www.iva.co.uk

Just to say that the appeal of the supervisor was granted and the judgment unanimous.

The Court of Appeal in London handed down an important judgment on the appeal in the case of Green v Wright. James Green, the Appellant in this case, was Supervisor of an IVA and is an Insolvency Practitioner with McCambridge Duffy.

Ronan Duffy, Insolvency Practitioner with firm McCambridge Duffy, said:

“We believe firmly in doing the right thing by the debtor and doing the right thing by their creditors. Here we appealed the judgment as we felt it was important to protect the integrity of IVAs. The judgment provides much welcomed clarity in respect of assets such as PPI claims. This provides certainty for creditors and in turn makes them more likely to accept arrangements for debtors.”

“As a firm we carried the risks and costs in this case but we did so as it was the right thing to do. We are pleased, that to us what was common sense, has prevailed.”

Thank you for letting us know, Michael.

So the status quo remains.

Glad it is all sorted now - thanks for letting us know Michael.

This may speed up the closure of IVAs now which will be welcomed by all I hope.

Ive just read a quick synopsis of the result and would I be right in thinking that as of now once you have received your completion certificate then any PPi which comes to either yourself or to the supervisor remains an asset of the IVA and goes to creditors.

If so then there is now no reason why the IP's cannot get on with sending out completion certificates..

nickjohn wrote:

Ive just read a quick synopsis of the result and would I be right in thinking that as of now once you have received your completion certificate then any PPi which comes to either yourself or to the supervisor remains an asset of the IVA and goes to creditors.

If so then there is now no reason why the IP's cannot get on with sending out completion certificates..

Basically, yes. However, I imagine many firms will still seek Deeds of Assignment as this saves a bit of paperwork further down the line, as well as protecting the asset from future changes and challenges. There was already no real reason to delay completions.

Foggy wrote:

nickjohn wrote:

Ive just read a quick synopsis of the result and would I be right in thinking that as of now once you have received your completion certificate then any PPi which comes to either yourself or to the supervisor remains an asset of the IVA and goes to creditors.

If so then there is now no reason why the IP's cannot get on with sending out completion certificates..

Basically, yes. However, I imagine many firms will still seek Deeds of Assignment as this saves a bit of paperwork further down the line, as well as protecting the asset from future changes and challenges. There was already no real reason to delay completions.

Why will they need dees of assignment, the reulst clears the issue up as now anything received goes straight to them.

Ive been waiting nearly a year for my completion certificate, threatened them with making a complaint and they said go for it were not bothered, I went through the gateway but as theyre in Ireland I had to start again with another lot over there and it seemed to grind to a halt so I thought I would just wait until the result. Hopefully now they can just get me my certificate.

A Deed of Assignment will give them security. Without it they will have to rely on your co-operation in future claims and they will have no real leverage. What each firm does will be up to them as there still is, as there never has been, any established mechanism in place for dealing with PPI. All this case has done has confirmed the stance that has always been taken with regard to ownership of refunds --- it is of no help with the mechanics.

Foggy wrote:

A Deed of Assignment will give them security. Without it they will have to rely on your co-operation in future claims and they will have no real leverage. What each firm does will be up to them as there still is, as there never has been, any established mechanism in place for dealing with PPI. All this case has done has confirmed the stance that has always been taken with regard to ownership of refunds --- it is of no help with the mechanics.

So as you say the stance of refunds has now been confirmed and they belong to the creditors via the IP even after the completion certificate has been issued.

My understanding of the deed of assignment was that is was used as a system whereby the IP could get ownership of the PPI refunds before the court case had been settled. Given that the court case is now settled, and ownership of refunds legally confirmed, then what happens if you dont complete a deed of assignment as they are now superfluous.

Is it just me or am i missing something here. The only reason the IP wanted this verdict is so that they can be paid even more than they already do by taking a massive handling fee from the PPI claim?
They're not acting on behalf of the creditors. They're all out for them selves. Or am i barking up the wrong tree here??

Andy.75 wrote:

Is it just me or am i missing something here. The only reason the IP wanted this verdict is so that they can be paid even more than they already do by taking a massive handling fee from the PPI claim?
They're not acting on behalf of the creditors. They're all out for them selves. Or am i barking up the wrong tree here??

Only in a few cases are the PPI claims companies linked to the IP's firm. Yes, they do however get 15%, as agreed by the creditors. All that said, it is their duty to realise these assets, as it is the debtors responsibility to repay what they can of what is, at the end of the day, their debt.

In my case I was forgiven over £60k in debt and interest I never had to pay -- I was not going to quibble over the £8k PPI refund !

Andy.75 wrote:

Is it just me or am i missing something here. The only reason the IP wanted this verdict is so that they can be paid even more than they already do by taking a massive handling fee from the PPI claim?
They're not acting on behalf of the creditors. They're all out for them selves. Or am i barking up the wrong tree here??

You are absolutely right Andy. This is a tragic decision and one which the 'establishment' on here has been lobbying for. The gravy train continues. IPs getting richer.

chrissy12345 wrote:

Andy.75 wrote:

Is it just me or am i missing something here. The only reason the IP wanted this verdict is so that they can be paid even more than they already do by taking a massive handling fee from the PPI claim?
They're not acting on behalf of the creditors. They're all out for them selves. Or am i barking up the wrong tree here??

You are absolutely right Andy. This is a tragic decision and one which the 'establishment' on here has been lobbying for. The gravy train continues. IPs getting richer.

Excuse me ??

Everybody on here gives advice freely and, often, in their own time and I have seen no "lobbying".

I agree Foggy - nobody lobbies and, as Foggy has said, we are all volunteers on here and receive no remuneration from any IVA company. As stated, money will go to creditors and no IP firm works for nothing.

We are the firm who took the case but this was to seek direction of the courts and the case may form part of case law for years to come. We have never been 'lobbying' for one result or the other and appeal court judges are not MPs but professionals who interpret the law.

Had this decision gone the other way then creditors would have been inclined to seek bankruptcy as their position would be much stronger and this judgment only equalises the position of creditors in bankruptcy or IVA. It has been accepted that the Insolvency Service or Trustee in Bankruptcy can reclaim PPI for the benefit of creditors post bankruptcy so why not an IP post IVA?

When someone enters an IVA they are asking their creditors to write off a percentage of their debt and allow them to keep their homes. Had this decision not been made we would have had the position whereby a debtor can reclaim compensation from a creditor who accepted their IVA. I accept that misspelling was a contributory factor in people's financial problems but this would not be enough to justify double hit to creditors.

In future they would just reject the IVAs and get all the assets in bankruptcy which is surely not what people would want. This is nothing to do with greedy IPs but everything to do with what is correct in law and just between debtor and creditor.