What courses of action are open to me to appeal

[scooby0]

Hello

Good luck Steve.t1 I'm sure whatever you decide to do you will have a happier debt free future as will all of us.

[go_4_broke]

Hi

I smell a big fat rat with this one.

What I've never understood with this is why, if it is such a common modification, is it not put up front with the original proposal?

Answer - because it would spoil the big get-out-of-debt-in-five-years selling point of IVA's, so a tacit understanding has arisen between the IVA industry and the creditors to slip it in as an afterthought 'under the radar', leaving the poor old debtor not fully realising the implications until it's too late.

I'm not commenting on Steve's case above, but I bet an awful lot of IVA sales are made in this way and the crafty IVA company will downplay the clause, but make sure they have covered them selves legally.

I agree with Andy above, there should be some added legal protection for the debtor and I think that in any other arena this would have already been done.

Best Regards, Simon

[MelanieGiles]

That is a very sweeping statement Simon, and I can assure you that there is no collusion between the IVA industry and creditors as you seem to suggest - at least not one that I am professionally aware of.

But "crafty IVA companies" leave themselves wide open if they do not bring these clauses to their client's attention - which in Steve's case they obviously did as he signed his agreement to the clauses in a copy of his Chairman's Report.

[go_4_broke]

Hi Melanie,

No I'm not going as far suggesting there is overt collusion, but it seems a very convenient 'accident of history' that things have fallen out this way.

I'm sure IPs know that this modification will be requested in pretty much every case to which it applies, so why not put it in up front where it will be crystal clear?

I know that IP's such as yourself who act conscientiously in the client's interest will ensure that it is properly identified but that still leaves a lot who won't.

I cite myself as a case in point - I did luckily just about manage to grasp the implications of this when I was looking at an IVA and I will give my IP firm credit for mentioning it, and although it was rather mumbled it was enough to set alarm bells ringing and confirm my decision to leave immediately in the opposite direction.

Best Regards, Simon

[MelanieGiles]

The new IVA protocol requires the equity in the property to be addressed within the IVA proposal, so hopefully issues like this are ones of the past now.

[Steve.t1]

I'm not sure if it was legally challenged that being requested to sign something would nessecarily be considered the same has offering clear and concise information. And it seems to me that it is considered accepttable within the industry to do the bare minimum required.

[MelanieGiles]

Not at all! The Nominee has to lodge their report in Court within 4 days of the creditors meeting, which can be adjourned for up to 14 days to allow the debtor to consider carefully creditor modifications.

[Steve.t1]

Wow that was really quick!!!! I've deleted the question now as i realised I was repeating myself. Thanks anyway

[Steve.t1]

So i could have had 14 days to consider the modifications, not the two i was given?

I would like to reiterate I appreciate your honesty , even when it isn't what I want to hear. I need a check to keep me on track.

I have now formally complained to debtmatters via payplan solutions who have actually been very helpful.

The situation at the moment is that I accept that mis selling may well be impossible to prove but that mis management to my detriment most definately can.

Basically I could have activated the fourth year clause as early as August 2006 ("In the fourth year"). At that time my house was worth considerably less than now and borrowing was cheaper. Had I successfully released equity and brought the IVA to an end at that time, I would have saved thousands in monthly IVA payments. I did none of this, I feel, due entirely to a complete lack of supervision and management, even though I even enquired with them about the equity clause during this time.

I feel therefore that at worst, if at all, I should now be able to release the equity at the 2006 value and to deduct from my share, the IVA payments paid since that time.

I'd be interested to know what you think?

[MelanieGiles]

I think that if you have a sympathetic new Supervisor you may have a good chance with your claim, Steve, especially as you are so passionately behind your recollection of the facts. In terms of your obligations under the IVA - it is down to you to arrange the finance at the appropriate time - but I have no doubt that this should have been pushed along by the Supervisor in the interests of your creditors.

If you are persistent enought, and able to raise the finance based on the earlier date, I cannot see anyone turning this away to be frank.

[Steve.t1]

Thanks Melanie.

I hope I haven’t come across as a cynical opportunist. I couldn't bare that. It maybe hard to believe but if I honestly believed that I had no moral case, I wouldn't pursue this at all.

If I couldn't win the moral arguement I wouldn't attempt to win the legal or technical one

Goodness, when I read that back it sounds absurd, and so sanctimonious. It’s so difficult sometimes to articulate my feelings on this matter.

At the end of the day I feel the whole IVA was so poorly explained to me from day 1, that I never really had the foggiest idea of what I was doing or getting involved in. I am grateful for the pathway out of debt, but still as far as I was concerned I was working away ,making my payments and counting the months and years. For 4 and a half years up to this point I was totally ignorant as to the financial bombshell that lay ahead.

And for that I am resentful.

I shall shut up now and ramble no more.

GOODNIGHT AND THANKS AGIAN

[Wizzard]

At the end of the day I feel the whole IVA was so poorly explained to me from day 1, that I never really had the foggiest idea of what I was doing or getting involved in.

HI Steve

I know how you feel. In the pursuit of my IVA I've alreadfy paid out £320 and seen nothing for it. I only wish I'd found this forum before I started.

[Steve.t1]

Hello Ray, what do you mean you have paid out 320 pounds, for what?

[ianmillington]

Hi Steve, I speak to you as an ex-Debtmatters IP, although I joined long after your proposal and left a few months ago, so don't shoot the messenger!

Over the last few years there have been dramatic changes in the landscape when it came to Equity clauses. I have always subscribed to the view that "equity" in the context of an IVA equates to the maximum amount that the debtor is able to realise by the chosen method.

I was not involved with the Domestic IVA side of Debtmatters, but have a passing knowledge of how they treated equity. As I recall it, if the position was such that an 85% remortgage would not produce any equity, they would probably seek to exclude it from the proposal on those grounds. The creditors would either accept that (which some did)or choose to do something else by modification. Clearly your creditors have chosen to modify. I can't see how any IP of sound mind would offer a guarantee of no equity release, but then I haven't seen the paperwork in your possession.

Around 4/5 years ago it was quite common for certain creditors to propose some weird and wonderful equity clauses, many of them quite unworkable from the off, as the price for their acceptance of your IVA. I suspect that over the coming months, perhaps couple of years, there will be a fair number of variations taking place to sort out these anomalies, which now conspire with market forces to make life very difficult.

Therein seems to be the practical solution to your situation, as previously pointed out by Melanie. Whether it was your intention or not, or your perception of the original deal, you have this equity release clause in your arrangement that is unworkable. That is fixable by way of variation, particularly in the current climate, and I would hope it's one of the terms that Payplan will propose for you as part of the variation that I assume they are putting to your creditors.

So far as adjournments are concerned, the Nominee can adjourn for up to 14 days to secure the approval of creditors. It's also recommended that the meeting be adjourned if you are unable to immediately consider or agree modifications, but the total adjournments cannot exceed 14 days otherwise the IVA is deemed to have been rejected. Was there an earlier adjournment because the meeting had been approved?

Unfortunately as will be seen in other posts, this accelerated process seems to be rather typical of the "factory" approach. As a former employee of the company in question it would probably be inappropriate of me to comment any further - hope you understand.

Ian

[Steve.t1]

Thanks Ian, I apppreciate you taking the time to expalin. I understand fully that is is not appropriate for ytou to comment on debtmatters.

My basic hope now now is to propose to my creditors through payplan that I release equity from my house based upon the value as in August 2006(the beginning of the fouth year) and minus the IVA payments i have paid since. This would release abour 6,000 pounds.

Do you think that is reasonable and has a chance of being accepted?