Glad you responded to this Catullus as, to be quite frank, I have never come across anything as bizarre as this before.
The poster doesn't say that the report was not filed in Court, simply that he did not agree the modifications. Now we know that this makes the IVA null and void if challenged, but assuming that the main objection here is the equity release clause, he is not going to get a new IVA avoiding that in today's climate.
To be honest in my practice we file the Chairman's Report on the day of the meeting, without waiting for signed mods back from the client. But I don't volume process, so we are able to treat all of our clients individually and the modifications are carefully discussed with them on the day of the meeting. If there is any doubt in my mind that a client does not understand the implications of a modification, then we adjourn until I am certain.
As you know we only have four days to file in Court, so you would probably miss that deadline if you were waiting for a signed report to be returned, and I can honestly say I have never once had a problem with my methodology over the last 10 years.
My money on this increasingly strange tale is that the Supervisor's staff failed to notify the debtor of the mods, assumed that they were acceptable, and issued their reports. This does seem to be increasingly common - particularly amongst the larger processors. It seems that they forgot to register - which in itself is a heinous crime in the eyes of the DTI - but doesn't necessarily invalidate the IVA.
Legal advice and a complaint to the regulators is looming here - and I simply don't understand the relevance of a new Supervisor.
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
