As Andy says it is worth speaking to a couple of companies as the guidelines are quite varied. For example a single person is allowed between £96 and £195 per month for food, toiletries and cleaning which is quite a large disparity and personally I cannot see how the lower figure could be maintained.
It is always best to put down what you spend. Your IP can always trim it down if needs be.
Better to do it that way than miss something off.
Visit www.iva.com for a list of companies and reviews. If you speak to a couple of those, they will give you free and impartial advice.
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
It has been explained to me that they are concerned that those in debt will adjust their expenditure to the upper end of each range if the information were in the public domain.
Andrew Graveson
Bright Oak Ltd
UK Debt Management Company
Website: www.brightoak.co.uk
so who actually decides who gets the upper limit and who gets the lower limit when food,petrol etc costs the same to everybody.
is it the creditors who get there own back and make certain cases "hav it" as they say.
its a bit of a balls up in my eyes having such a hit and miss approach.
like jan says put down whatever you need and see what happens especially with petrol and gas and electric as they at cccs dont live on our planet when these are involved
cc received 6th January 2014 now upwards and onwards
I do agree with Andrew that some people would take the p and claim more than they should, but the guidelines should be a lot more realistic.
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
Expenditure should be based on actual figures rather than set allowances. The CCCS guidelines are merely guidelines, and if people spend more or less - providing this can be justified - this should always be allowable.
You cannot make a square peg fit a round hole, and you cannot force someone to live to lower figures than they actually spend on things like petrol, electricity and gas.
It always amazes me that when you can prove how much you spend on gas and electricity, some creditors won't agree to it. Ours is quite high, yet we have never had any trouble getting it through.
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
I wasn't suggesting that many people would alter their expenditure to max out the "allowances"; simply that this is the reason that I have heard for not publishing the numbers.
Certainly in terms of debt management plans the vast majority of the people we speak with are trying to come to a fair balance of being able to live reasoanbly while at the same time encouraging creditor support by repaying their debts as quickly as they reasonably can.
I'm sure the same is true for most people looking at IVA's.
Andrew Graveson
Bright Oak Ltd
UK Debt Management Company
Website: www.brightoak.co.uk
Anrew whether you was suggesting that or not I believe it's likely the truth if we are open and honest about it. I never knew anything about guidelines when I proposed my IVA cause I never knew what an IVA was until I went for it and so I just gave my expenditure as it is. But if you think someone who knows the guidelines prior to proposal is going to go for the low end of the allowed amounts when they could make the next 5 years of their life a bit more bearable opting for a higher allowance say for shopping etc then yes I believe the majority of people would go for it expecting to be modified down by the creditors anyway. My income and expenditure in my proposal was valid and what I pay and yet I was still asked by my creditors to pay £98 more a month into the IVA or they would reject the IVA. They even demanded that I stop paying into my pension which I managed to negotiate to keep after all they're not going to look after me when I retire. I am responsible for the debts I owe, even the ones I have in my name for someone I loved who died young and I am paying theirs off as well. I entered into an IVA because I do want to pay off as much as I can of my debt but also so I can start afresh debt free and rebuild my life. I have seen numerous posts on here from "professionals" stating why shouldn't you want to or feel obligated to pay your creditors back like we should feel sorry for them. Well yes I have a conscience and want to do the right thing so I am paying my creditors a good amount back but the fact that they allowed a young naive person on £12k a year at the time get into £45k worth of unsecured debt is highly irresponsible of them also and they must have known with all the interest I had no chance of paying it back or keeping up with the payments. They are a business at the end of the day and companies like TDX (TIX) who are obtaining debts from so many people that they are getting majority votes on a lot of the IVA's are being extremely stringent with their variation meetings and initial proposal meetings to maximize return for the creditors but does not take into consideration the lifestyle the debtor is subjected to for the next 5-6 years of their life. I think a fair balance needs to be reached where people can still afford to live, nothing luxurious but actually live and not just exist whilst in their IVA's because a lot of this pressure the creditors put on debtors through threatening letters and bankruptcy threats to get you to pay a higher amount is inhumane and does not surprise me when some people unfortunately end their lives over the stress of it all. If companies like TDX get any more creditors turning to them then it is likely they will have a monopoly on all proposals and variations and IP's will find it harder and harder to come to a reasonable agreement for the debtor in their darkest times.
I know it sounds negative but I feel quite strongly about this and at the end of the day peoples health and psychological well being really needs to be taken into consideration during these arrangements. This is something the creditors do not seem to care about at all.
Dave
Last edited by Daveyboi on Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dave - most IPs in practice would entirely agree with your thoughts, and IVA failure rates would be greatly reduced if sensible expenditure was allowed by creditors. That said, there does need to be some form of benchmark for certain areas of expenditure, and on the whole my clients seem to be able to manage within the "higher" CCCS allowance.
Thank you for replying and not taking my post negatively it was a bit releasing of steam with all I have been through over the years sorting myself out etc. My point really was to have realistic expenditure amounts which allow a debtor to live just a little bit as opposed to just existing for the IVA term. I seem to have struck a workable payment for my IVA but I have been threatened with bankruptcy at review stage when I stated I didn't agree with the modifications the creditor put forward. It took a week of me negotiating on different solutions to find one that was acceptable because I refused to accept a payment I knew I could not afford because that would be illogical and the IVA would fail. I do feel some people are being bullied into living off the bare minimum if not under. You should not be living off pot noodles and beans on toast for example as some people state they have to on their allowances. How is this right? Anyway, my main concern is that this TDX group are slowly getting a monopoly on all the majority votes and debtors will suddenly find themselves threatened with all sorts of things if they don't agree to unreasonable increases in payments or term of the IVA. It worries me because when people are desperate like I was 3 1/2 years ago they just agree to anything to grasp at hope and then realize how poor your life suddenly becomes. I really think its something to look out for because the vulnerable and desperate will be abused left right and centre accepting really poor living allowances to avoid bankruptcy which in many cases provies a higher income for you with better allowances and only up to 3 years IPA generally.
It has been explained to me that they are concerned that those in debt will adjust their expenditure to the upper end of each range if the information were in the public domain."
All the points raised on this thread have their own arguable merits I suppose, but those who may be cynical might draw the conclusion that the stated concern is not for the welfare of debtors and the sustainability and affordability of proposals, but more towards a greater return for creditors. Whether that is true or not, and I am sure you all have your own opinions, it is certainly a tag that I feel the CCCS really do struggle to shake off, and something which has not been helped by the fact that we are all using guidelines that are from 2008.
Regards.
Cert DR
23+ years in debt advice
I do not post for anyone other than myself
