as undue pressure

[Bumpkin]

I agree. I've emailed them and (hopefully) reasonably explained why I would prefer to retain the existing terms...

It could be a mistake, but time will tell and I won't hesitate to delve deeper if the proposal is rejected. I think it would be unusual if it is - at such a late stage and with payments to date exceeding the original projection.

[recovering]

I'm sure There are other forum members who have Not signed and had F&F'S accepted with Creditfix have a look through the threads

[wantout]

i have a creditors variation meet soon (confirmed) for an f&f offer and i rejected the new t's and c's with no issues whatsoever. whole process from f&f offer to creditors meet confirmation letter was 3 days

[Bumpkin]

To be fair to Creditfix, after explaining (hopefully reasonably!) that I wouldn't be signing up to the new T&Cs, they acted very quickly. I got a date for the F&F meeting soon after, and it's set up for March.

Hopefully it'll be supported by them - we'll see how we get on....

[MrsR]

Hi Bumpkin,

What reasons did you give for not signing the new terms?

We've read a lot of others haven't signed when asked by CF when F&F has been offered, so we won't be signing ours.

[Shining]

It is very unfair to give an ultimatum like that, your offer should be put forward on the t&c's of your original proposal in my opinion.

[Bumpkin]

In my case it was for two key reasons.

Firstly, I'd previously had confirmation that no PPI refund was due to me, so this element didn't apply.

I was also concerned that the hike in fees would reduce the amount available to creditors, and therefore reduce the likelihood of them accepting the F&F offer.

[MrsR]

Those are good reasons Bumpkin.

When I spoke to the lady sorting out F&F out, she said that the terms were to bring in line the PJG clients with the CF term clients, and no other real difference other than the 50% PPI retainment.

We've already claimed back all the PPI with Mels team, and don't feel that the PPI clause is applicable, and even if it wasn't, we're not bothered if they kept all 100% of it.

[grimswold]

I don't see how they can hike the fees to 23% and then not seem to have any contact with the IP. It's like buying a car from a village garage knowing that you will get something reliable and a decent service afterwards, or getting one from a shiny chain of dealers who want to sell you something but don't want to bother with the after care.

[abbiesmum2003]

Ive never understood why creditors would agree to these t&c's...theyre already agreeing write off (in some cases) a substsntial portion of debt...then losing 8% of payment due to increasedfees, then 50% of any ppi! it just doesnt make sense to me why creditors woukd agree to that. Im staying on original t&c's.

[Foggy]

Conspiracy theory : By agreeing to "over fund" the big boys the creditors will have only a few large firms, with no soul, to deal with, in time. These few will be creditor centric and the debtors (no longer clients) will be at their mercy.