www.iva.co.uk

Hi, Desperatley looking for some advice rregarding an active IVA that I belive should have ended and has been mismanaged.

IVA started in Jan 2014 with Debt Free Direct / Richard Savage and original terms proposed and agreed were 60 months @ £260 monthly payments. It was then extended in the same month to 70 payments of the same amount. This meant it should have ended in Jan 2020.
The IVA is still actibe and is now on its fourth handling compnay - Jarvis. Previously Aperture, Fairpoint.

There are restrictions of sale on both properties I own, which are under the name of Debt Free direct/ Richard savage. I have been told by Jarvis that they still stand even those the handling compnay and supervisor has changed three times and details not updated with land registry. Is this correct?
In July 2019 an equity assessment was conducted by Select Partnership on behalf of Aperture. Result : No reasonable opportunity to release any equity from either property. Closure of IVA was proposed and agreed. No requests for information were made by Aperture. Aperture instructed me to cancel direct debit during a telephone conversation and to await IVA completion certificate.
In Jan 2020 Aperture made contactl to inform that 7 more payments of £260 needed to be made in order to close.
Following many back and forward calls and conversations questioning this in order to try and bring the IVA to a close – Payments resumed in March 2020 and were complete by September 2020. Throughout this period I was told that this would result in the completion of the IVA by Aperture In September 2020, after the final payment had been made, I was then informed by email, that my IVA had now been passed over to jarvis who are NOW saying it hasnt ended and I need to release equity or agree to another 12 months ! How can this be right ?? Has this been mismanaged and are they breaching the IVA protocol?
Cant include all infor due to character limit but can answer any questions that may help. Thank you

The restrictions still stand as the cases were transferred by a court order which conferred the same responsibilities etc. on the incoming IP.

Jarvis appear to be doing this on a number of cases --- that is asking for equity to be addressed when it has already been done. I assume this might be down to case handlers not thoroughly going over the case before contacting you, or the case notes might be incomplete. If this is the case Select might be able to assist in confirming that the equity has already been addressed and dismissed.

I would suggest an email direct to the current IP complaining about this attempt to have another bite at the equity cherry, which you can then escalate to their regulatory body if needs be.

I am curious as to the timings you present: Agreed at 60 payments from January 2014 -- which would take you to January 2020. But then "extended in the same month to 70 payments". This would take you to November 2020. Why was it extended in the first place? Given the time scale equity release should not have been looked at until at least July 2020 (based on a 70 month arrangement -- whereas it was looked at around the correct time for a 60 month arrangement) .

Hi, I have only just been advised that it was extended back then. Prior to this I was unaware. I have never received a notice of extension or variation in this regard

Thanks

Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:10 pmpw wrote:

Hi, I have only just been advised that it was extended back then. Prior to this I was unaware. I have never received a notice of extension or variation in this regard

Thanks

I would be inclined to find out why -- you should have been asked and informed at the time.