Sometimes one has to read between the lines. These lines specifically concern me:
To continue to make this transfer as smooth as possible, I would like you and your creditors to agree a variation to the original terms of the IVA.
reads as: If I don't agree, the transfer will not be smooth and that the creditors have not yet agreed to this variation. I share the concerns raised about what happens if the creditors reject certain elements of the variation but not others. It should be 'all-or-nothing' as the client could end up in a position that is worse than they were in before.
The variation will bring the terms of your IVA in line with those already administered by Creditfix, at no direct cost to you.
reads as: No DIRECT cost to me but as all the money in the IVA is coming from me, it's costing somewhere down the line (ie. in the dividend returned to the creditors which was what the IVA was based on in the first place). If Credit Fix were not happy to take on our cases as they stand, they should not have taken them on in the first place.
Bringing the terms of your IVA in line with the rest of the business will help to ensure that we are able to maintain excellent communication with your creditors, while providing more flexibility to ensure the successful completion of your IVA.
This sentence concerns me; it seems to suggest that if we don't agree the new terms that CF will not be able to 'maintain excellent communication', provide 'more flexibility' to ensure 'successful completion of the IVA'.
The effect of the variation will include:
- To ensure that PPI is properly dealt with and agreed by your creditors. Previously, there has been no agreement with your creditors on this point, leading to a certain ambiguity in the IVA. Non-inclusion of PPI within an IVA proposal requires formal disclosure to creditors as it is a material asset. Creditors will be asked to consider that you keep a proportion of any successful PPI win.
On the point of PPI, the money was payment potentially taken fraudulently and therefore in my eyes it should be returned to the client in full regardless of whether they are in an IVA. It is entirely possible that people may not have found themselves in an IVA in the first place if they had not been rinsed for tens of thousands of pounds of fraudulently-obtained PPI money. PPI reclaims are not the banks 'being nice', it's people getting back money to which the bank were not entitled in the first place.
However, where people knew they were paying PPI they would not be entitled to it back (as others have mentioned previously) so the point about PPI 'windfalls' becomes moot as the person would not be entitled to it back as it was not taken fraudulently. To my knowledge, I have never paid PPI and as such this 'benefit' is of no benefit to me.
That the creditors 'will be asked to consider allowing the client to keep a proportion of any PPI claim' is not even a carrot being dangled; it's the promise of a carrot which may or may not exist; a bit 'smoke-and-mirrors' in my view as the client could very well find the creditors 'do not agree'.
- To increase my discretion to admit claims into your IVA where the creditor has
stated the amount owed is greater than that in the original proposal. This will avoid
any potential breach of the terms.
I actually don't understand what's being said here. Why would a creditor come back with a hike in what they think is owed? Surely the whole point of the IVA was to identify the debt, agree it between creditor and debtor and put in place a legally-binding agreement to pay back an amount that both parties are happy with? I'd be interested to hear the comments of IPs on this one.
- To ensure that an income and expenditure review is only required once a year.
My I&E was agreed to be annual with PJG, I don't see why a variation is required to 'ensure' this. If I decline to sign up, will I find myself being asked to do more than one per year suddenly?
- To ensure that the operation of a creditor gateway for your case is maintained, where creditors have online visibility of your arrangement and can help identify where they need to submit a claim. The effect of this is that your arrangement will be far more likely to close on time, with less administration required at the end.
If I decline to sign up, will the 'creditor gateway' cease to be maintained? It implies that additional claims might be made by creditors - again, surely the point of the IVA was that it identifies and sets out all debts and forms a legal arrangement based on this information? It also implies that my arrangement will be LESS likely to 'close on time'.
I cannot see any benefit to me in agreeing the variation and if I encounter a degraded level of support or terms and conditions which seem punitive from Credit Fix as a result of my declining to agree then I will have no hesitation in taking the case to the Financial Ombudsman. The great thing about fora such as these is that we are able to compare notes, share information and look out for each others' best interests. I'm very concerned about the way things have been handled and the immediate attempts by Credit Fix to alter the terms of everyone's IVAs.
or perhaps I have read Hubert's post completely wrong ???!!!
