If I read this correctly they have paid back some £62k against an initial debt of only £50k, £12K over payment.
What would happen if they stopped paying into the IVA and let it fail, could the creditors come back to them and try to force them into BR even though the original debt has been paid in full??
The original debt will not have been paid in full due to the fees and costs charged and the posters would be left to repay the rest outside of the IVA. It is possible they could be made bankrupt so better all round if this is resolved.
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Michael Peoples
The original debt will not have been paid in full due to the fees and costs charged and the posters would be left to repay the rest outside of the IVA. It is possible they could be made bankrupt so better all round if this is resolved.
This is just from an inquisitive point as opposed to an actual situation but who would make you BR.
The fees agreed are between the creditors and the IP, you have no say in them or there value, so if the creditors have received the original debt back and the IP has received their fees off the creditors for receipt of such monies then who makes you BR, I thought you could only make someone BR if they had a debt with you, in this scenario the creditors no longer have a debt and you have no agreement over the IP fees.
The IP can make you bankrupt for defaulting the IVA with funds set aside for that purpose. Creditors may just ask for the IVA to be failed but they could insist on bankruptcies.
So am I right in thinking that even though the fees are a separate agreement between the creditors and the IP you are legally responsible for them even though you have no contract to pay them and even when you have fully settled the original debt.
Just wanted to clarify something on fees. The fees are agreed with the debtor - it is your IVA proposal at the end of the day, and fees are a very important part of this. Creditors may modify the amount and method of fee charging, but fees must always firstly be agreed with the debtor - ie the person proposing the IVA.
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by MelanieGiles
Just wanted to clarify something on fees. The fees are agreed with the debtor - it is your IVA proposal at the end of the day, and fees are a very important part of this. Creditors may modify the amount and method of fee charging, but fees must always firstly be agreed with the debtor - ie the person proposing the IVA.
Hi Melanie, when we entered our IVA at no time were the level of fees discussed with us.
All we were ever told was that there were fees payable, but the came out of the IVA and were agreed between the creditors and IP (on the basis that it was the creditors money not ours). We just kept getting told its all ok and that we did not have to pay any fees ourselves.
The only time we were aware of how much they were being paid was when we got a copy of the final IVA meeting agreement where there was a clause covering fees between the IP and the creditors.
The only time we became aware that we could be asked to pay their fees or interest, should we hit the 100%+ repayment mark, was when we joined this forum...
The basis of the IP's proposed fees should be clearly set out within the IVA proposal which you signed, and also there should have been a letter of engagement detailing this as well. A lot of IPs describe fees as being paid by creditors and not the debtor, and technically this may be the ultimate effect and outcome, but it is you the debtor paying the contributions and you have an absolute right to have a say so in how those fees are calculated and proposed.
The regulators are particularly strict on ensuring that there is full transparency about the charging of IP fees in insolvency cases.
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by MelanieGiles
The basis of the IP's proposed fees should be clearly set out within the IVA proposal which you signed, and also there should have been a letter of engagement detailing this as well. A lot of IPs describe fees as being paid by creditors and not the debtor, and technically this may be the ultimate effect and outcome, but it is you the debtor paying the contributions and you have an absolute right to have a say so in how those fees are calculated and proposed.
The regulators are particularly strict on ensuring that there is full transparency about the charging of IP fees in insolvency cases.
You raise some interesting points, whilst we did sign off the paperwork from the IVA meeting, which did indicate the level of fees, we have no copy or recollection of a letter of engagement, nor any prior notification of the fees or that we had to accept the fee structure.
The series of events we had were that we contacted CCCS who sent an agent to run over our paperwork, he then indicated that as I had my own business it could only be handled by GT so we had to deal with them, we were given no other options.
A few days later we had a phone call confirming the questionaire filled in by CCCS and an email.
Next thing was a creditors meeting and the IVA....
Given that you are self-employed you ought to have had a face to face nmeeting with your IP personally, or at least a senior and experienced member of their staff. This is an important requirement of Statement of Insolvency Practice 3.
CCCS should not have indicated to you that you had to use the firm of their choice - they ought to have advised you that they could not have handled the case, and they recommended the firm they like to use, but also that you were free to find a practitioner of your choice.
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by MelanieGiles
Given that you are self-employed you ought to have had a face to face nmeeting with your IP personally, or at least a senior and experienced member of their staff. This is an important requirement of Statement of Insolvency Practice 3.
CCCS should not have indicated to you that you had to use the firm of their choice - they ought to have advised you that they could not have handled the case, and they recommended the firm they like to use, but also that you were free to find a practitioner of your choice.
I only wish I had found the forum and your kind self 3 years ago, I feel things could have been a lot smoother. Just got to make the best of things for the next 3 years and then it will all be over....
Kind thoughts nickjohn - and at least you have the forum as a way of letting off steam and getting general guidance - of course we cannot give you case specific advice.
