what the xxx?? Help!

[lifenoteasy]

...and to be fair I don't think he was the one that originally shortened it.

[paulaj8824]

I started my iva with PayPlan in august 2010 and received my completion cert 29th September 2015. Insolvency register have this noted and all the credit reference agencies. I didn't experience any problems with payplan but then again I didn't have any major issues or obstacles throughout my iva. The only complaint I would have with them is that they would take about 2 weeks to reply to you and kept changing my case officer. This could be purely down to staff leaving and staff shortages though. I did also feel payplan very much worked on behalf of the creditors.

[kallis3]

Do agree that the case officers change often but we did have one who lasted for a long time during our last year.

[Adam Davies]

Hi

Why can some IPs close IVAs and others such as Payplan can't because of an outstanding court case ?

IPs needs one regulator [not the current eight different ones] and a clear line on closures

Regards

[Robbyuk12]

Just received the same response myself ! Started iva sept 10

Made my final payment sept 15

Just received the same green v Wright email !

I'm not interested in ppi and I'd be willing to vary the terms so they can resolve claims after completion !

Payplan gone mad ?
They were good at start ! Now it's at the end they have you jumping through hoops ! What's best way to complain ? Think it's unacceptable!

[Shining]

100% agree with Andy, I hope you consider taking Michael's excellent advice and if you did, maybe you could update us with their response.

[Foggy]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Andy Davie

Hi

Why can some IPs close IVAs and others such as Payplan can't because of an outstanding court case ?

IPs needs one regulator [not the current eight different ones] and a clear line on closures

Regards

They should be overseen by the Insolvency Service itself and work to one set of protocols with better, less open to interpretation, wording.

Yes, there will be winners and losers but at least everyone will know where they stand from the start and choose their routes accordingly.

[paulaj8824]

As mentioned previously my iva was with payplan and I received my cc 29th september. There was something in the cc about ppi but I didn't take much notice of it. It read along the lines that my creditors would be entitled to any claim, but this hasn't stopped my iva completing. I know I never took out any ppi anyway.

[Michael Peoples]

In case some of you are not aware James Green is one of our IPs so it is us who are fighting the case versus Wright. We are still able to close cases so I find it odd that others cannot.

[lifenoteasy]

Almost suggests something else is going on.

[longslog101]

Off topic, so I apologise,

Hi Michael,

Thanks for disclosing this, this now tied up with what you said in another post a while ago that the feeling was this would be overturned, that said I guess your legal advisors thought that about the initial case and the appeal that was lost

Can't it simply be overcome by the initial IVA terms signd by both parties that any PPI that is due up to the date of IVA completion is deemed an asset of the IVA ? And any due post that day plus interest belongs to the individual ?

Have McCambridge Duffy modified their terms of any new IVA issued post green and wright to try and cater for this ? And for example the completion certificate reading that all liabilities of the individual are now complete with the exception of any future PPI settlements due up to the date of this completion certificate will belong to the estate bla bla bla, but written in a much more confusing (legal) way ? (Then it couldn't be argued the standard
Completion certificate trumps the deed of assignment).

I guess There is only every one winner in legal battles....the solicitors/lawyers

[lifenoteasy]

I think certain forms work on the basis that the intent is not to keep clients in the iva and that a decision has to be made that is not risk adverse.

[Foggy]

Longslog, the PPI is most often dealt with by way of a Deed of Assignment, which makes the Green v. Wright case immaterial if duly completed, as would any specific agreement regarding PPI in the original agreement. This is why Grant Thornton (as they were) went on a panic spree to persuade former clients to complete Deeds before any judgement is made.

[longslog101]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Foggy

Longslog, the PPI is most often dealt with by way of a Deed of Assignment, which makes the Green v. Wright case immaterial if duly completed, as would any specific agreement regarding PPI in the original agreement. This is why Grant Thornton (as they were) went on a panic spree to persuade former clients to complete Deeds before any judgement is made.

Hi foggy, thanks, yes I recognise this, but having not seen a deed of assignment, if a person signs this in the 12th feb for example and then gets a completion certificate on the 12th March saying they have met all obligations and doesn't specifically mention deed of assignment could one legally argue all obligations satisfied (included the deed of assignment as it was an obligations), I just wonder if the two reference ip each other in any way ?

I will go and read the transcript again...curiosity etc

[Michael Peoples]

In the Wright case there was no deed of assignment but under R3 terms and conditions any asset not specifically excluded is de facto included. This is based on case law and is different to protocol T&Cs which are 'defined asset' agreements.

In addition there is a 'trust' which continues after an IVA has completed unless the 'trust' is severed which is normally only the case when an IVA fails or a debtor is subsequently made bankrupt. Therefore the PPI is an asset under the IVA and captured under the 'trust'

As Supervisor James has an obligation to creditors and the easy thing would be to pay out but we have fought this case as we believe we are right. The Appeal Court has stayed the order as the judge believes that the case has validity but regardless of the outcome it will probably cost us money as a firm.

I hope this makes sense but at the end of the day it is now in the lap of the judges.

As an aside, given what I have said can anyone see how this case can stop Payplan from closing cases especially if they use protocol T&Cs? I cannot but then I am only a minor cog in the insolvency wheel.