Having looked at the details of Susan Wriglesworth's 2010 reprimand and fine, I believe it is not the same situation that we have here.
Section 258 of the Insolvency Act 1986 subsection 2 states The meeting may approve the proposed voluntary arrangement with modifications, but shall not do so unless the debtor consents to each modification.
However, this is not in relation to a variation. This section is about the initial creditors' meeting to propose the IVA.
What it is saying is that the creditors' can ask for modifications but the debtor must agree.
It seems to me that Susan Wriglesworth agreed to modifications at the initial proposal meeting without the debtor's permission.
So this is not quite the same issue that we have here, although it's along very similar lines.
Last edited by hubert on Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is interesting Hubert. But what about the initial terms of the contract being changed without our permission? There was a lot about this on the original PJG/CF thread and I remember Michael reassuring us (me included) that this is the case.
we both received our reports yesterday. it says that they all voted against the 50percent ppi claims…not bothered don't have any. But it states that the fee increase to 23percent (!!!!!!!!) was rejected but it shows a 62percent in favour. Im really confused.
Is there a minimum vote % needed to pass a variation? From memory that is the case with the IVA proposal?
In which case has the whole thing been rejected or....? I am confused
We are in a joint Iva and we received our proxy report from credit fix meeting for my creditors but not my wife's? I'm looking at the outcomes of my votes and agree they have rejected the 50% PPi clause which is fine, but I'm confused if it's actually been agreed by the creditors. It's says 44% across the bottom but I'm totally confused!
It's strange how my wife's proxy sheet is missing from the paperwork they sent, will have to get on the phone to them first thing in the morning. She had the most debt and it was her creditors we were worried about. So annoyed we didn't consent to this and it just feels like credit fix can do what the hell they like".........awful company
Yes we were the same no proxy sheet for myself only 1 creditor voted for my husband
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Backontrack
It's strange how my wife's proxy sheet is missing from the paperwork they sent, will have to get on the phone to them first thing in the morning. She had the most debt and it was her creditors we were worried about. So annoyed we didn't consent to this and it just feels like credit fix can do what the hell they like".........awful company
Inter-locking IVA approved 25th Feb 2013 - F&F offer Accepted 06th July 2017 - Completion Certificate received 20th July 2017
All my resolutions were passed by 100 percent of votes except the ppi one. Except not all creditors were invited to vote, so null and void. Also CF did not have my permission to hold the variation. So still null and void. So angry we are treated this way.
I'm still gobsmacked this has happened to people (still hoping I'm not one of them, I'm watching my mailbox with bated breath..). I'm not surprised the 50% PPI proposal was junked but THAT was what CF used to try and lure people into agreeing to 'request' the variation in the first place!
I said at the time that it wasn't even a carrot, it was the promise of a carrot. Others also rightly said that if people WERE to agree to the proposed variation that they should insist that it is 'all-or-nothing', ie. the creditors can't just pick and choose the terms they wanted from the proposal.
As far as we have ever been told you cannot call a variation without the consent of the debtor. It changes the nature of the contract and this cannot be done unilaterally but perhaps CF have had their own legal opinion which says that it is fine to do this.
Grimswald. If your company did not receive notification of the meeting then the company should contact CF and ask why especially if the company's vote is substantial enough. If the company receives a dividend from your IVA it certainly would have had an interest in the meeting as increased fees means reduced payouts to creditors. If the company was obliged to stand aside for dividend because it was an associate creditor then it could still vote but financially it would have been unaffected.
