Pre 2004 guidelines

Get expert opinion. This is the place for new questions to be posted.
8 posts Page 1 of 1

kathyb

Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:02 pm

Post by kathyb » Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:14 pm
My question is similar to an earlier one. My IVA began Jan 2004 - prior to the Nov 2004 Version 2. I realise that I need my original agreement but would greatly appreciate access to the general guidelines pre Nov 2004.

kallis3

User avatar
Forum Expert
Posts: 76716
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:02 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by kallis3 » Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:40 pm
Is there any reason you would want to know these now?
Sharing from experiences of dealing with debt
The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively.
Bob Marley.
http://kallis3.blogs.iva.co.uk

kathyb

Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:02 pm

Post by kathyb » Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:52 pm
It is regarding PPI and IVAs. I have sent a SAR for my original documents but am keen to see what the IVA Standard Terms were at the time of my IVA.

kallis3

User avatar
Forum Expert
Posts: 76716
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:02 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by kallis3 » Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:55 pm
PPI has always been an asset of your IVA and due to your creditors. Were you due any?
Sharing from experiences of dealing with debt
The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively.
Bob Marley.
http://kallis3.blogs.iva.co.uk

MrMole

Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 11:16 am

Post by MrMole » Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:24 pm
The only guidelines in 2004 were R3's standard conditions for ivas. There wasn't an IVA protocol at the time and not every firm used them, ie they will have had their own sets of IVA conditions.

You could try to contact the IP or firm but they may have destroyed your file by now. If that's the case, they might be prepared to agree they have no interest in PPI

kallis3

User avatar
Forum Expert
Posts: 76716
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:02 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by kallis3 » Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:25 pm
That's if they, or the IP, still exist.
Sharing from experiences of dealing with debt
The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively.
Bob Marley.
http://kallis3.blogs.iva.co.uk

Foggy

User avatar
Forum Expert
Posts: 32754
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:14 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Foggy » Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:14 am
Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:24 pmMrMole wrote:
The only guidelines in 2004 were R3's standard conditions for ivas. There wasn't an IVA protocol at the time and not every firm used them, ie they will have had their own sets of IVA conditions.

You could try to contact the IP or firm but they may have destroyed your file by now. If that's the case, they might be prepared to agree they have no interest in PPI
MrMole, this has bugged me for a while now. When a firm declares an interest in PPI relating to a closed case, in my opinion, they should only be able to do so when the files are to hand and they can distribute to creditors and account for this distribution to the debtor with a revised closing account. If the files have been destroyed then the PPI should be handed to the debtor.
I suspect there might be now, or will be in the future, cases where the insolvency firm profits from unclaimed refunds.
I have heard of many instances of firms getting PPI refunds on closed cases, but have yet to hear of any being accounted for or returned to the debtor.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
http://foggy.blogs.iva.co.uk

MrMole

Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 11:16 am

Post by MrMole » Sat Feb 06, 2021 12:59 pm
Completely agree Foggy. The IP can only be acting as a trustee under the trust created by the IVA. If the beneficiaries can no longer be identified the there's no purpose to the trust that can be properly exercised.

I also wonder how many firms have continued to deal with PPI on closed cases even when the appointed IP is no longer there, and without their knowledge. I'm speculating, but I suspect the Aperture/Jarvis type transfer, where court orders included how trust cases were to be dealt with, is the exception not the rule.

All particularly germane given the Plevin recycling of PPI cases.
8 posts Page 1 of 1
Return to “Ask IVA Forum and Industry experts”