www.iva.co.uk

My IVA was completed on the 01/01/2014 with certificate and I have received PPI compensation which has been paid to the IP,I have been asked to send them the letter I have from the bank so they can confirm if I will receive anything is this correct, and can I dispute it if the payment is zero?

Welcome to the forum ... You can dispute no reason why you can't, but anything that is identified as PPI will be expected to be given to your creditors. I do question is it worth it ... time moves on, your life moves on

Hi,

My view is slightly different, you have your completion certificate so they cant breach you or anything.

unless you signed something that says they are entitled to it then it is questionable if they are, there was court case which sought to establish who PPI belongs to after completion of IVA.

The case ruled in favour of the claimant (previously in IVA), defendant (IVA firm) appealed, lost appeal in Manchester high court.

Now next step is high court appeal in London, this may take some time.

My understanding is, as case law stands at this very moment in time (as I type)the ruling was in favour of the claimant, so I would say don't sign anything now that agrees to them having it - if you have your certificate already.

Indeed I would quote the case and suggest its all due to you as case law stands at present, this would be applicable to anyone who has had their taken by the IP in the last few years post completion if they didn't agree to this explicitly.

No doubt they will stall say they want to wait for the the appeal to be heard, that could take some time, but if they stall they risk the high court ruling saying they are not entitled to it as the original judge found, so maybe there is room for some negotiation with them, as law stands right now, it is in your favour, in my personal (non professional ) opinion.

None of this applies if you signed something to say they could have the lot even after completion. You need to read a bit about the case to understand what facilitated this in terms of the debtors closing/completion paperwork etc

http://debtcamel.co.uk/ppi-claims-after-iva/

http://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/news_ ... high_court

http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/randi/set ... i-refunds/

I'm with luluj on this.

I agree with Luluj and lifenoteasy as well.

I am reading this question differently --- a PPI refund has been made by the bank and sent on to the IP. The IP is requesting the covering letter to see what the breakdown is ... does it contain interest which could be retained by the client?

Just guessing.

I have to ask why ?

If you had satisfied your IVA and are complete by law, the court has ruled your obligations to the IVA are complete and you haven't signed a deed of assignment why would you gift that e.g. £10k to the IVA Firm ?

So, by the same rationalle if you won the lottery or had a Payrise after completion would you also donate said windfalls/gains to them too under the terms of an old no longer active agreement ?

There was a grey area that is no longer grey, (subject to London high court ruling), why would you surrender/gift what in effect could be e.g. £10k of your savings to a firm ?

Sometimes the toast lands butter side down, sometimes butter side up, it's nice when the law supports the consumer.

Time to setup a "Were you in an IVA and the firm took your PPI after completion claims company"

Because not having to deal with the IVA company is more important than the money.

A lottery win, payrise etc. I would fight because that means my life is no longer my own again which was the whole point of going into and then finishing an IVA.

That is the point that IVA companies still do not get - people want a start, middle and an end.

That's why the secured loan issue will backfire on them because they have failed to understand people.

I get that people want completion and to be shot of IVA firm and restrictions. I'm talking about if you have certificate already. That chapter of your life is closed already.

Each and every persons situation is different, if the IVA firm no longer has control over your life then what is there to lose in asking for the PPI money to be sent to you instead of them ? for people who have pinched and scraped for 6 years to suddenly be offered a small pot of gold for example to get a better mortgage that reduces their interest payments or pays off a car loan and in turn makes their life better.

I guess I shall politely agree to disagree. [:)] now... back to setting up that claim firm to act as the intermediary so people don't have to deal with the firm direct. a "IVA-PPI-claim recovery firm" "trademark pending ha ha

I have seen so many people get hung up on this board around PPI and it's just not worth the effort.

Good luck with the claim firm but the only way forward that I can tell is if a company is set up where the IP is forced to have a personal relationship with each of their clients and where they sit down and explain what is happening PLUS the presumption of them always being right is removed.

Maybe size5 can give you some advice.

...but not that personal I might add!

I was kidding, I don't have the time or inclination for such a firm, maybe someone does, I just don't like seeing people pay more than they should and when if legally that money should be in their back pocket instead of some fat cats back pocket.

Same here - going forward I will be contributing to this board and helping where I can. Anything more and I would probably have to retrain and give up the day job.

Thing is, Longslog, at the moment the view is that the PPI is / was an asset of the arrangement and, legally, should not be "in their back pocket".

Until such time as the final appeal goes through that remains the case. Once the appeal is dealt with, assuming it goes the way of previous rulings, then anything not dealt with prior to the issue if the certificate of completion will be fair game.

The current case relates to R3 terms and conditions and I would not be surprised if the Insolvency Industry claims that it doesn't apply to Protocol arrangements. However, my arguement would be that the principle remains the same and, once established in R3 arrangements, should apply across the board. There might need to be further court rulings.

One drawback, should the ruling continue in our favour, will be that new arrangements will be re-written to the effect that closure will not take place until all PPI investigations have been exhausted or interests assigned. So, a hollow victory going forward.

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

Thing is, Longslog, at the moment the view is that the PPI is / was an asset of the arrangement and, legally, should not be "in their back pocket".

Until such time as the final appeal goes through that remains the case. Once the appeal is dealt with, assuming it goes the way of previous rulings, then anything not dealt with prior to the issue if the certificate of completion will be fair game.

The current case relates to R3 terms and conditions and I would not be surprised if the Insolvency Industry claims that it doesn't apply to Protocol arrangements. However, my arguement would be that the principle remains the same and, once established in R3 arrangements, should apply across the board. There might need to be further court rulings.

One drawback, should the ruling continue in our favour, will be that new arrangements will be re-written to the effect that closure will not take place until all PPI investigations have been exhausted or interests assigned. So, a hollow victory going forward.

Indeed foggy, I think it may even open up the whole deed of assignment process too as someone might suggest that is an unfair term to surrender all future PPI claims, and then another court case, and then a further delay in completion certificates, a backward step, so someone goes to court about that etc etc and another case and round and round it goes.

The whole thing needs a massive overhaul in my opinion, as someone said in another post,what was good 10-20 years ago is perhaps not fit for today, and requires modernisation to take into account rulings and the changing landscape.