Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:04 pm
I read this recent article in Metro http://www.metro.co.uk/money/article.ht ... page_id=36 and it seems a view echoed by many tabloids/redtops alike. I had to reply, as yet unpublished....
I read your article with interest this morning but I am astonished with some of the views of "campaigners". An IVA may be seen as an easy win but I would suggest that notwithstanding the introduction of the IVA Fast Track proposals, that this is a more honourable method of an insolvent maximising their payments to creditors, than say a bankruptcy. It is all too easy to say that the debtor is completely responsible for their indebitness; ultimately they are, but I
feel some responsibility must be borne by lenders as well. Although they use complex scoring models and a number of information suppliers, they appear to be interest & charge hungry and do not , in my opinion anyway place realistic caps on borrowing.
I have been in an IVA since the spring of this year and to date, I have paid c. £10,000 into the IVA fund. If I hadn't had been protected by an IVA one or many of my creditors would have commenced legal action or petitioned for bankruptcy. The latter was of course an option for me, but I wanted to maximise the payments to creditors in a controlled manner. The IVA also protects me professionally - an important consideration.
Interestingly, I still receive offers of loans from creditors that are part of the IVA.
You are quite correct to suggest that fees are deducted from the IVA fund but this is no different to a bankruptcy as the Official Receiver has to administer the bankruptcy, although the total fee may lower in the bankruptcy, I suspect the final dividend would be as well. My IVA offers almost a 90% dividend, the balance being nominee & supervisor fees agreed by majority (of the creditors). Ninety pence in the pound must be virtually unheard of in bankruptcy.
In my case, I am convinced that an IVA is a win-win for all but I am not convinced that allowing a Fast Track version is a good step forward. Although I do not want to go into specific details of arrangement, what does concern me is that companies offering IVA services appear to gerrymander IVA applications to meet the requirements. I had to insist that my application be re-drafted as a number of "inaccuracies" both in the statement and the statement of earnings were introduced on my behalf.
In light of your article and similar editorials in Daily Mail & General Trust titles, I am somewhat surprised that publication of advertisements continues for IVA companies masquerading as debt cleansers
Lastly, I would have happily come to the same arrangement as proposed in the IVA directly with the creditors and of course have them receive the extra benefit of the IVA fees increasing the dividend but sadly they were not happy to acquiesce.
I read your article with interest this morning but I am astonished with some of the views of "campaigners". An IVA may be seen as an easy win but I would suggest that notwithstanding the introduction of the IVA Fast Track proposals, that this is a more honourable method of an insolvent maximising their payments to creditors, than say a bankruptcy. It is all too easy to say that the debtor is completely responsible for their indebitness; ultimately they are, but I
feel some responsibility must be borne by lenders as well. Although they use complex scoring models and a number of information suppliers, they appear to be interest & charge hungry and do not , in my opinion anyway place realistic caps on borrowing.
I have been in an IVA since the spring of this year and to date, I have paid c. £10,000 into the IVA fund. If I hadn't had been protected by an IVA one or many of my creditors would have commenced legal action or petitioned for bankruptcy. The latter was of course an option for me, but I wanted to maximise the payments to creditors in a controlled manner. The IVA also protects me professionally - an important consideration.
Interestingly, I still receive offers of loans from creditors that are part of the IVA.
You are quite correct to suggest that fees are deducted from the IVA fund but this is no different to a bankruptcy as the Official Receiver has to administer the bankruptcy, although the total fee may lower in the bankruptcy, I suspect the final dividend would be as well. My IVA offers almost a 90% dividend, the balance being nominee & supervisor fees agreed by majority (of the creditors). Ninety pence in the pound must be virtually unheard of in bankruptcy.
In my case, I am convinced that an IVA is a win-win for all but I am not convinced that allowing a Fast Track version is a good step forward. Although I do not want to go into specific details of arrangement, what does concern me is that companies offering IVA services appear to gerrymander IVA applications to meet the requirements. I had to insist that my application be re-drafted as a number of "inaccuracies" both in the statement and the statement of earnings were introduced on my behalf.
In light of your article and similar editorials in Daily Mail & General Trust titles, I am somewhat surprised that publication of advertisements continues for IVA companies masquerading as debt cleansers
Lastly, I would have happily come to the same arrangement as proposed in the IVA directly with the creditors and of course have them receive the extra benefit of the IVA fees increasing the dividend but sadly they were not happy to acquiesce.