I’m hoping someone can help. We completed our Iva with Grant Thornton/Aperture just over two year’s ago. We received a letter today from Barclaycard informing us that they have paid us PPI compensation of around £6k but because of the previous Iva it’s been sent to Aperture. Now whilst I’m fully familiar with the ongoing trust issue highlighted in Smith v Green (which in itself is a truly worrying situation that means by strict interpretation no one will ever be free of an Iva!) I feel that Aperture have been very naughty indeed. Post Iva completion we received at least two letters from Aperture or those representing them asking that we give our permission/instructions for them to pursue PPI claims on our behalf for the benefit of the creditors. Without getting into the ins and outs of our moral reasoning we decided not to give our permission and didn’t sign or return these letters as there was in my view no legal requirement to do so. It would appear that these claims have been pursued in our names without our express permission or instructions and as such I feel that Aperture and or their representatives have committed a data breach for each claim they have pursued. Has anyone else had similar where PPI has been claimed post completion without instruction? I’d be very interested to hear from anyone in a similar situation as to how they’re getting on and if they feel their supervisor has committed a data breach. Just as we’d put it all behind us we get a letter that brings the six hard years right back to the forefront of our minds!
The recent court case isn't as worrying as you surmise as it merely restates the legal situation that existed already anyway --- that assets that existed during the IVA and were not dealt with remain subject to that IVA. This would only capture PPI and similar refunds. PPI claims are no longer able to be made, so that ogre will disppear in due course. That would leave anything like windfalls, not known about or declared, which are unlikely. So not really a 'Damoclian Sword'.
Anyway -- on to PPI claims .... and I am taking the role of 'Devil's Advocate' here, for the sake of discussion .... IPs make claims for PPI, on your behalf, based on the implied permissions that you have given or accepted by entering the IVA in the first place, that all matters financial are under their purview. They are also empowered under the insolvency rules to take all reasonable steps to account for all assets and to maximise returns. Getting you to sign over these duties in relation to PPI merely, in their eyes, makes things easier ( belt and braces). Of course, this could change if anyone had the wherewithall to challenge this through the courts --- maybe the ICO would offer an opinion?
One glaring thing missing, in my eyes, is the final accounting. It seems that some firms are unwilling or unable to account for the distribution of these post-completion refunds. I feel that it should be a legal requirement that they do so.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
No such thing as belt and braces - if they needed something signed, they needed something signed.
That is because if they had the legal ability to progress this without your consent, they would have just told you what they would be doing.
Not specifically a data protection issue but more around whether the IP has the power to do this and that can only be challenged with the regulators or via a court.
Agree with Foggy though - get an accounting of where the money went.
IVA started March 2011, Completed March 2016 and certificate issued 11 days after final payment. It was not always easy but then some of the best decisions aren't.
I personally think it is self evident that a claims company (even if appointed by an ip) should not be acting on your behalf without your knowledge or consent and the financial institution shouldn't be sharing your data with them without your authority. I assume they agreed to their own fees on your behalf as well, what can be done about it I do not know I'm afraid.
I agree with lifenoteasy that it seems inconceivable that Aperture would go to the expense of sending out all those letters and offering interest to persuade people to sign if it wasn't required.
Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:12 pmmagicsam wrote:
I personally think it is self evident that a claims company (even if appointed by an ip) should not be acting on your behalf without your knowledge or consent and the financial institution shouldn't be sharing your data with them without your authority. I assume they agreed to their own fees on your behalf as well, what can be done about it I do not know I'm afraid.
I agree with lifenoteasy that it seems inconceivable that Aperture would go to the expense of sending out all those letters and offering interest to persuade people to sign if it wasn't required.
Possibly for much the same reasons that many firms went to the effort to take Deeds of Assignment on future PPI, which turned out to be superfluous. In a nutshell, no-one knew what was what.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
Ironically questioning the validity of a letter of authority was a tactic used by banks not to engage with claims companies leading them to negotiate a set of principles about what they should contain
