I would be very grateful for your help. My 2011 arrangement stated that my property portfolio was to be valued 12 months before the end of the IVA and any with positive equity were to be sold, to release the equity.
In 2014, a variation to my arrangement was proposed. The pre-variation meeting report stated that “Due to market conditions, and lending policies it is expected that the debtor will not be able to obtain a re-mortgage of his property. The supervisor is therefore proposing that the property be removed as an asset of the arrangement”. Importantly, the report did not specify which of my properties this variation related to. The variation was subsequently approved, stating that “the debtor’s property be excluded as an asset of the arrangement”.
My supervisor’s 2015 and 2016 annual reports continued to state that any of my properties with positive equity would be sold to release equity. The 2017 annual report stated that “the debtor does not have an equitable interest in a property”. The 2019 report makes no mention of property at all.
I have now been asked to obtain valuations of my properties and redemption statements. I have informed my supervisor that the 2014 variation stated that they are excluded. My view is that the word “property” is often used to refer to the plural as well as the singular. The 2014 variation failed to single out any particular property that was to be excluded, and so by definition, the exclusion must apply to the plural i.e. all of them.
Advice on how to should proceed will be gratefully received.
My 2013 arrangement stated that my property portfolio was to be valued 12 months before the end of the IVA and any property with positive equity was to be sold, to release the equity.
In 2014, a variation to my arrangement was proposed. The pre-variation meeting report stated, amongst other things, that due to market conditions, any equity realisation was unlikely and so it proposed that "the property be removed as an asset of the arrangement”. Importantly, the report did not specify which of my properties this variation related to. The proposed variation was subsequently approved.
My 2015 and 2016 annual reports continued to refer to releasing equity by selling, where possible. In contrast, the 2017 annual report stated that “the debtor does not have an equitable interest in a property”. The 2019 report makes no mention of property at all.
I have now been asked to obtain valuations of my properties and redemption statements. I have informed my supervisor that the 2014 variation stated that they are excluded. My view is that the word “property” is often used to refer to the plural as well as the singular. The 2014 variation failed to single out any particular property that was to be excluded, and so by definition, the exclusion must apply to the plural i.e. all of them.
Advice on how to should proceed will be gratefully received
My understanding would be that the property excluded was meant to refer to the property which you live in --- your home. The other properties are, presumably, business assets which are still the subject of the original agreement.
This is an interpretation that would need to be settled in court.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:32 pmFoggy wrote:
My understanding would be that the property excluded was meant to refer to the property which you live in --- your home. The other properties are, presumably, business assets which are still the subject of the original agreement.
This is an interpretation that would need to be settled in court.
Foggy, thanks for the prompt reply, however, I have at all times lived in a rental property and so I do not think that the "property" can be meant to refer to my home throughout the IVA period...
