Michael -- whether it could be done or not, that is how RSM treated our interlocking IVAs, and is, I think logical.
Both our incomes were lumped as "income" and expenses also lumped together, to provide one DI, which made up our single monthly payment. The DI is calculated using one figure for income, so should the 10% be based on THAT figure, surely.
It makes little difference in our case as we elected to pay on a straight 50/50 basis, so our creditors got 10% of whatever anyway, as extra, extra payments.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
Most couples 'pool' their finances and there is no problem in doing a joint income and expenditure account and having one surplus income. All creditors receive the same dividend whether they are one client's or a joint debt and this is quite common.
However, the proposals are still individual ones and there may be modifications that apply to one client and not the other. The income is normally treated individually as it may be that only one client has the overtime modification and the other does not.
As an example, husband and wife both earn £1,000 per and each earns £100 overtime. They are both within the 10% and nothing is to be paid. The next month the husband earns £200 overtime and the wife earns nothing so the family income is exactly the same as the month before. However in this instance the husband would be obliged to pay £50 to the IVA as his wife cannot just transfer her overtime allowance to him.
Perhaps other firms word their proposals differently and allow the 10% on total income but since this would prejudice creditors and possibly even take into account tax credits and child benefit, I fail to see why creditors would accept it.
The way your previous IP was dealing with your income was incorrect Foggy (unless the terms and conditions of your particular case were different from the IVA Protocol - and I am concerned to read that this has been happening. As Michael says there is no such thing as a joint IVA, and the terms and conditions relate to both INDIVIDUAL voluntary arrangements.
For anyone who has had their uplifts calculated on this basis, I would firmly double check that this is correct. With a transfer of case to a new IP, you could be in for a nasty suprise.
I am in a joint/interlocking IVA. Due to my wife's ill health her income contribution to the IVA is £0.00, has been from day one and will continue to be until the end of the IVA and beyond. We have had statements from her creditors which show a reduction in her debt, which I can only assume is from my contribution to the IVA, so is it a joint IVA or an interlocking IVA or is it just semantics? When we got shafted, oops I mean shifted, to GT from BE there was no correspondence to suggest that there will be/could be surprises at the end and I hope this really is the case.
Last Payment made 04/12/14. Completion Certificate 25/7/15. IVA company GT. No Issues
It sounds like an interlocking IVA and nothing wrong with that. Your wife would be expected to contribute to the IVAs should her circumstances change and all creditors would benefit from the increased dividend.
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by MelanieGiles
The way your previous IP was dealing with your income was incorrect Foggy (unless the terms and conditions of your particular case were different from the IVA Protocol - and I am concerned to read that this has been happening. As Michael says there is no such thing as a joint IVA, and the terms and conditions relate to both INDIVIDUAL voluntary arrangements.
For anyone who has had their uplifts calculated on this basis, I would firmly double check that this is correct. With a transfer of case to a new IP, you could be in for a nasty suprise.
Fortunately then, Mel, it is a moot point as we never deducted the 10% in any case, and always did a 50/50 split, as I was under the impression that we did not have the 10% disregard, and despite being told otherwise by my IP (more than once because I double checked), I chose to go with MY interpretation.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
This is certainly interesting reading and it will be interesting to see what the outcome is. I have mailed GT again and had a response this time though only to clarify who i am. I must admit all the paperwork does seperate my wife's creditors but should we not be paying seperate amounts or is it a case of what suits and what than happens if she loses her job but i am able to pay my side do we still get recognised as being seperate iva's and hers then becomes the iva that failed but mine is still viable. I am just thinking aloud not critisizing anything
Ah, yes. I apologise. It actually says a breach of my wife's Arrangement shall constitute a breach of my agreement ( she has a similar clause the other way about)and a refusal of any variation on one would be a refusal on the other.
I take it it is normal for interlocking IVA's to have one Scheme Fund, paid into from the joint income, and all debts are to be considered joint and all assets and income are pooled and dividends paid pro-rata across all creditors of the two IVA's.
I still maintain that if D.I is calculated on joint income, all income and liabilities are pooled into and paid from one account, then the 10% disregard should be calculated the same way, i.e on the joint ( pooled) income.
Last edited by Foggy on Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
I would not have those terms included in any of my proposals - and I question their validity in any case. It is normal to have one bank account, however all debts are not ever considered to be joint (despite the fact that this is how they are treated within the interlocking proposals.
I do not agree with Foggy's interpretation of the 10% ruling and other forum posters should exercise caution if they seek to rely on this within their own cases. Sorry Foggy - but we have to be clear on this, and I will be interested to see what GT's interpretation to this actually is.
Just reading updates on this subject and begining to see why GT fees have shot up since transfering from B E, its quite obvious GT are charging fees for both my wife and myself which doubles their income.
Last edited by jeffw on Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
They can only claim the fees that they are entitled to claim under the terms of the proposals jeffw. Has there been any variation of terms with regards to the charges since the took up office on your case?
