Page 1 of 1
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2016 5:51 pm
by Foggy
In case you are interested The Insolvency Service has just published its annual review of insolvency regulation within the industry.
Page 17 makes good reading -- many of you will know the names.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... w_2015.pdf
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2016 6:14 pm
by lifenoteasy
Only 25% of complaints are being rejected at the gateway stage.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 2:46 pm
by lifenoteasy
Bumping this up - it is worth people taking a few moments to read.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 3:34 pm
by Lisa Thomas
Very interesting Foggy. I was thinking what an expensive lesson or two MA had then I read PH's cost award further down...!
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 3:35 pm
by Lisa Thomas
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by lifenoteasy
Bumping this up - it is worth people taking a few moments to read.
Good point LNE just to show debtors that complaints can and are upheld.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 4:07 pm
by MerlinL14
The cynic in me says this will not change a single attitude towards the debtors by the same IP's, next years report will, no doubt, bear testament to that.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 4:31 pm
by Foggy
I know what you mean, Merlin. But if more clients carried through with there complaints their pockets would begin to buckle and I would like to think that the regulators ears might prick up.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 5:41 pm
by longslog101
There were some serious fines in there - which is nice to see !
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 6:04 pm
by MerlinL14
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Foggy
I know what you mean, Merlin. But if more clients carried through with there complaints their pockets would begin to buckle and I would like to think that the regulators ears might prick up.
The regularity bodies should by now have a very good idea of who is bottom of the "duty of care" list. They either subscribe to this list and have as little respect for IVAers or have their head in the sand. Seems it takes a formal complaint to get any headway with a dispute. Case workers seem to forget that they are not the administrator of an IVA and they should be barred from making unilateral decisions to phone calls or letters of concern from those in an IVA, there should also be a monetary consequence for their rudeness and lack of respect to a genuine concern rather than brush it off. Telling someone in an IVA that they can not speak to 'their' IP should be a sackable offence.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:37 pm
by chrissy12345
interesting fines! bet it doesn't make much of a dent in the Ips pockets though. I wonder where the money from the fines actually goes does anyone know?
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:34 am
by Lisa Thomas
I'm pretty certain a £150k fine does make a difference!!
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:51 am
by lifenoteasy
There was a long history to that one including a US pressure group bring set up.