wondering with regard to two issues

[mdm]

i was wondering with regard to two issues.

The first is with regard to unfair bank charges. if i get them back is it worthwhile as surely any income should be declared to my insolvency practioner -seems a little unfair as i may end up paying back more to the people who charged me them in the first place. or is there any other way?

Secondly we are considering having another baby but have two years to run on our arrangement - what effect would stopping work for a period of time have on the repayments- are they simply postponed or would you be classed as a defaulter if you have little or no income?

[herbek]

I would like to add something extra to the first question you have asked if someone could answer.

One of my creditors on my approved IVA was for £2000 (Total £50,000 in IVA). Half of that was from bank charges on top of bank charges etc etc. Now if I go and claim them back and let's assume I win and get them all back (£1000). Am I within my rights to goto my IP and offer the £1000 extra into the IVA (I have no problem with that) but demand that my total debts be recalulated down by £1000 and that the particular original creditors amount is reduced by £1000.

[MelanieGiles]

Firstly to mdm - any extra monies you receive during the IVA will likely be caught by a "windfall clause" but you will need to check the exact terms of your arrangement to verify this. With regard to the additional expenditure linked to your second baby, your IP could apply to your creditors for a short "payment holiday". This would be done via a formal variation of the arrangement, involving another creditors meeting. But you do need to consider the wider implications of having another mouth to feed and the effect this has in the long run.

To Herbek - Your assumption is correct in that a recalculation of creditor balances would be required.

Regards, Melanie Giles, Insolvency Practitioner for over 20 years.
View my IVA blog at: http://melaniegiles.blogs.iva.co.uk

[herbek]

Thanks, for your answer.

In the scheme of things and my circumstances it is probably not worth the time and effort for the money as it represents just 2% of the total but it was this creditor that voted against me and dropped my approval from 100% to 80% and nearly caused the IVA to fail as my main creditors didn't bother to vote (see my previous posts for more details)

Having some way of getting back at them would be at least give me the feeling of some justice but is probably not worth the hassle.

Thanks

[jamesfalla]

I tend to agree with herbek on the question of bank charges.

If you are already in an IVA, then any charges that are returned to you will be taken away just as fast under the IVA windfall clause. As such, it is probably best to let sleeping dogs lie.

If you are concerned with "getting back" at your creditors, then just think about the fact that through your IVA they will be receiveing far less back than they lent out to you (despite some of that being interest).

James Falla

Expert in IVA, Bankruptcy and informal Debt Management solutions, with extensive experience of solving personal debt problems over the past 10 years. I am regularly featured on BBC News, Finance Programs and Radio.

Visit my blog at: http://jamesfalla.blogs.iva.co.uk

[herbek]

Agreed (again as usual with the experts answers)

I don't actually want to get back at my creditors it was just this one particular creditor that annoyed when I received my voting figures as the charges are/were unjustified and then they voted against nearly killing it.

That's unfair to me and my other creditors

They would have represented just 10% at voting not 20% but then I guess there is also the argument I should have ensured that my IP ensured larger creditors voted for the arrangement.

Anyhow - History now. It was approved. Maybe I'll check if I still can do it in 4 years and 10 months and pocket the money myself - hee hee.

[mdm]

well claims are eligible for up to six years so you should have fourteen moths worth of charges to cliam back. It just seems slightly immoral that financial institutions have made money illegally from you and if you claim it back then they take it away again and potentially you simply end up having to pay more.