IVA Help Needed

Get expert opinion. This is the place for new questions to be posted.
14 posts Page 1 of 1
justb1
Posts: 10
by justb1 » Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:41 pm
Can somebody help?
I will explain basically my situation. My IVA completed in 2011, and was given my completion certificate. The following year, I applied for PPI compensation from a number of loans and credit cards associated with my IVA. I do not want comments or opinions as to whether this is right or wrong as this is not the purpose to my post. I was awarded PPI on a number of the loans/credit cards. The money was sent to me directly. I did contact my IVA company at the time who did state the money was due to go into my IVA. However at the time there was a lot of discrepancy as to where/who the money should go post IVA, so I kept the money, awaiting a more concrete outcome. Having heard nothing else from my IVA company the money was then spent. Then in 2016 Lloyd’s bank contacted me again to say they had reassessed my claim and awarded me more money. However this time they sent the money to my IVA company, who stated they would keep this money pending the Green/Wright outcome. Fast forward to this week I have received a letter from my IVA company saying they wish to persue PPI claims on my behalf following the Green/Wright case last year. Here lies my problem. If they persue the claims it will highlight that PPI has already been awarded. Where does that leave me now???? What should I do.
User avatar
Foggy
Forum Expert
Posts: 26883
Contact
by Foggy » Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:07 pm
Bottom line -- the money belongs to the creditors via the IVA. The creditors / IP are within their rights to pursue collection and it is also possible for the IVA to be revoked. There is the possibility that the claims company will just be told that there is no refund payable without being told a payout has already been made and the whole thing will just go away again.
User avatar
Foggy
Forum Expert
Posts: 26883
Contact
by Foggy » Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:09 pm
I might add that there is also the possibilty that the previous payouts will not be pursued because, at that time, even the IP's didn't know what to do with the money, so how could you be expected to know it wasn't yours ? A small straw to clutch at, but a straw nonetheless.
justb1
Posts: 10
by justb1 » Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:10 pm
When you say IVA revoked, what do you mean by that?? It was completed in 2011. Are you saying that all these years later my IVA could fail. If so what happens to all the money I paid in all those years ago?
User avatar
Foggy
Forum Expert
Posts: 26883
Contact
by Foggy » Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:20 pm
justb1 wrote:
When you say IVA revoked, what do you mean by that?? It was completed in 2011. Are you saying that all these years later my IVA could fail. If so what happens to all the money I paid in all those years ago?


Couldn't say. I have never come across a revocation, but an insolvency professional mentioned it as an option in similar circumstances a while back. It would probably be a last resort scenario requiring court intervention and the work involved in digging up old accounts would probably be near impossible.
User avatar
Lisa Thomas
Industry Expert
Posts: 6869
Contact
by Lisa Thomas » Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:29 pm
Be prepared to be asked to repay the money to the IP.
justb1
Posts: 10
by justb1 » Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:28 pm
Great, so in essence an IVA company who advertised that I will be debt free in 5 years, now chooses to persue PPI claims in old IVAs, where prior to the Green/Wright case nobody knew where this money should go. Now I’ve spent that money the IVA company can now actually force me into debt, to pay this money back. Do the papers actually know about this because in my opinion it’s just plain wrong? I looked into this in detail in the past, and it still puzzles me that when my IVA was started, PPI claiming did not even exist, that they can even say that the PPI formed an asset of the IVA. Personally for me it’s just interpretation of the rules just to line their own pockets. The fact that the claims company will take 33% of any claim only heightens and worsens this in my opinion. Insolvency practitioners are just lining their own pockets and putting debtors through further months of worry and stress for the sake of a few £s. Disgusting industry. Only wish I’d gone bankrupt instead and never paid a penny to these people.
User avatar
Lisa Thomas
Industry Expert
Posts: 6869
Contact
by Lisa Thomas » Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:43 pm
justb1 wrote:
Great, so in essence an IVA company who advertised that I will be debt free in 5 years, now chooses to persue PPI claims in old IVAs, where prior to the Green/Wright case nobody knew where this money should go.

Not necessarily 'chooses' - they have a duty to realise the asset for the benefit of your creditors, this is not your IPs fault, this is the law. They did not create the PPI fiasco or the Greene V Wright case.

Now I’ve spent that money the IVA company can now actually force me into debt, to pay this money back.

Your IP has not yet said the money has to be repaid, that may not happen. They may decide to let sleeping dogs lie.

[b]Had your IVA finished successful you would have been debt free however you have then gone on to take an asset that potentially did not belong to you and may therefore be in debt as a result. Again, not your IPs fault


Do the papers actually know about this because in my opinion it’s just plain wrong?

The Green V Wright case has been widely publicised.

I looked into this in detail in the past, and it still puzzles me that when my IVA was started, PPI claiming did not even exist, that they can even say that the PPI formed an asset of the IVA.

Although you were not aware of the claim, it formed an asset of the IVA as it was a contingent asset at the time, that subsequently became payable.

Personally for me it’s just interpretation of the rules just to line their own pockets.

You have taken an asset that did not legally belong to you. I appreciate it's a complex area but I can't see how your IP is at fault.

The fact that the claims company will take 33% of any claim only heightens and worsens this in my opinion

Is the IP charging 33% of the claim, or the claims Company? These are usually two different entities.

Insolvency practitioners are just lining their own pockets and putting debtors through further months of worry and stress for the sake of a few £s.

Some IPs are asking debtors to repay PPI they have spent, in order to do their job and pay creditors of the money taken by debtors that was not paid back but where its not cost effective many are leaving things as they stand.

Disgusting industry.

An industry that allowed you to become debt free and write off some of your debt (and potentially keep your assets and avoid Bankruptcy).

Only wish I’d gone bankrupt instead and never paid a penny to these people.


Had you gone Bankrupt an IP would still have managed your Bankruptcy and the PPI would still have been due to the BKY estate.
User avatar
kallis3
Forum Expert
Posts: 73476
Contact
by kallis3 » Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:48 pm
Agree with Lisa and Foggy.
justb1
Posts: 10
by justb1 » Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:37 pm
I’m sorry but I have to disagree with a number of points here. You state that IPs are not responsible for the PPI fiasco nor the Green/Wright case. Was it not an IP who forced the case through a number of judges because they did not agree with the outcome?? In my specific case the IP is asking me to pursue the claims through a claims company, but I read that the claims company is part of their business estate. Is that therefore not lining their own pockets if they take 33% of any payout??
If PPI was an unrealised asset at the time of the IVA, can you please explain why the IPs insist on taking 100% of any claim, which includes statutory interest? Surely the interest component of the PPI claim does not constitute the amount of the asset that existed at the time of the IVA?
Whilst the papers know fully about the Green/Wright case do they know about the fact that IPs are now pursuing PPI, in old closed IVAs ( mine completed 7 years ago!!), dragging the stress and worry back up again in these people.
As for your comments about bankruptcy I’m sure there would have been more clarity about what you can/can’t do following bankruptcy. My IVA completed and that was that. Nothing about PPI was mentioned at completion (as I say claims didn’t even exist at the time).
Lastly if IPs are so morally correct and doing the right thing, can you please tell me why in 2016 my IP received a cheque from Lloyd’s bank for a considerable sum of money. Throughout my whole IVA I had to account for every penny I received and spent to ensure that the maximum was going back to my creditors. To this date he has not had to account to me how/where this money was sent/divided amongst my creditors. How is this even legal??
User avatar
Foggy
Forum Expert
Posts: 26883
Contact
by Foggy » Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:52 pm
justb1 wrote:
I’m sorry but I have to disagree with a number of points here. You state that IPs are not responsible for the PPI fiasco nor the Green/Wright case. Was it not an IP who forced the case through a number of judges because they did not agree with the outcome?? In my specific case the IP is asking me to pursue the claims through a claims company, but I read that the claims company is part of their business estate. Is that therefore not lining their own pockets if they take 33% of any payout??
If PPI was an unrealised asset at the time of the IVA, can you please explain why the IPs insist on taking 100% of any claim, which includes statutory interest? Surely the interest component of the PPI claim does not constitute the amount of the asset that existed at the time of the IVA?
Whilst the papers know fully about the Green/Wright case do they know about the fact that IPs are now pursuing PPI, in old closed IVAs ( mine completed 7 years ago!!), dragging the stress and worry back up again in these people.
As for your comments about bankruptcy I’m sure there would have been more clarity about what you can/can’t do following bankruptcy. My IVA completed and that was that. Nothing about PPI was mentioned at completion (as I say claims didn’t even exist at the time).
Lastly if IPs are so morally correct and doing the right thing, can you please tell me why in 2016 my IP received a cheque from Lloyd’s bank for a considerable sum of money. Throughout my whole IVA I had to account for every penny I received and spent to ensure that the maximum was going back to my creditors. To this date he has not had to account to me how/where this money was sent/divided amongst my creditors. How is this even legal??



I agree. and would argue the fact with the IP, that interest accrued after the completion of the IVA did not belong to the IVA.

Claims companies are not always affiliated to the Insolvency firms they work for.

Your IP is duty bound to account for every penny handled on your behalf and I would be insisting on getting this account.
justb1
Posts: 10
by justb1 » Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:33 pm
Okay, I now have another question to ask. That is, am I legally obliged to sign these forms for PPI? And by that I mean LEGALLY, not what somebody considers is the morally right or in ‘best interests’ of some party right thing to do but whether my IP has the right to get me to sign these from a legal point of view. The letter I’ve received mentions nothing of my legal obligations nor does it make reference to any of the IVA standard terms and conditions which would infer a legal responsibility. As far as I can tell from the IVA standard terms and conditions my obligations ended on receipt of my completion certificate. And as for the IP would seem that although his powers never terminate on completion, this should normally only be utilised where he had realised there had been a deliberate breach of my arrangement, not to use these powers to force people to sign documentation into what is already a giant scandal in the UK. Basically if they can do this, then your IVA may never end. What other ‘assets’ that may have existed at the time of our IVAs are they going to come up with next that we are going to be perused for. Maybe I should actually put in a claim for mis-selling of IVAs. ‘Be debt clear in 5 years’ they said, when it’s actually a case of be debt free by the time you die and we can actually stop harassing you
justb1
Posts: 10
by justb1 » Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:43 pm
Seriously though. Is there anyway of us with completed IVAs actually put an end to all this, because theoretically it could never end. Slightly jesting here, but what if I were to find an antique vase up in the loft, go on the Antiques Roadshow, and it be seen to be worth £20k. My IP could then say that money has to go into my IVA since I had the vase in my loft at the time of my IVA! There actually does need to be a definitive end otherwise what is the point?
User avatar
Foggy
Forum Expert
Posts: 26883
Contact
by Foggy » Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:59 am
justb1 wrote:
Seriously though. Is there anyway of us with completed IVAs actually put an end to all this, because theoretically it could never end. Slightly jesting here, but what if I were to find an antique vase up in the loft, go on the Antiques Roadshow, and it be seen to be worth £20k. My IP could then say that money has to go into my IVA since I had the vase in my loft at the time of my IVA! There actually does need to be a definitive end otherwise what is the point?


Fortunately the PPI saga will draw it's own line under this. With regard to the vase -- the IP would likely never know and would have to prove it was yours during the IVA. But, if you waltzed into his offices, waving it under his nose, he could claim it as an undeclared asset, as the OR could in BR.

As for signimng --- in the standard terms you agreed to comply with reasonable requests made by the IP .... that old bugbear "What is reasonable?" comes into play ..... but on balance I think the advantage would fall in favour of the IP. Failure to comply is grounds for failing an IVA .... but, at this stage of the game, it is anyone's guess as to which way it would go if you decided to dig your heels in. Like the Green v Wright case, it would have to go to court for a ruling if the parties had the thirst for it.
14 posts Page 1 of 1
Return to “Ask IVA Forum and Industry experts”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests