Post
by
GL » Fri Aug 28, 2015 12:12 pm
Here it is!
I understand your desire to be “shot” of your IVA as cheaply as possible, but, besides the clauses in your proposal and terms and conditions there is a duty of the Supervisor to act equally fairly in the interests of debtors and creditors. Our view of what you propose, given the enormous equity in your house, is that it is simply not fair to the creditors. Years of experience have taught Insolvency Practitioners that these early settlements are often sought by unscrupulous debtors to prevent large sums falling due to the debtor, and known about by the debtor, from being made available to the creditors, because they crystallise after closure of the IVA. This can damage our reputation as it can carry with it, in creditors’ minds, a lack of vigilance on our part.
I have no reason to suppose this to be the case with yourself but I am sure you understand that we have to be cautious with such proposals. Regardless of the clauses you quote, Mr. IP MAN is of the view that your proposal is inadequate, and does not achieve a fair balance as explained above.
If we assume the August contribution goes through normally, and that the alternative of a 12-month extension applies due to the inability to re-mortgage, and also assume no uplift arising on the next I&E review, total contributions to the end would be £5,112. You are not even offering that much. What incentive is there for creditors to accept? They may just as well decline, and allow the existing arrangement to continue. And furthermore, their typical view is that you are trying to “pull the wool over their eyes”. The basic problem, is, that with so much equity, the “bankruptcy” comparison moves in favour of “bankruptcy” and in those circumstances, creditors look favourably at some movement by you to reflect that. In short, it would be in their interests for your Arrangement to fail. That is why I suggested an offer of £7,500 would probably kill off objections.
What you would like us to do, therefore is request a variation to be agreed with creditors which lacks credibility. Such an exercise is likely to use up this office’s resources for no reward.
Therefore I can only suggest, in order to minimise unnecessary costs, that I take informal soundings of your principal creditors with our contacts at the creditor agencies to see whether they would be sympathetic to your cause, and let you know the outcome. If they are likely to accept, we will proceed with your wishes; if not, we can discuss again.
Shall I do this?
