www.iva.co.uk

Hello again from NEDCAB.

We have watched the video footage of the 4th Feb 2008 Debt Debate (including the post debate panel interview) and read through the transcript.

We have to say that the above debate was extremely good and very interesting but also unfortunately a little disturbing and to be honest somewhat frightening.

There appeared to be some grim faces both in the audience and on the experts panel as speaker after speaker seemed to acknowledge that there are real problems and serious issues in relation to IVAs.

Watching this debate and taking into account our experiences at North East Derbyshire CAB one has to wonder just exactly how big the problems with IVAs really are and how many people may be affected.

As for the issues we mentioned in a previous post, they all seemed to be adequately covered with the possible exception of point 7. The importance of independent, impartial advice for those who may feel they have been missold an IVA.

It is our opinion that independent, impartial advice is also a must for those who may feel they have been missold an IVA (whoever the provider).

We have already registered our respect for this website, the professionals and others on here and would also add that we have learned from it and hope to continue to do so. However, it seems to us that it is very rare that a poster with problems with an IVA is ever referred to independent, impartial advice and there does not seem to be any sort of general campaign on behalf of the consumer to address any potentially missold IVAs.

Before anyone responds to this post we would ask you to appreciate that as a Citizens Advice Bureau our concerns must be with those who may be subject to missold IVAs and are possibly suffering as a result. As already stated we have dealt with this type of case and continue to receive enquiries relating to problems with IVAs and so therefore can genuinely speak from experience.

We welcome any views and comments on the above.

You make extremely good points - a number of which are already of concern right within the IP profession as well.

The problem, as I see it, is one of being able to determine what mis-selling actually constitutes. I feel that there are so many people in IVAs who spend so little time discussion options with their IPs or senior staff (in accordance with SIP 3) that they feel confused at the time of signing up, and then get disgruntled when they feel that their IPs do not understand them - or at worse they do not understand the terms of the agreements they specifically signed up to. This is not a mis-sold IVA, but is perhaps poor client service on the part of the IP.

IVAs have traditionally been a complex tool and are only appropriate in certain circumstnaces - but if used correctly provide a far better return for creditors than would be available under bankruptcy proceedings, and more certainty of recovery than under a DMP. Initially designed with the business owner, professional or company director in mind, it was hard to envisage in the mid 1980's the explosion of consumer debt which we are now experiencing.

Until recently - IVA protocol and suggestions for SIVAs - IVAs have not really been tailored to the needs of the consumer, and were very legally worded and quite obviously confusing. I am pleased to report that the great steps taken by the Insolvency Service/Debt Resolution Forum and the BBA have now resulted in a much more suitable method of operation for consumers, who now represent over 80% of all IVA applications. The industry will see a difference in time!

As an IP myself, I would never let someone enter into an IVA who I felt did not understand the consequences and implications - or simply the terms of the document they are signing up to. Detailed meetings with clients are essential to be held with senior members of staff, but preferably the IP themselves, to satisfy both sides of understanding and commitment.

It is arguable whether the so called IVA factories are more or less efficient than smaller more specialist practitioners. As one who perhaps sits in the middle of both types of practice, I can see the benefits of both - and try to take the best bits from each. Automation and efficient systems are ideal, but not at the expense of customer service or simply a good duty of care to both debtor and creditors.

As IPs we know that there have, and potentially still are, problems within our profession which we are all working very hard to erradicate. However, it is the whole debt industry who should shoulder some of the responsibility for poor practice in the past, and we should all work together to improve our standards to ensure that confidence in this very vital part of the UK economy is restored and that we all move forward in a postive manner. Those who refuse to join must then pay the penalty.

Thank you Melanie for another respectful, professional and very fair post.

This is the type of debate we believe can move the situation forward to benefit all concerned in relation to IVAs.

Hi
I agree with Melanies comments.
From a Joe Public perspective I have seen a vast change in the way IVAs are marketed and sold over the last couple of years.Gone are the unrealistic promises made in advertising and gone are the high IP fees that have given IVAs such bad press.
Personally I would like to see a movement towards one regulatory body to cover all IPs with a standard complaints procedure and a compulsory accreditation mark issued to all debt management companies/advisors by the FSA
Regards

Oh so would we Andy! Having 8 different ones can often be confusing.

Andy - you make fair points and hopefully things will change for the better. However current and future changes are not much help to those who may already be subject to a missold IVA.

As we have already stated, we continue to receive enquiries regarding problems with IVAs and anticipate more in the coming months.