Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:40 pm
An interesting development which I would like to share with the board and perhaps give an insight in to the difficulties that IP's experience on a daily basis. It also is a cause that I believe that IVA.co.uk should take up on behalf of the IVA community.
Today KPMG voted against a proposal that I had put forward on the grounds that the household budget was "unsustainable". The reason for this view was that the budget was drawn up on CCCS guidelines which, as I already know, KPMG think are " ridiculous"
The creditor spread in this case was such that no particular creditor had voting dominance and so, in drafting the proposal, there was no one particular set of criteria that I knew that I had to follow.
The major issue in the proposal, however, was that the wife was severely disabled and to accomodate the wife's disabilities the family had obtained a large loan from Picture in order to fund alterations to the house to accomodate the wife's diabilities.
Unfortunately this meant that more than half of the household income was spent on property costs and was in significant negative equity but, given the special needs of the family, there was no alternative such as selling the house. Having discussed various family budgets with the client, they were more than prepared to commit to the CCCS budget to make the IVA work.
Every other creditor that voted, did so in favour of the proposal but KPMG's vote blocked approval. In discussions with KPMG they have reiterated their rejection of CCCS expenditure guidelines and, I was shocked to be told, had not read the client history in the proposal so did not understand the particularly special needs of this family, which by the way included 5 children.
I am absolutely hopping mad about this and, if potential IVA clients feel that their IP is manipulating their expenditure budgets unnecessarily, perhaps this story will give an insight in to the pathetic attitudes that some voting creditors ( and yes I mean you KPMG in this instance)bring to bear and which IP's have to accommodate.
I was also told that KPMG had no voting instructions from their clients and so were exercising their own discretion. Like the good IP the board knows that I am (!) I have demanded that they put this case to their individual clients and if they do not do so I will.
It's worth noting in this pathetic story that a number of KPMG's clients actually refer debtors to CCCS for debt management so one has to question where on earth they think thay they have the mandate to reject a proposal based on CCCS guidelines.
Don't get me wrong, if I could have included a larger household budget I would have done so but for the fact that the client, for very understandable reasons, insisted that they had to continue living in their current house.
And to top it all, the husband is one of the most regulat guys you could wish to talk to and works in an essential service that, believe me,you would be pleased to see if in need.
The irony of all of this is that this voting attitude positively encourages these clients to petition for their own bankruptcy in order to buy out their negligeable beneficial interest for £1, yet the clients genuinely want to avoid doing this and want to make a decent offer to their creditors.
IVA.co.uk? KPMG need to be asked why they don't support CCCS guidelines (and this is not the first case like this I have had, but the most deserving) when their clients are more than happy to recommend CCCS to debtors who are struggling to pay.
I'm hopping mad about this, if it wasn't obvious!
Your thoughts, as a forum, would be very welcome.
Today KPMG voted against a proposal that I had put forward on the grounds that the household budget was "unsustainable". The reason for this view was that the budget was drawn up on CCCS guidelines which, as I already know, KPMG think are " ridiculous"
The creditor spread in this case was such that no particular creditor had voting dominance and so, in drafting the proposal, there was no one particular set of criteria that I knew that I had to follow.
The major issue in the proposal, however, was that the wife was severely disabled and to accomodate the wife's disabilities the family had obtained a large loan from Picture in order to fund alterations to the house to accomodate the wife's diabilities.
Unfortunately this meant that more than half of the household income was spent on property costs and was in significant negative equity but, given the special needs of the family, there was no alternative such as selling the house. Having discussed various family budgets with the client, they were more than prepared to commit to the CCCS budget to make the IVA work.
Every other creditor that voted, did so in favour of the proposal but KPMG's vote blocked approval. In discussions with KPMG they have reiterated their rejection of CCCS expenditure guidelines and, I was shocked to be told, had not read the client history in the proposal so did not understand the particularly special needs of this family, which by the way included 5 children.
I am absolutely hopping mad about this and, if potential IVA clients feel that their IP is manipulating their expenditure budgets unnecessarily, perhaps this story will give an insight in to the pathetic attitudes that some voting creditors ( and yes I mean you KPMG in this instance)bring to bear and which IP's have to accommodate.
I was also told that KPMG had no voting instructions from their clients and so were exercising their own discretion. Like the good IP the board knows that I am (!) I have demanded that they put this case to their individual clients and if they do not do so I will.
It's worth noting in this pathetic story that a number of KPMG's clients actually refer debtors to CCCS for debt management so one has to question where on earth they think thay they have the mandate to reject a proposal based on CCCS guidelines.
Don't get me wrong, if I could have included a larger household budget I would have done so but for the fact that the client, for very understandable reasons, insisted that they had to continue living in their current house.
And to top it all, the husband is one of the most regulat guys you could wish to talk to and works in an essential service that, believe me,you would be pleased to see if in need.
The irony of all of this is that this voting attitude positively encourages these clients to petition for their own bankruptcy in order to buy out their negligeable beneficial interest for £1, yet the clients genuinely want to avoid doing this and want to make a decent offer to their creditors.
IVA.co.uk? KPMG need to be asked why they don't support CCCS guidelines (and this is not the first case like this I have had, but the most deserving) when their clients are more than happy to recommend CCCS to debtors who are struggling to pay.
I'm hopping mad about this, if it wasn't obvious!
Your thoughts, as a forum, would be very welcome.