www.iva.co.uk

http://www.iva.co.uk/forum/forum_experts.asp

Andy's contact details can be found in the above link.

If Kallis has contacted him three times now, tells me he's busy or away but maybe he'll look in soon.

I would like to remind people that this post is about IVA companies cashing PPI cheques which should be given to those who have legally completed their IVAs via a Court completion report and Certificate of completion in accordance with Green v Wright, but which IVA companies choose not to recognize.

Cloudy -- as you will see by reading many other posts, we do tend to wander off topic. The conversations are organic and, like in real life, drift a little.

Just to confirm that Green V Wright is still ongoing.

The Green case may be ongoing but unless and until the decision is changed this is the status quo in statute end of

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Cloudy.45

The Green case may be ongoing but unless and until the decision is changed this is the status quo in statute end of

British law is largely based on precedent and, while a decision is under appeal it does not constitute a precedent, so, the nearest we have is the decision in the Gallagher case, which just confirms that, unless severed, a trust exists, post completion or termination, to which assets due during the arrangement are also due to that trust. That is the status quo at the moment.

If this is what you are referring to https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk ... part_4.htm the precedent only applies where the IVA was unsuccessfully completed and where there are subsequent bankruptcy proceedings.

What Foggy has listed is not the legal advice I have been given at all

Is the Iva company not maladministering IVAS if they do not include all paperwork and terms that they get a Courts agreement to? AND then think they can go back on a written contract if they can then no one should do an IVA as it may Never end!

LNE, whilst the decision relates to BR proceedings following the termination ( in this case) of a CVA, the reasoning admits the existence of an enduring trust -- I might add that this is not my interpretation but I am merely repeating what has been said by a barrister expert in insolvency law.

I have to agree with Foggy and I think we have to wait until the legal case has been sorted.

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Cloudy.45

Is the Iva company not maladministering IVAS if they do not include all paperwork and terms that they get a Courts agreement to? AND then think they can go back on a written contract if they can then no one should do an IVA as it may Never end!

They could be -- but they haven't. The original arrangement includes clauses that assets should be part of the IVA estate. Current thinking is that PPI is such an asset.

Currently they are considered an asset post completion, if not already dealt with. When we finally get a definitive appeal result we will know how they are to be treated --- this is why many firms are holding funds in abeyance until this happens.

Until it has been tested in law in front of a judge a barrister has only given their opinion.

That opinion is going to be tested.

I can only say I'm glad I'm out of it.

I agree Lifenoteasy --- not only is that opinion to be tested, but ramifications of the ongoing case need to be tested, whichever way it goes. That said --- the issue will have died before we get around to anything meaningful happening.

I'm beginning to feel my age#128513;