Cleardebt, the joke its becoming

[stevef100]

Hi Barbera.05,

You may have missed the point somewhat, I don't think anyone is questioning the ability of DRSP or Money Mayday. It's the conflict of interests that exist here.
I know David has attempted to clear it up, but it's still a very grey (and unregulated) area.
I am happy that David has also stated that the bills or the free service is not mandatory.
Still concerned at the use of this "free service" you keep on bringing up.
DRSP are not free, they are 33%
Money Mayday are not free, they are a broker and brokers get paid generous figures, which ultimately come out of any contract they sign you up to.

Also, Should it be found that Money Mayday has access to data provided to Cleardebt for the sole purpose of supervising an IVA, well, that opens up a whole new thread....

[lifenoteasy]

David

Thanks for what you have posted and being willing to stick your head above the parapet (in the words of another IP) - from someone who is a client of an IP that is now very remote that is important to see from representatives of the industry.

Before I go any further I will admit to having a bias based on the following statement linked to complaints and where the Insolvency Practitioner Association stated "...where the
complainant was primarily concerned
about or had a general lack of
understanding of insolvency
procedures and their impact."

It seems that as someone in an IVA I need to know at least as much as an IP or their staff to understand why IP's make decisions that I may not be comfortable with.

Also part of what I do in real life is deconstruct why decisions have been made to use personal information (a professional iconoclast) and see whether the decision is supportable.

Re. Money Advice Services' Standard Financial Statement it made interesting reading. It seems to apply to a large proportion of the industry but not the whole industry.

I also noticed that 2 specific data sets will not be included as being regarded as intrusive or of no value:

Name and data of birth of the solvent partner of someone in an IVA

Vehicle Registration Number

That suggests that there is a level of data collection that the industry is not comfortable with and is moving away from individual IP's having different working practices etc.

Re the statement that you send at review it is actually a good example of this type of thing. What is not clear is do you get the client to say Yes I agree to this or No I do not. Your practice legal advisors should be able to confirm that there are likely to be significant changes across the EU in the next couple of years about how consent is obtained and recorded and you might want to future proof yourself.

If the additional data collection at review is clearly linked to a point in time when the other company was created and you did not collect that level of information BEFORE it was created then it is likely to be regarded as secondary usage (sales or marketing) and a Privacy Impact Assessment that looked at legal basis for the activity might have picked that up.

Unlike the credit reference industry which has no legal basis other than 1) companies deciding to share information and 2) making the sharing of information a pre condition of the service they provide IP's do have a statutory function (although I note that the Insolvency Service is loosening the reins a bit from September 2015).

If a role has a statutory basis the general rule of thumb is that you can do no more or less than what the legislation explicitly states - whether what you obtain or share can be deemed as "reasonable" will then be subject to what a Professional Association decides or the ombudsman linked to a particular activity (and it is really uncomfortable to see that the IP Professional associations do not appear to understand the latter).

I have nothing to say re. PPI other than the whole IVA industry did itself a disservice in the way that it has handled this. It is unfair to pick out one company and how it deals with this.

The difficulty you face is that someone going in an IVA only has one choice when deciding which IP to use - a sales led environment once that decision is made will only alienate that individual leading to increasing levels of non-cooperation.

I'm embarrassed enough being in this situation - I do not need anyone suggesting that I continue to make poor decisions as I seek to stabilise my life.

Also earlier this year a number of us on this board experienced what it means when data linked to our insolvency was put into the public domain and it took Google rather than the IP profession or the insolvency regulator to resolve.

Protective of information and who is using it, accessing it etc. is an understatement.

I will not be contributing further to this discussion chain - I am not a Cleardebt client and I only contribute to the board so that people can ultimately find a way to help themselves in the situation that they face.

[David Mond]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by stevef100

Hi Barbera.05,

It's the conflict of interests that exist here.
I know David has attempted to clear it up, but it's still a very grey (and unregulated) area.
I am happy that David has also stated that the bills or the free service is not mandatory.
Still concerned at the use of this "free service" you keep on bringing up.
DRSP are not free, they are 33%
Money Mayday are not free, they are a broker and brokers get paid generous figures, which ultimately come out of any contract they sign you up to.

Also, Should it be found that Money Mayday has access to data provided to Cleardebt for the sole purpose of supervising an IVA, well, that opens up a whole new thread....

stevef100,

I have not as yet received from you any email about your own personal issues and as requested by me twice now.

But to respond to the above post:

I am unsure if you have either mis-read, mis-understood or overlooked my previous responses.

However at the risk of repeating myself, ClearDebt do not pass their customer's details to Money Mayday without first gaining the consent of the customer in question (for which ClearDebt do not receive a fee).

Money Mayday do not charge the customer a fee for the service they provide.

Customers are free to decide whether they want to see if it is possible to save money (at no cost to themselves), do some shopping around in their own time (either directly themselves or with a third party switching service), or carry on paying what they are with their own current provider.

Furthermore, at no point have I stated that DRSP are a free service and I have gone on to explain why DRSP are used and the benefits of using them to both the creditors and the customer.

I have always acted in a fair and transparent manner towards my customers and will continue to do so, both here and in all personal communications.

As mentioned above I do not appear to have received an e-mail with your details so that I can put things in context of your own specific case for you and so I would be grateful if you could forward this to me at your earliest convenience so that I can help put your mind at rest.

Once again, my e-mail address is david.mond@cleardebt.co.uk

Sincerely,

David Mond

[David Mond]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by lifenoteasy

David

Thanks for what you have posted and being willing to stick your head above the parapet (in the words of another IP) - from someone who is a client of an IP that is now very remote that is important to see from representatives of the industry.

Before I go any further I will admit to having a bias based on the following statement linked to complaints and where the Insolvency Practitioner Association stated "...where the
complainant was primarily concerned
about or had a general lack of
understanding of insolvency
procedures and their impact."

It seems that as someone in an IVA I need to know at least as much as an IP or their staff to understand why IP's make decisions that I may not be comfortable with.

Also part of what I do in real life is deconstruct why decisions have been made to use personal information (a professional iconoclast) and see whether the decision is supportable.

Re. Money Advice Services' Standard Financial Statement it made interesting reading. It seems to apply to a large proportion of the industry but not the whole industry.

I also noticed that 2 specific data sets will not be included as being regarded as intrusive or of no value:

Name and data of birth of the solvent partner of someone in an IVA

Vehicle Registration Number

That suggests that there is a level of data collection that the industry is not comfortable with and is moving away from individual IP's having different working practices etc.

Re the statement that you send at review it is actually a good example of this type of thing. What is not clear is do you get the client to say Yes I agree to this or No I do not. Your practice legal advisors should be able to confirm that there are likely to be significant changes across the EU in the next couple of years about how consent is obtained and recorded and you might want to future proof yourself.

If the additional data collection at review is clearly linked to a point in time when the other company was created and you did not collect that level of information BEFORE it was created then it is likely to be regarded as secondary usage (sales or marketing) and a Privacy Impact Assessment that looked at legal basis for the activity might have picked that up.

Unlike the credit reference industry which has no legal basis other than 1) companies deciding to share information and 2) making the sharing of information a pre condition of the service they provide IP's do have a statutory function (although I note that the Insolvency Service is loosening the reins a bit from September 2015).

If a role has a statutory basis the general rule of thumb is that you can do no more or less than what the legislation explicitly states - whether what you obtain or share can be deemed as "reasonable" will then be subject to what a Professional Association decides or the ombudsman linked to a particular activity (and it is really uncomfortable to see that the IP Professional associations do not appear to understand the latter).

I have nothing to say re. PPI other than the whole IVA industry did itself a disservice in the way that it has handled this. It is unfair to pick out one company and how it deals with this.

The difficulty you face is that someone going in an IVA only has one choice when deciding which IP to use - a sales led environment once that decision is made will only alienate that individual leading to increasing levels of non-cooperation.

I'm embarrassed enough being in this situation - I do not need anyone suggesting that I continue to make poor decisions as I seek to stabilise my life.

Also earlier this year a number of us on this board experienced what it means when data linked to our insolvency was put into the public domain and it took Google rather than the IP profession or the insolvency regulator to resolve.

Protective of information and who is using it, accessing it etc. is an understatement.

I will not be contributing further to this discussion chain - I am not a Cleardebt client and I only contribute to the board so that people can ultimately find a way to help themselves in the situation that they face.

lifenoteasy,

The information gathered at the time of the review is for the purpose of conducting the review itself.

It makes sense, once the review has been completed, to then offer the customer the chance to speak to Money Mayday at this juncture as if they do make any savings, they will be able to reap those benefits for the best part of a year until their next review is completed.

As previously stated, consent is obtained before passing them to speak to Money Mayday and if they decline to do so, that is the end of it.

Sincerely,

David Mond

[stevef100]

David

Thank you for your kind offer to look at my case personally, but with 3 years left to run and having already had a pleasure of dealing with your staff, I shall decline as you ultimately hold my purse strings and by the looks at the popularity of this thread probably opened up a can of worms.
My situation is poor enough without you wading into me personally.

Bottom line is, you have answered my main query adequately.
I look forward to testing the DP process in the coming weeks.

stevef100