www.iva.co.uk

Just to let you all know that CCCS guidelines have now been updated and will be operational with effect from 1 October 2010.

The increases in expenditure are marginal, but in line with current inflation and RPI - and also take account of the VAT increase forthcoming from 1 January 2011. Some categories have also dissappeared, but I have queried this with CCCS and await their response. As usual, the CCCS figures remain broadly in line with the Common Financial Statement - the alternative figures often more used in the DMP industry.

I am not sure how widely these are being circulated, but I gather that a copy is being sent to each IPs regulatory body for publication on their members areas, so if any posters have a need to see the guidelines, then your own IP is the best port of call.

Just to remind professionals and posters that guidelines are merely for use as guides, and that a client's actual expenditure, so long as this is justified and reasonable, should be the figures presented to and accepted by creditors.

I am grateful to my fellow IP at CCCS(VA) for providing me with a copy of the updated figures this morning.

I think it's good news they have been updated as this was long overdue.

I personally always put what I spend and leave it to the discretion of my IP to advise on my expenditure. x

The news last night reported an expected 10% increase in food prices over the coming months.

I wonder if the CCCS guidelines on housekeeping expenses will be promptly revisited if this increase materialises?

I doubt it Andrew!

Having seen some people's allowances on here, it seems to me that the guidelines needed a complete overhaul, and if the increases are only marginal, people will still struggle.

I have a copy of the new guidelines also, and concur with the point that actual expenditure should dictate a financial statement rather than a set of guidelines.

However, it is also fair to say that some creditors voting representatives do tend to see these guidelines as being set in stone and will act and vote accordingly. There are welcome increases in certain guideline areas, but there are, proportionally, very substantial decreases in other areas, which I personally am struggling to see any logic for.

Using the new guidelines, and applying those to Mr and Mrs Average with 2 kids of school age, both working and therefore running two cars, and not making any allowances for the categories that have disappeared which Mel has queried, as above, then the guideline budget in that scenario has actually reduced by £34 per month.

I stress again the individuality of each case, but I do have to question the wisdom of reducing some very important guideline budget allowances at this time, potentially leaving an average family with less to live on than previously. An interesting thread for reference can be found at http://iva.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=28362

Regards.

Why should we who are in IVAs be penalised by CCCS for trying to pay back what we can? How can they generalise like this when we each have different things that we pay for?

I agree that perhaps it is not a good idea to post these guidelines as people will take advantage and claim for things they don't actually need.

However, I personally think that we should put down what we spend, with proof if needs be, and that should be accepted by the creditors. I don't think they have a choice in BR do they?

If the debtor and IP can justify these figures to the IP, then there should be no problem.

I very much share your view Jan, on pretty much all of your post, however creditors, generally by way of their representatives and not the creditors themselves, do have the right to vote, and can also request or suggest amendments or modifications to any proposal put before them. The point really is that some (not all thankfully) of them do seem to think that these guidelines are chapter, verse and gospel, and if anything is outside of these guidelines will always at least query them, but more often insist that clients stick within these guidelines regardless of actual circumstance(s). It is for that reason that I am amazed that, in some scenarios, these new guidelines provide for less total allowances than the previous ones did.

Just my own view of course, and I am sure that some will disagree with me, but an interesting debate nonetheless.

Regards.

I do agree that they have the right to vote for or against, and can suggest modifications if they think the allowances are too high.

It is good that there is some sort of baseline with the allowances, but, and is always pointed out, an IVA is about individual circumstances and what is right for one is not always right for another.

BR allowances are always more generous than for IVA and will only last for three years. Why the distinction when in an IVA the creditor is always likely to get back more than in BR?

I apologise in advance to those who have been/still are in BR. This is not intended as a knock at you.

kallis3 wrote:

Why the distinction when in an IVA the creditor is always likely to get back more than in BR?

I'd usually expect creditors to follow the harshest guidelines available given a vote on the matter, as that would give them the greatest return.

Rubbish, but true.

I have to say that we have a reasonable allowance for our IVA and can manage to live reasonably well.

My point is that we should be allowed (with proof) to put down exactly what we spend on normal household goods.

Creditors are always likely to get a better return with an IVA.

A point in defence of the guidelines - the categories which looked as if they had been missed off, have actually not changed - so the original allowances still stand. I am not sure therefore that anyone is going to be worse off in using the new figures.

Thanks Mel.

where can you find these guidelines??

Melanie purely hypothetical from my point but if for example someone had an £80 smoking allowance and then gave up smoking, at annual review I'm assuming they can't honestly claim this allowance again and this would be paid into the IVA payment?

Like I say purely hypothetical but I have wondered for a while x

Good point Lesley!

I wonder if anyone who claimed a smoking allowance would admit to having give up?