Reluctant to agree to anything that I am unsure about. Any advice appreciated

[foreverbroke]

Hi
I wrote to my IP(IVA with RSM Tenon)to chase up my certificate of completion having made my final payment in September 2011. I have received a letter today asking that I text my agreement to tenon reconvening a creditors meeting to propose that the IVA is closed prior to VAT refund from HMRC. There is a letter attached with several other resolutions to be included in the proposal, which I'm afraid I don't really understand. Has anyone else received the same letter and if so what is the advice about responding to this? I am keen to resolve this and ensure that my IVA is completed but I am reluctant to agree to anything that I am unsure about. I am afraid that when I have contacted Tenon previously I find that I am just advised to agree to whatever they are proposing. Any advice appreciated.
Thanks

[Broke of London]

Hi! One poster today mentioned this same letter! That was the first time I'd heard of it. I'm not sure i can say anything useful about whether to agree as I don't know what's in the resolutions. Could you try calling Tenon tomorrow and asking them to explain it to you? x

[MelanieGiles]

Can you post the other resolutions on the forum so we can help explain what they mean? I am not too sure why variation meetings are necessary, when a lot of IPs have already received their VAT reclaim monies and this whole matter should not take too long to resolve now. The costs of this exercise are bound to be significant at the hands of creditors.

You should only agree to proposed modifications to the term of your IVA, when they have all been fully explained to you. Given that you are being consulted on something which is rather in the hands of your IP to determine, it is only fair that they explain their reasoning behind the need to call multiple variation meetings.

[foreverbroke]

Be warned this is lengthy! The resolutions I am unclear about are:

Any funds received will be held on behalf of the creditors of the iva and will be distributed net of costs to those creditors whose claimes have been admitted for dividend in the same proportion as the final dividend prior to ceasing to act. However in the event that where creditors will receive a return equivalent to 100p in the £ these funds will beheld on behalf of the debtor.

For clarity, no adjustments will be made where creditors with late claims did not receive the full rate of dividend paid from the iva and, creditors whose claims were excluded from dividend payments in the iva will not be entitled to particiapte in the distribution of funds.

The funds will be subject to the deduction of fees, properly incurred 3rd party costs such as bank charges and disumbursement costs. Fess will be calculated at 15% of the funds recovered and will not be subject to any restrictions included in the terms of the iva.

Where the value of a consolidated distribution, or a single distribution (where it is not possbile to consolidate payment) is less that £1 the funds will be retained by the supervisor as if distribution had been made.

Any presentation that remains unpresented after 6 weeks from distribution will be redistributed amongst the remaining creditors entitled to particiapte in the distribution of funds. The same provisions regarding the value of consolidated or single distributions will apply to any redistribution of funds.

To allow the supervisor to charge, in addition to the currently agreed Supervisors fees, 10% of funds paid into the arrangement as a result of a sucessful claim for mis sold ppi and 25% of of the previously agreed fact find fee, resulting in a reduction in costs associated in any such claim.

I'm afraid thqat whilst I think I've got the jist of this, I'm not happy about responding until I am sure that I understand what I am agreeing /or not to!

Thanks for your help.

[Broke of London]

They seem to be setting out how they'll distribute the funds and what they'll charge. Seeing as they probably have authority to distribute funds post-closure anyway, I think they probably just want to secure their fees and charge for the variation meeting! one of the experts will be along to advise properly x

[Pickerov]

HI

I received the same letter yesterday and spoke to Tenon immediately as I like to get clarification and since my closure is taking so long I like bothering them a bit too

Like you I made my last payment to the IVA in September. I was advised by the closures team that as they have a backlog up to May last year they are obviously in a situation where IVAs are still not completed by the time the 6 year anniversary has arrived. I asked what the resolutions and variations meant to me, but as already stated on this thread it seems that it is all to do with distribution of monies.
The advisor I spoke to at RSM Tenon indicated that the variation is so that they can close the case earlier than if they waited for the VAT refunds.

I agreed to it as I am getting fed up with waiting now, and Tenon have been great up until the end of the IVA and this VAT issue and I just want the line firmly drawn under this once and for all. Their advisors have repeatedly told me the same thing (it'll be soon, a matter of months etc) yet still no final report...

As you'll be aware, 7 months after completing your obligations under the terms of the IVA and still not have closure isn't really acceptable after 5 very long years!

[MelanieGiles]

That all seems very reasonable, and it appears it is designed to get closures moving before waiting for the VAT refund to be received.

I am not understanding the need for the additional 10% and 25% fees referred to in the last paragraph, and perhaps you might like to query this with them as there may be something specific to that firm that is not immediately apparent from your posting. At the end of the day this is really a matter for creditors to be concerned with, but it is important that you understand and accept the full basis of IP charges.

[Foggy]

That last paragraph, Mel, seems to be relating to the new practice of PPI relclaims, which would not have been addressed specifically in the proposals and, it seems, have a different fee structure.

[sponge]

Melanie
In another thread I was trying to tread (very carefuly) around the idea of a clear structure to PPI in a proposal. I started to write it and then lost my nerve, to suggest such a thing to you and Michael. And whilst the charge structure I don't agree with in principle, in there it should be. I was driving at future proofing new proposals and maybe this its first incarnation,(retrospectively) it was bobbling around in my head but couldn't really articulate it.

must have been on the mind of others, so maybe I wasn't to off the mark

[MelanieGiles]

Sponge

I am not sure why you would be afraid of voicing an opinion to either myself or Michael - you should never be afraid of mentioning anything on the forum that you are concerned about or have ideas to present. We will certainly try to address the issues you raise to the best of our ability - and whilst I am not fully sure what you mean in the above post, then I think I do understand that you are trying to say that additional fees concerning the reclaim of PPI ought to be covered in all new IVA proposals?

IPs are generally these days remunerated on a percentage basis, so the fee for collecting an asset such as PPI is already covered. I am not too sure why there is a need for additional fees, unless the IP has spent a significant amount of time dealing with the claim and feels that the usual 15% is insufficient.

[Bruce.theblue]

Hi, I have been reading this thread and have also received the same letter. I am trying to get legal clarification on what it contains. I received a letter from Tenon asking if they could claim back my PPI after getting a letter telling me I had no financial obligation to them anymore. They said I did not have to sign anything because my IVA was being closed and it would only hold up proceedings. I now have received this letter 8 months after my final payment. This seems to be them wanting to claim PPI and charge 40% for it and charge £50 for a creditors meeting. I suggested they close IVA months ago but they said they couldn’t but it now seems if you agree to them getting more money they can! I can’t see how this could close your IVA quicker if they have to investigate PPI claims. Is there no legal requirement for IP's to close IVA's or are people just to suffer this unending torture?

[Broke of London]

It does seem as if you completed just as the PPI issue was coming to the fore so the first letter was probably issued in all sincerity and then overruled by the second letter as PPI reclaims were being defined as an asset due to the iva.

TBH they have you by the short and curlies...you have an obligation to help your IP maximise the return to creditors which includes realising assets. Bit unfair that it was introduced so late in the day tho. It will probably be quicker to let them get on with it.

x