www.iva.co.uk

Just been speaking to a large firm probably top 10 for IVAs and they are not pursuing PPI at all after consulting with there creditors. To flip things around to the usual anti PPI argument surely an IP / IVA firm must look into the issue. In addition the only creditors that would be benefit would be the ones who have acted in the best interest of the debtor clients? In my opinion an IP is required to look into the issue how can it be ignored? Also how can a top IVA firm end up being so creditor bias?

They probably thought that all those 40% cuts that the claims managements companies were getting, not to mention the introducer fees being paid to some IPs out weigh the benifits that they recieved!

I wish my IP was in the top ten and going down that route!

Possibly Heretoday but beleive it not identification of the PPI takes twice as long as the processing. Not to mention the time on litigation should a case be rejected by FOS and time spent on researching other issues that crop up.

So identifying if PPI was missold and making the claim takes a lot of effort? I disagree with that but that's a conversation for later,

Not making a claim for PPI takes little or no effort plus all those 40% cuts don't go to the claims managment company.

So you can see why they have gone this way.

Yes seperate argument that we will never agree on but I have been involved in the sector for a year as a legal firm and the correct audit of a file and identifying if a PPI is there and then miss sold takes 3 times longer than what a claims managment firm does in the main stream. This is based on raw data up to you if you believe it not. Also 40% does seem high in my mind.

It would be interesting to see which firm or firms are taking this stand.

Regards.

In my opinion, forcing someone to claim PPI regardless of whether they believe they were mis-sold it or not is just plainly wrong. Its bordering on fraud when a company tells you to sign something as a matter of fact (IE that you believe you were mis-sold PPI) when you believe you weren't, especially when they threaten it risks failing your agreement if you dont agree to sign!

If on the other hand someone believes they were mis-sold PPI then they should have the option to pursue this for the benefit of creditors, and should do so. But no one should be forced to claim....

Not sure how some companies do it but in my mind should only need the debtor clients consent to investigate. A certain proportion of PPI was added with out knowledge as in my own case.

To have a company investigate PPI on your behalf, you simply need to authorise someone to do it - that I have no problem with. Where it comes to a claim actually being made, I believe you need to sign a statement that you believe you were mis-sold the PPI in the first place (else you have no claim!) - and I would think a number of such statements were signed only because the person was being threatened with potential failure of their IVA if they didnt comply.

It is the duty of the IP to realise assets which are included in the IVA and pay the proceeds out to creditors. IPs who do not exercise their correct duties will have to answer to the body of creditors and perhaps ultimately their regulators at the end of the day, if it is felt that they have not correctly supervised their cases. Guidance is due to be issued by the regulatory bodies shortly on this matter.

The claims management company that I recommend do all of the investigatory work on a free of charge basis, and then charge 15% of the eventual result by way of an overall fee. I do not force my clients to use the said firm, they are perfectly entitled to make their claims directly.

As is often the case, it seems that the communication between IPs and their clients about this issue possibly could be better, with clients not left feeling that they are being forced to give authority for something out of control, leaving IPs left feeling that their client's do not want to co-operate.

Once can only guess which firm Jamie is alluding to.

Thanks for clarification mel it is as i see it. I am uanble to give detaila of the firm i spoke to i feel it would be inapropiate to do so.

Thanks for clarification mel it is as i see it. I am uanble to give detaila of the firm i spoke to i feel it would be inapropiate to do so.

I think that Size 5, Michael and I will run a sweep! Off-line of course!

Hi Jamie, just for clarification where I have quoted a 40% cut to Claims Management Companies, my source is as follows:

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

You are quite right that a lot of companies are enlisting the services of Claims Management Companies charging between 35-40% of any compensation awarded. ClearDebt’s agent charge a fee of up to 33.95%

Going off on a tangent now but here goes:
Whilst there may be a need for an IP to investigate if there are any assets that can be released as a result of missold PPI, the fact that PPI has been sold does not mean that it has been missold!

There is a misconception that some ppi policies which are now regarded as a “banned product” such as a single premium polices are now somehow retrospectively banned and as such missold! This is not the case!

There is a case dated in August this year where Black Horse Limited successfully defended a varied array of payment protection insurance claims in the Liverpool County Court. Not only did the borrower fail in relation to all of his claims, but he was also ordered to pay all of the lender's legal costs on an indemnity (enhanced) basis.

If the debtor took out a PPI policy and it was not an advised sale and if they were made fully aware of the terms and any limitations of the policy and they believe that they were not missold this policy then it cannot be missold!

Any IP who forces or intimidates an individual into making a claim in these circumstances is pushing the boundaries of their authority and should be ashamed of their actions and risks bringing their industry into disrepute.

I agree that single premium policies - which were correctly sold at the point of sale with a willing and knowledgable purchaser - are not necessarily mis-sold, despite the fact that this type of policy can no longer be obtained.