CCCS receives a record number of calls

[kallis3]

Let's hope they do come back!

[moneypenny]

if the cccs guidlines are the rule then maybe they should open up there own supermarkets/garages etc, so we can buy at the guidline price, whilst we are in our iva's or dmp's. then we could manage without worry and still be proud to pay our debts back.

why oh why do they not change the guidlines yrly,

[kallis3]

There should not be any guidelines at all. It should be down to personal expenditure, and if receipts are needed then so be it.

[moneypenny]

Kallis do you feel they will be able to abolish the guidlines, or is it something that will never go away.

[Til]

I agree Kallis - guidelines can too often cause people to try to fit a square peg in a round hole - I know many of the fine IP's on here will no doubt use them exactly as their name suggests and only as a guide which is how it should be I feel - however it's worrying when the guidelines are used by some as stricter measures as many of us in our innocence at first try to squeeze our I&E's to fit if we are told one area has too much. It is more concerning I think if the guidelines are not updated annually and also perhaps regionally too? You only have to look at the petrol debacle to see how outgoings can and do change!!

[kallis3]

I doubt the guidelines will go away, but as an IVA is individual, then that is what should happen.

[plasticdaft]

Were the guidelines not kind of forced upon IP's to work with?

If so its hard to see them going anywhere!!!

[MelanieGiles]

It is not the CCCS guidelines that need getting rid of, but the inflexible attitude towards the figures which is ever present in certain creditor voting representatives. I'm happy to use guideline figures, so long as there is some common sense about accepting that individuals have individual requirements.

[Michael Peoples]

The guidelines themselves can be a bit of a joke really and if the CCCS use averages of what their clients spend, they must have an odd sort of clientele. For example, a family is allowed £5 for newspapers and magazines per month! To pick up on Melanie's point, if we try and put these expenses up to their true level, creditors refuse to allow the expenditure.

I have clients who travel by train daily, people whose jobs require a knowledge of current affairs, clients who subscribe to trade and professional magazines etc who are expected to do their reaading on a little over £1 per week.

Even when the guidelines are adhered to such as the smoking allowance, some creditors reduce or disallow it altogether[including it seems the CCCS, according to Moneypenny on another thread]. As Melanie says the whole thing needs some commonsense and consistency which seems very difficult to achieve.

[size5]

It would be very easy for someone who is unfamiliar with the machinations of this industry to come away with the conclusion that, on this particular issue, there is a very strong suspicion of a conflict of interest and indeed a case to answer of the tail wagging the dog.

Regards.

[Adam Davies]

Hi
Do you think that creditors and their representatives take the attitude that most expenditure figures that they receive are bound to be inflated ? If so doesn't this mean that when they are questioning expense figures they are actually questioning the IPs integrity ?
It would be a huge step forward if creditors trusted the judgement of a very highly qualified and very highly regulated IP to put a set of figures forward that did not need questioning. I can understand figures coming from Joe Public directly to be challenged but not from IPs
Regards

[Michael Peoples]

That is a very good point Andy. We get wage slips, accounts, tax credit awards etc and creditors never ask to see them because they trust us. Yet they still go through the income and expenditure accounts with a fine tooth comb as if we were trying to pull a fast one on them. Seems a bit silly because if we were dishonest we could just lie about the income.

[MelanieGiles]

Andy - they only give each proposal about 5 minutes look-see - so it is difficult for any of us to maintain the individuality of a client's circumstances unless we have to fight adverse modifications.

There are differences in quality even in this very highly regulated profession, and I guess until we sort that out creditor reps are still going to tar the whole industry with the same brush - which I personally find very disheartening.

[catullus]

There is a particular creditor who currently will only accept the mid point of the range of expenditure items (specified by CCCS) and will seek an increase for any amounts stated higher than that figure.They are members of the British Bankers Association and they believe that they are entitled to take this view and are compliant with the protocol.

I do hope CCCS are monitoring this thread and can answer my questions posed on 21/3/10. It would be very helpful to receive a response.

[kallis3]

I thought the whole idea of an IVA was the individuality of it?

As long as you can prove your expenditure, it shouldn't matter what you spend.