'Twas ever the way, Michael. We see it all over the place; in our local town there are boarded up shops - they are not ones that belong to large retail chains but to the smaller, independent ones.
I do feel for the smaller IVA companies and can see where Mel was coming from following your post. The predatory animals always win out in the jungle.
At least we have the comfort of knowing that our IVAs were set up with decent allowances. Had we gone for a large company in the first place we could have been squeezed til the pips squeaked.
The PPI comments over the past couple of days have really opened my eyes. It seems to me that PPI has got to be where it's at and it's amazing that people get a small amount if they reclaim it themselves and yet the larger companies can get £1000s more.
It's all a game to the big guys isn't it? I guess in the end, the taxpayer foots a lot of the bill.
Thanks so much for the help that people like you, Andy and Foggy give us. Without you lot us who don't know the ins and outs would be well and truly screwed. Not just in the CF matter, but generally.
Thanks again.
Me and my husband have not received an email or letter as of yet so we shall wait with baited breath!
I have just dug out my chairmans report and its says 'dividend available 18p in the £'
No mention of estimates or having to reach this 18p though, so any idea what this would mean?
I thought this worry was all over and the idea of having the IVA dragged out longer than is in our proposal has filled me with dread .
Edited: just found our first years review and me and hubby are both 'estimated' rather than having to pay back a certain amount.
Still a little unsure where this leaves us to be honest but will take things as they come, being on this forum is invaluable at times like this and i can't thank the experts enough for all the time and work they put in for us xx
Last edited by Cariadqueen on Fri Dec 05, 2014 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Michael I will be asking all your questions before I decide whether to sign, I don't want to sign but don't want to be awkward either and yes the big, big question is how they will get this proposed increase in fees accepted?
Hopefully you get the answers you need and safeguards are in place. You are entitled to ask the questions and seek guarantees before committing to any changes in the T&Cs.
I have not received my letter or email yet, i still have 3 years to go and at the end of that alot of equity in my home, something im dreading to be honest. At least with PJG i had trust in them, now i don't know what the future holds.
Yes I have just over 2 years plus equity to deal with. I've been taken over at work too! TUPE was supposed to ensure everything stayed the same it has taken 6 months to get proper contracts for all my staff instead of zero hours ones they were offered. I have not been offered a contract yet and after sacking the person they appointed as manager they aren't going to appoint me officially for months it looks like! I need to be more assertive on both fronts I think!!!!
reading this with interest, we havn't had any contact from CF yet, if i do receive a form to change our T & C's then i wont sign.
Reason being we signed a contract when we took out the 6 year IVA with all the agreed T & C's at the time. CF when aquiring this extra business from Melanies Company knew what they were taking on,, we are into year 6 now & feel deeply dissapointed at the way we have been treated by PJG, no doubt they have a made a tidy profit from the deal.
If CF get their way with the huge increase in fees and claim they need this because of the state of the files that they bought from PJG then there is something seriously wrong with this industry.
We have been saying for years that the fee cuts are leading to a worse service and restricted choice for clients but it has fallen on deaf ears. Melanie pulled out because she could not make a living providing a service to creditors and clients alike but now CF get the green light to ramp up the fees by more than 50% and that is okay.
I was asked earlier if this is some sort of a conspiracy against the smaller players of which we are one. Send the small players to the wall and their books are then snapped up by bigger firms who immediately get the approval to increase fees to a profitable level.
I certainly could not answer this question as I do not know if it is true but if CF get approval to stick the fees up after buying one of the best books in the industry then I can understand why people start to think there is something not right.
Couldn't agree with you more Michael. The more I think about this and the more I hear and understand, the more I can see what has happened here. Melanie told me at the start of my iva that the proposal and set up were the most important things to get right, and I believe I have a sound and secure iva, and for this I will be eternally grateful for. My PPI is near fully investigated under Clifford Watts, so if it is I don't believe there should be a need to sign the new modifications? If that was the reason that CF are giving, ie, that they would not be able to guarantee a smooth completion. I don't see why they should be able to get away with getting the higher fees, just like that, when a smaller company like PJG couldn't.
It would be interesting to know that, of those transferred before who signed the spotty letters from GT, how many were accepted in full, as these also contained a fee hike (and I have heard of the same thing with other bulk transfers).
With my cynical head on: Where is the incentive for creditors to agree higher fees ?
Well ..... to continue with Michaels thoughts ... if the smaller, more debtor centric players are forced out of the market, leaving, basically 2 "charity" organisations being funded by the creditors, along with a few large conglomerates, being fed hefty fees, the whole insolvency industry will be in the creditors back pockets !
And, as I have been saying all along, a percentage based fee structure makes the IP's more intent on maximising returns ( and, hence, fees). Mel could no longer balance the need to claw in fees against the needs of her clients.
Conjecture only, of course .......
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
Foggy, I thin you may be onto something there, and there is no way out of it, as the law covers the setup and what to do if it goes seriously wrong, unlike BR, is nearly all law covered.
It would make sense for the banks to get control over the IVA market as lets face it pennies in the pound on debt looks bad on an earnings call / shareholders report.
I cannot see why creditors would accept higher fees as Melanie's files will have been in perfect order. I can understand some of the fee hikes in previous purchases as the caseloads were not in good shape.
If CF get this increase then I think all other firms should demand the same treatment. Why should creditors refuse to give us what they approved for one of our competitors? This would be unfair treatment and perhaps should be looked at closely by regulators.
I agree that Mel would have been running it all properly, now, given that the company has no legal entity in the UK, which regulators would get involved as they have offices in the UK, but the company is registered in Eire
.
xx
