Yet again I find myself saying - "It is not your IP's decision as to what you can and can't spend"!!! Your income and expenditure should be based upon what you actually spend.
There are certain IPs who seem to be acting as judge and jury in their client's proposals, before giving the creditors the opportunity to vote. I have NEVER had pet insurance turned down in any of the proposals I have put forward, and even the very stringent British Bankers Association guidelines included an allowance for pet related expenditure.
Better to have the insurance than to be faced with a big veterinary bill which you cannot pay (but will because your pets are part of the family), which then throws the whole arrangement into jeopardy. Would the same IP say that you could not pay to take your children to the doctors, or dentist (I know its free on the NHS but it is the principle which matters!)
It strikes me that you have been left with a barely affordable housekeeping budge, and little or no provision for any contingencies. I have to question why this is - when I regularly get proposals accepted with actual and realistic expenditure.
No wonder you are getting fed up with this IVA - and it is just this type of experience which gives the whole product a bad name - with debtor who do not wish to continue to pay, and creditors who are seeing an increase in failure rates and are starting to wonder whether IVAs are the right solution for them to support.
Am jumping off soap box now!
Regards, Melanie Giles, Insolvency Practitioner for over 20 years.
For further details contact me at
http://www.melaniegiles.com and view my IVA blog at:
http://melaniegiles.blogs.iva.co.uk
