I wouldnt claim DLA with this modification,my God it is hard enough applying for benefits and going through the minefield of forms,medicals etc without having most of it taken off you!!!!
Especially so when you have worked all your life, believe me.
full and final accepted January 2015
iva agreed; August 2010
iva would have completed; August 2017
extra year thank's to NRAM
They would be hard pushed to enforce the mobility side of DLA as you can just sign it straight over for a car (as I have). Working in DWP I take a dim view in having to hand over 75% of arrears. There are plenty of other people that need that money.
Broke of London wrote:
But the IP doesn't agree anything! The IP is the intermediary and can try to influence but only the creditors and the debtor make decisions.
Is that really true? Surely that would mean that anyone could claim to be a creditor and jump on the back of an IVA? Who decides if a party is a creditor?
You have to prove, by means of statements, who is a creditor and who isn't. The only ones in your IVA are the ones you owe money to.
The IP puts your proposal forward to your creditors and they can agree or not. It is the creditors who impose the modifications and it is down to you to accept or refuse them.
As to the mobility component of DLA, we have a motability car and the money is just paid straight across to the company. We never see it.
Sharing from experiences of dealing with debt
The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively.
Bob Marley. http://kallis3.blogs.iva.co.uk
My point about the IP not agreeing anything is that they do not agree to any terms, conditions or modifications on our behalf. Agreeing creditor claims etc is entirely different as this agreement is based on factual evidence and anyway ultimately it can be challenged by us if we think the figures the IP approved are incorrect. The proposal is drafted by an IP but we read it, agree it and sign that we are happy...all through the process we can challenge, negotiate or refuse anything. It is outside of the IPs' remit to propose or agree anything not previously agreed by ourselves.
If the 75% request had been turned down so would the IVA. Would this have put you in a better position than you are now? If so, then fail the IVA and go back to square one.
75% of £100 or £500 is 75% of £100 or £500. You knew that when you accepted the modification, and to be frank it needed little explanation from the IP as it is a matter of simple maths. Sorry to sound harsh, but can we please stop blaming IPs on this forum - as BOL has stated we are the conduit and not the maker.
Yes Mel - there seems to be great companies and not so good companies being talked about on here at the moment. It seems a shame however that if it was DLA mob that was granted the applicant would not be able to get a car or to pay for taxis etc. I agree that maybe is should have been challenged at the beginning but I hate to think of benefits for the diabled being used this way. Only because I deal with a lot of customers that need this allowance in full to be able to get out of the house.
I have about 20 combinations of figures here waiting to see if there are any modifications requested so I can make a decision immedicately!!! Bit over the top I expect but it's my comfort blanket!!
MelanieGiles wrote:
If the 75% request had been turned down so would the IVA. Would this have put you in a better position than you are now? If so, then fail the IVA and go back to square one.
75% of £100 or £500 is 75% of £100 or £500. You knew that when you accepted the modification, and to be frank it needed little explanation from the IP as it is a matter of simple maths. Sorry to sound harsh, but can we please stop blaming IPs on this forum - as BOL has stated we are the conduit and not the maker.
Not sure that it's the IP's bearing any of the blame, and, if so, they should not! As said above, the modification would have been put to the OP and agreed at the time, and, as such, is now binding. If any fault is being bandied around, I think it's aimed at the creditors for suggesting this modification in the first place.
However, this is all academic
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
But there isn't any blame anywhere. It is a case of two sides talking and negotiating. We don't know the OP's circumstances but it may be that substantial disability related costs are coming out of other income and claiming DLA would offset these costs and release income for the IVA...but without knowing this we are judging the creditors unfairly. Even movability allowance would release current car-related expenses for the IVA so it's not so unreasonable!
my esa (used to be called incapacity benefit) is taken into account for our income,fair enough, its money coming in whatever the source.
BUT-some of our allowances are higher to take into account my above average use of petrol (mobility problems),gas and electric bills(dont get out much)so the benefit amount is off-set in our expenditure.
So if the original poster already has the allowances they need then this may be the reason the creditors have asked for so much DLA if the money becomes available.
Our creditors were aware of the extra allowances we need and agreed to these,but I wouldnt put myself through the hassle of applying for DLA now because of the extra stress of the application process,medicals etc when I feel we are comfortable with our income/expenditure as it is.
It was difficult enough getting the benefit I currently receive.
If the op does feel aggrieved by the modifications dont apply for DLA,simple as that[;)]
Last edited by andrea1968 on Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
full and final accepted January 2015
iva agreed; August 2010
iva would have completed; August 2017
extra year thank's to NRAM
When it comes down to it, and whether we think they are right or wrong, the OP was offered an IVA with modifications and chose to accept it. Those modifications now stand as the IVA has been approved.
Modifications are always down to the creditors and not the IP and the debtor has two weeks in which to think about these modifications before accepting or rejecting.
I would like to know why the OP was going to be applying for DLA in the first place. Unless you have told your IP about any health problems then this should never have been put forward.
Sharing from experiences of dealing with debt
The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively.
Bob Marley. http://kallis3.blogs.iva.co.uk
If the OP was aware of the modifications and all they stood for then I don't think they have a leg to stand on. These should have been challenged from the outset. If they have been agreed then they will stand.
Sharing from experiences of dealing with debt
The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively.
Bob Marley. http://kallis3.blogs.iva.co.uk
