font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Michael Peoples
Herbekj I agree entirely that that the 'individual' should remain in individual voluntary arrangement. However, there should be consistency across the industry and even now the modifications differ depending on who you have borrowed from. The fee structure varies from creditor to creditor and does not always reflect the work done.
There are some good things in protocol and we have introduced many of these conditions into our own proposals without actually drafting rigidly protocol IVAs.
I would love to see stats showing started and completed IVAs by company.
You and Mel should be taken as gladiators (weapons allowed to convince and scare idiots) to set a new accord that debtors, creditors and IPs have to follow.
Everyones IVA will then be successful and everyone will win.
Last Payment - November 2011 - Completion Certificate received 2 weeks after last payment, Removed from Insolvency Register within 4 weeks after last payment.
Agreed Michael and as unfortunately Annie has not attempted to remortgage in order to release the equity at month 54, notwithstanding that you would of expected DfD to drop her and her husband a timely reminder, it may actually of been a last resort by DfD to help bring Annies IVA to a timely completion.
I'm not sure how long after the agreed 60/72 months that IP's can wait for those in IVA's to have complied with the month 54 (or later if 72 month IVA) condition in their proposal to attempt a remortgage, so I could be off the mark and DfD may of been a bit hasty to arrange the loan, however, if clients fail to meet the 54 month condition I dont suppose theres much they can complain about.
I came into this world with nothing and still have most of it left!
It will all come down to the wording of each proposal. Hopefully, lots of newer proposals will have the "remortgage or extend" options written explicitly into their equity clause.
The debate about protocol and non-protocol IVAs is appearing to sound as if there are two very different procedures and that clients may be prejudiced by the use of firms who do and do not support the use of the protocol.
In my own firm we probably submit 50% protocol and 50% non-protocol arrangements, as we act for a lot of SME clients. The wording used, however, is very similar, and to be honest the advent of the protocol in 2008 did not really change the way things were done. I have highlighted the issues surrounding equity release on numerous occasions to the IVA protocol committee, but perhaps it is time now to be a little more robust in approach and to get the wording tightened up so that clients do not get confused.
Michael - we should share thoughts on this point off-line.
But we don't have crystal balls - no-one knows what the mortgage markeplace may be like in five years time!
Your comments about IVAs are rather odd, and I would hate to think that genuine posters maybe thinking of using such precedures could be put off by them. Clients who propose IVAs through reputable IP firms have absoutely nothing to fear about equity release provisions - good IPs will make sure this is fully explained from the outset, and there is absolutely no need to have negative thoughts about a provision designed to protect the family home and not put it at any sort of risk.
