Page 1 of 3
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:59 pm
by andrewgoodman121
Why is an IVA for 5 years unlike Bankruptcy which is 1 year.
I mean if a person in this country is Jailed for say 5 years which is legally binding they are out in 2.5 for good behavior but us people in IVA's have to see the whole thing through to the Bitter End.
I mean those MP's who fiddled there expenses are walking the streets now but we have to go the whole hog Why!!!!
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:07 pm
by Skippy
Can I just point out that while BR is generally only for one year an IPA lasts for 36 months from the date of the first payment.
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:13 pm
by kallis3
And your credit record is shot for the same amount of time.
It can also have more far reaching implications afterwards than an IVA does.
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:16 pm
by kallis3
It doesn't have to be for five years either - you can propose a full and final from the outset or at anytime during the term.
You can't do that with bankruptcy and, depending upon your circumstances, you could end up with a BRO/BRU which makes it worse!
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:35 pm
by Broke of London
An iva is a choice not a punishment and we stay in the iva to the bitter end by choice because we have decided it is our best option. Having debt written off isn't a punishment.
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:36 pm
by kallis3
Quite agree BOL!!
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:39 pm
by luluj
BOL - well said !
An IVA is a choice you can make and one that is not an easy decision...however bankruptcy too is not an easy decision .....you could still land up paying for 3 years !
We borrowed the money on the belief we were going to pay it back to our creditors...therefore to pay for five years and to then have what we can't pay off cleared - to me that is a fantastic opportunity and we should feel very priviledged to have been given a second chance!
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:45 pm
by Shining
BOL I totally agree and good choice of phrase!
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:29 pm
by mattyboy
5 years doesn't look so bad when I compare it to the 50 or so it would have taken to pay it back had it not been for the IVA!
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:41 pm
by MelanieGiles
When I first started proposing IVAs in the 1990's, they generally ran for three years in line with the then timesecale of the bankruptcy period. Creditors have over time increased their demands to the extent that we now see five or six year IVAs as the norm. The basis behind this was to maximise their returns over what was felt like a more realistic timescale, and designed to give creditors a greater return than would be available under bankruptcy proceedings.
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:47 am
by nomoremoney
Good reply Mel,but the UK is in bust and not in boom.There is worsen job prospects with higher taxes let us not forget that banks are in debt,a quarter of a trillion quid printed money in circulation and the private sector cannot soak up public sector job loses,even coppers will be made redundant in new changes proposed.A 5 year Iva is out of sync with the new economic model of little growth and indisposable income.Change the rules.
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:17 am
by TheMatrix
I don't understand why the details of a IVA are kept on the insolvency register for the entire length of time that the IVA is running so 5-6 years yet a BR comes off 1 year from when it went on, even when a IPA is going for longer than a year.
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:50 am
by kallis3
Presumably because you have been discharged from BR? Don't forget that not everyone gets an IPA so they can be debt free straight away.
We stay on the register because the IVA is current until it is paid off.
I do agree though that if you have an IPA you should stay on the register until it is paid off.
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:44 am
by stoneyB
I think 5 years is too long and what worries me is the way some poor souls on here are having to go 6 or 7.
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:56 am
by Broke of London
5 years isn't that long...people take loans for five years and think nothing of it.