Is there anyway we can appeal Cleardebts decision to refer us to GF for secured borrowing ?

[longslog101]

Jeandd62

stick to your guns, if there is nothing in your IVA that states secured lending then don't be bullied into it. Mortgage/re-mortgage and secured lending completely different beasts.

I would raise an official complaint against cleardebt with them/IP and refer direct to the Gateway that you are being treated as if you are bound by the new protocols of 2014.

https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-insol ... actitioner

(which unless you have agreed to be bound by, you are not). I would also lt them know you have referred this to the gateway, it might swiftly kick them into check !

The more of these complaints the gateway gets the higher the profile it will raise, hopefully triggering some form of audit into the tactics some of these, what now seems to be greedy companies are trying to enforce through fear/bullying rather than the black and white of agreements.

If they are unable to provide clear terms that you are in breach of then they are p***ing in the wind (excuse my language, but I get angrier by the day at these attempts by firms).

In order to play their game I would also consider visiting a separate independent mortgage broker and getting the rejections (that show your personal details).

So cleardebt another firm to add to the list to avoid if considering an IVA

keep us posted.

[lifenoteasy]

I was not going to contribute to this discussion but as there are at least 2 companies taking this approach I can make this generic.

Please note that this will not apply to anyone who has a clause linked to attempting to remortgage (but only that) and will not apply to anyone that entered into an IVA from 2014.

Also if you have an IVA that is as low as £70 per month you need to be careful - it is likely that your agreed expenditure was configured to make the IVA financially viable for the IVA company itself.

The following is a review of debt management companies that was published in June 2015 https://https://www.fca.org.uk/news/tr1 ... e2vg4.dpuf

It is highly critical of the level of advice that IVA companies currently provides. That means that the advice received generally if you entered into an IVA around 2009/10 would have been 10 times worse across the industry as a whole.

The concept or possibility of a secured loan linked to a mortgage is unlikely to have been discussed nor would it have been discussed in terms of you having to look at any other form of equity release.

You will have entered the IVA on the basis of 5-6 years (7 if NRAM). The fact that the mortgage market changed over the last few years and you would not be able to remortgage is not your problem.

IVA companies will have to try and redress this and it will probably have a negative impact on their business activities as they explain i.e. yes your initial arrangement is for 5-6 years but after that we will be looking for you to take out a secured loan if there is any equity in your property for up to 20 years etc.

Not only will your credit rating be trashed but at the same time once it is cleared up you will have a level of debt that will negatively impact on your ability to get a new mortgage.

The secured loan route will be the only direction of travel for at least the next 3-5 years.

If you are requested to look at getting a secured loan at this point:

1. Immediataely complain that this was never an option that was discussed with you as you went into the IVA or has been discussed in a reasonable amount of time prior to month 54

2. Immediately complain to the Insolvency Service stating that because of the speed that you are having to make a decision that you believe that both complaint processes should start in tandem

3. Ask the IVA company to provide assurance that what they are requiring of you is correct and that they will indemnify or reimburse you should it be found not to be the case

4. In any correspondence with the companies that you have been referred to state that what has been requested has come as a surprise, has never previously been discussed with you and that you are being "instructed" to undertake this process or that "duress" applies

Re. point 4 those companies cannot afford to get this wrong given the market they are in and the FCA report makes it very clear that not enough information is provided across the IVA industry to provide any reasonable assurance that you ever knew about this. The finance companies have to be able to demonstrate fully informed, explicit consent and this is not a level playing field.

I have deliberately used the word "reasonable" because fundamentally this comes down to whether the judgment of your IP in this matter is correct.

There is a discussion on this board where an IP failed an IVA, it was found against them but no redress was offered.

As the consequence of not complying with the "reasonable request of the IP" is apparently the failure of the IVA the stakes are therefore too high especially if they do not have to offer any form of redress if they get it wrong.

The FCA report also came to the conclusion that advice provided in the charity sector was of a higher standard. I agree with the Chair of the Debt Resolution Forum in their assessment that this is unlikely to be the case.

With the move of charities towards bidding for services from the public sector and the way that they automatically recommend certain companies (to the detriment of others) the level of advice you receive from them is unlikely to be any higher or better than private companies. They will need to up their game or stop providing advice.

This is not an issue I will have to face but I hope that what I have said can help.

I actually believe that the IVA industry is trying to improve standards and up their game - unfortunately they are also experiencing an identity crisis and are significantly let down by the legislation that an IP has to be abide by.

What was fit for 1986 is not fit for 2015.

[longslog101]

your link has a dot at the end that is making it fail. should be https://www.fca.org.uk/news/tr15-8-qual ... ent-advice

good post lifenotsoseasy.

I think an "asked to take secure lending instead of mortgage" would be a very helpful topic to made a sticky at the top of the forum. There are more and more posts coming in like this and I fear the amount will only increase.

[lifenoteasy]

Ta - changed it.

[Foggy]

In a nutshell, I think there could soon be an IVA miss-selling scandal with a lot of weight being placed on the lack of information given at the outset. One of the main drivers will be the equity situation, which was either not explained properly, or completely glossed over. I doubt many would have gone into the IVA with the threat of secured lending and continuing debt being the end result.

[kallis3]

Thankfully mine was fully explained at the outset - the equity was a modification which we were happy with and there was never anything mentioned about a secured loan.

Even though we had enough equity, because of our ages we were allowed to continue for 12 months but I finished with a full and final (voluntary redundancy) and hubby continued on to the end.

I would not want to take out another secured loan and, my own opinion is, that if it was not mentioned the outset, it should not be mentioned now.

[Shining]

I fear you may be right there Foggy. Whilst mine was explained fully or so I thought if this had popped up unexpectedly I would not have been best pleased to say the least.

[longslog101]

are there any consumer protection groups we could flag this up to ?

[Goosed]

This issue of companies / IP`s trying to force debtors down the secured loan route has been popping up on the forum for a couple of years or so now and is becoming more prevalent.

I have been involved in a few heated forum debates over the issue in the past.

Up to now it seems the usual outcome for posters who have seeked advice from the forum on how to deal with the situation seems to have been that their IP`s have backed down and allowed the agreed / proposed extension,

I fear that sooner or later though, there will be an instance where an IP is going to be prepared to push as far as possible to invoke a secured loan and legal action will need to be taken by someone eventually.

[kallis3]

I think you will find that new IVA's will include the secured loan whether they like it or not.

For those who have sought advice and did not have the secured loan then hopefully they can sort something out.

MoneySavingExpert might be a site to look at for advice.

[Foggy]

Not all companies are using the 2014 protocol, or the clauses referring to secured lending and it might be a good idea for anyone thinking of entering an IVA to specifically address this question right at the outset of enquiries.

[kallis3]

Quite agree.

[lifenoteasy]

For some people a secured loan may be a viable option.

Also bear in mind some people will probably have gone down this route already against their better judgement.

The iva companies where this has occurred have too much to lose to back down or to allow a pattern of dissent to be established.

[Foggy]

Yes, a secured loan does work for some and all depends upon the figures involved and, I feel, that even where secured lending isn't referred to in the agreement, there is no harm in doing a fact finding exercise, so an informed decision can be made. But there should be none of this threat of failure and compulsion being suddenly thrust upon those in IVA's at the eleventh hour.

[longslog101]

I agree with everything you have all said above, and really agreed with Goosed that this is starting to happen more and more.

Obviously people who come to the forum to ask are steered in a good direction, the problem is those who don't and buckle under the threat of a breach/failure and enter into a financial arrangement which is worse for them than the 12 month extension, when they didn't even have to as they were not bound by the protocols, also perhaps how companies are trying to lure people onto the new protocols to get their mits on their equity by this method.

To that end the only way this could be avoided IMHO is through an awareness campaign, and public persecution of the companies found to be doing it.

I get that an insolvency practitioner must attempt to recover as much in the way of dividends for the creditors, but there is a limit.

Imagine if the Insolvency service wrote to all people in IVAs on the register with an FAQ document and made them aware of things to watch out for, now that would be really good, and what do do if anyone tries to pressure them into such an arrangement.

Regardless, we wont change the way things are by having a grumble amongst ourselves, I have written to Sharon Albon CEO of the Insolvency Service https://www.gov.uk/government/people/sarah-albon highlighting my concerns and how this could be the next PPI scandle and possible mis-selling along with specific examples of discussions on this forum where people have come looking for help. asking if they would undertake audits, consider an educational type FAQ for those on the register and where to seek help if people feel unduly pressured.

I wont hold my breath but at least I feel I have done something about it.

I'm just wondering about other routes, perhaps the BBC watchdog programme also, they are good an uncovering scandal and to approach the right people to ask how these things can be prevented. perhaps sending them details to watchdog@bbc.co.uk could generate some more interest.