I have to disagree with the comments above regarding the meeting of creditors. I believe that once it has been convened the meeting does have to be held. The outcome of the meeting is then reported to Court. That report would either say that the arrangement was approved; or the arrangement was rejected or the proposal was withdrawn by the debtor.
I believe, from what you are saying, that your arrangement was approved in October 2007 when in fact after you had expressed your concerns to the IP, the proposal should have in fact been withdrawn. As I mentioned above the meeting still has to be held, but the question has to be asked why was the outcome of that meeting, not the withdrawal of the proposal?
If what you are saying regarding the advice given is correct then they have breached practice guidelines, which is potentially a very serious matter.
You cannot be forced to enter in to an IVA. You should be given the details of each option available to you and the respective advantages and disadvantages of those options. Until you are aware of those it is impossible for YOU to determine what is best for YOU. Only you can decide what is best for you. A firm cannot impose its views on you.
The Insolvency Practitioner is required to make a contemporaneous and full file note of his or her discussions with you. There is no ifs or maybe's, a file note must be kept.
You as the client should then have either been sent a copy of that file note or the advice given to you should have been confirmed in full in the form of a letter. It is then only you who can decide what you want to do based upon your circumstances.
As noted above, I do not believe there is an issue as regards the meeting of creditors. If it has been convened it should be held and thereafter the outcome of that meeting is reported to the court and creditors.
There are however issues regarding the advice that you were given and definitely regarding the outcome of the creditors meeting.
I tend to tell things like they are and so I apologise if I come across as harsh in the remainder of this post.
You would have had 28 days after the creditors meeting to challenge the meetings decision. I think one of the first questions that you may be asked by someone looking in to this matter would be ...
'If you had contacted the IP with a view to withdrawing the proposal but then found that, at the meeting held, the proposal had been approved, why was the outcome not challenged on receipt of the Chairman's report of that meeting'
Your answer may well be that you were not aware that you could challenge the outcome of the meeting.
Where I work, the debtor would be contacted on the day of the meeting and advised of the outcome verbally (They would of course be contacted prior to the day of the creditors meeting if modifications arose). 2 copies of the Chairman's Report are sent to the debtor with a request that they sign and return one copy as a record for the file. I don't know if other IP's do this, whether they do or not, a report is issued to the debtor in any event. That would have been an indication that something was not right and for the debtor to contact the IP and say 'Hey look I withdrew the proposal, what's going on here?'
They would perhaps then go on to ask,
'If you had asked to withdraw the proposal at the meeting, why have you paid contributions in to the arrangement?'
It's a perfectly valid question. Have you paid monies to the Supervisor of the arrangement since October 2007? If you have, the question would then have to be asked 'Why?'. If you have withdrawn your proposal you would not make payments to the Supervisor.
You may think my post harsh, but these are the sort of questions I envisage you may be asked.
If the initial advice given is as you stated it to be, then practice guidelines have been breached and there are grounds for complaint. But on the other hand, if the proposal was withdrawn I would question why any monies had been paid to the Supervisor.
Last edited by
Cybus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tell it like it is.
