ppi post iva

[ginger3232]

Tiger - why do you have a bad habit of being pedantic in every post - do you realise you are in danger of making yourself out to be a 1st class xxxx !!

Please be aware that
* The ethos of this forum is respect for all at all times

[TigerTiger]

Ginger, I simply respect the questioner and answer the question where I'm able - I don't guess an answer, make stuff up or just throw in random bits of irrelevant 'information'. If that's being pedantic, so be it.

[Adam Davies]

Hi

Everyone is allowed their opinion if it is put across in the correct manner.
This is a complicated issue and I think the debate is useful and healthy.

Any further personal comments and I will lock the thread and also lock out the offending poster.

Regards

[Adam Davies]

Hi

To answer Moneyprobs I am not sure who is driving the PPI claims, my guess is that it is driven by some IPs/IVA providers due to the share of commission as to my knowledge the CCCS are not pushing it.

Regards

[TigerTiger]

Andy, I apologise if I've upset anyone. Not my intention.

[Little miss trouble]

Tiger.tiger. Great debate. I felt as if I was watching BBC question time. X

[Adam Davies]

Hi

Ginger has also apologised

http://www.iva.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=45367

Regards

[MelanieGiles]

And just a point from me. An IPs advice will always change as new caselaw, legislation or even legal advice also changes. Sometimes this is just as frustrating - perhaps more so - for us as our clients, but to go against that advice would be stupid.

I give up a lot of my time to post on this forum - most of it at unsocial hours. Of late, I am increasingly irritated by tbe style of posting on this forum, and lack of respect to experts such as myself who are genuinely trying to answer queries genuinely raised to the best of our ability. It is such as shame after the five or six years I have been involved with this forum, where many people have been aided by the good work done.

[moneyprobs]

[quote]Originally posted by Andy Davie

Hi

To answer Moneyprobs I am not sure who is driving the PPI claims, my guess is that it is driven by some IPs/IVA providers due to the share of commission as to my knowledge the CCCS are not pushing it.

Regards
thx for the reply,

It gets more confusing by the second, so if it's not being pushed by the cccs does that mean it is not enforceable.
I have read other post's from IP's and IVA providers in this thread stating that they are not empowered to make claims and that it must be made by the individual.

You suggest that IP's/IVA providers may be driven by commission that is potentially available. Surely this can't be right,the majority have only started to pursue PPI claims of late and claim to be acting in the intrest of maximising a return for creditors eventhough you suggest otherwise.

Who will eventually clarify the correct procedure in the end ????

[Foggy]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by MelanieGiles

And just a point from me. An IPs advice will always change as new caselaw, legislation or even legal advice also changes. Sometimes this is just as frustrating - perhaps more so - for us as our clients, but to go against that advice would be stupid.

I give up a lot of my time to post on this forum - most of it at unsocial hours. Of late, I am increasingly irritated by tbe style of posting on this forum, and lack of respect to experts such as myself who are genuinely trying to answer queries genuinely raised to the best of our ability. It is such as shame after the five or six years I have been involved with this forum, where many people have been aided by the good work done.

Melanie, your input on this forum is much appreciated, as is that from other industry experts.

I feel that the insolvency industry is bearing the brunt of many changes and problems coming home to roost simultaneously, which is causing difficulties and frustrations all round.

Yes, I too, have noticed the style of posting has changed, even in the sort time I have been here. I must also admit that my style has changed, as well, in my time here and I notice I am becoming more critical and a little "angsty", for which i, in my turn apologise.

I shall try to revive some of my irreverent and oft misplaced humour [:p][;)]

[ginger3232]

Foggy - i did not notice your change in posting style - just thought you were very direct

[Adam Davies]

Hi

It is just my opinion Moneyprobs, not sure if we will ever get to the real reason.

Although the PPI issue seems to be flavour of the month at the moment, as the VAT issue was some months ago, I really don't think that it impacts directly on anyone thinking about an IVA, in an IVA or out of an IVA, it really is something that has snowballed in the last few months and I guess because of the way that it has been handled by some IVA companies it has caused many questions/concerns.

Melanie makes a very valid point, any IP/IVA representative that posts on here without enjoying the anonymity that most other posters do should be treated with respect at all times.

Regards

[Niobe]

Mel - we only have a few experts posting and your input is very much valued by the vast majority of us on here. The forum would be lost without you. Something to discuss at FF I think.

Foggy - Jan and I appreciate your humour!!

[TigerTiger]

Moneyprobs, when IPs/ IVA providers say they are not able to make the claims directly, they simply mean they don't hold an MOJ licence to act as the claims handler. That is why they partner with companies like EIF. The claims company then charges whatever commission they've agreed with the IVA company and the IP pays it out as an allowable expense less any cut they might have also agreed.

That's why Andy says the process is being driven by the IPs with all the consequent confusion on completion certificates, varying advice etc. The IPs would say they have no choice but to maximise returns for creditors - but as Andy points out, that is hardly consistent with 40% commission rates and the CCCS policy of not pushing claims at all. CCCS is obviously dealing with just the same creditors as all other IPs but appears able to operate a completely different policy.

The latest complication , however, is a creditor - Capital One - writing to someone whose IVA has already completed and warning them that their subsequent PPI claim should have been declared as an asset to the IVA in 2006.What all this means is that there are varying policies being operated all over the industry causing varying degrees of either advantage or disadvantage to many, many individuals. It is compounded , in my view, by some IPs continuing to give 'definitive' advice when they must be aware there is no settled view on all of this.

No one will properly know where they stand or know that their IVA has even completed in the practical sense of the word, again in my view, until the Insolvency Service steps in with some direction.

[Foggy]

...... or any decision is tested in Court