My case was transferred from BE as well. For 5½ years BE acted with a reassuringly consistent level of incompetence, but they did at least have the courtesy to provide you with some degree of information about how things were progressing, rather than hiding behind the "closures are currently taking 3-6 months and we won't tell you anything else" approach that GT are currently adopting.
Last edited by vince666 on Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This has turned into a sad state of affairs. I was never informed that BE were to relinquish the act of IP over my IVA. I never got the option of who I wanted BE to pass the supervision to. I am now lumped in with GT, not my choice and I am hearing every day new complaints and lack of contact with GT. I really, really hope that I can carry on the next 34 months without NEEDing to make contact with GT as I can see it will just cause so much stress.
Last Payment made 04/12/14. Completion Certificate 25/7/15. IVA company GT. No Issues
My last payment with McCambridgeDuffy was early January and my Completion Certificate was in my hands in less than 3 weeks. Now thats what I call service.
Glad they are still closing cases efficiently steve. My f&f offer is being put to creditors on 8th Feb (through McCambridge Duffy) so if accepted it could all be done and dusted by March!
Makes a bit of a mockery of other firms though doesn't it.
No response as to my general question as to why they are taking so long. I did not choose this firm and I'm not happy that since being lumped with them I may have to wait 6 very long months for something that other firms seem to be able to turn around much quicker.
With so many of us unsatisfied at best and significantly out of pocket (due to higher rate mortgages) I feel its time to escalate complaints. Having made the final payment of any arrangement legally we have met the terms of the arrangement and therefore should not be worried about upsetting the apple cart. The IP has to renew their license every year and should a significant amount of complaints reach the licensing body this renewal may not be so straight forward.
We should not suffer because a company has taken on more cases than they can deal with and are staffed for!
I'm seeking legal advice later this week. Will update after the meeting.
The situation regarding the VAT issue remains confusing, and I too now have put a hold on closing cases since seeking my own legal advice. I have arranged to consult leading Counsel early next week. It is not the IPs fault that things are being delayed right now - we need urgent clarification from HMRC and our regulators - and I will be striving to gain ground in this area next week.
Complaints to regulators about this issue will not move things along further, but IPs do need to keep their clients informed as best they can.
This is statement Fairpoint Group Plc (Debt Free Direct) made on the subject last September:
"We are in discussions with HMRC and creditor representatives over the refund of VAT charged on IVA services following a recent court ruling in a similar context. Management expects this to result in a cash payment to the Group in the range of £5million to £9 million, with a material proportion of this payment generating an exceptional gain in revenues and earnings, although the precise timing and quantum are currently uncertain."
and from their half year report published 2 weeks ago:
"Fairpoint Group also revealed it had submitted a £9m VAT refund claim to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) following the ruling in the Paymex case, some of which it expects to retain as IVA fee income."
No wonder IP firms don't want to close cases if they stand to make gains of that level.
Last edited by vince666 on Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by MelanieGiles
The situation regarding the VAT issue remains confusing, and I too now have put a hold on closing cases since seeking my own legal advice. I have arranged to consult leading Counsel early next week. It is not the IPs fault that things are being delayed right now - we need urgent clarification from HMRC and our regulators - and I will be striving to gain ground in this area next week.
Complaints to regulators about this issue will not move things along further, but IPs do need to keep their clients informed as best they can.
I have not had any contact at all...first I heard of this issue was by coming on to this site and reading about it. I just feel like crying in frustration, honestly. I feel I have 'done the crime, served the time' but I'm not being let out on parole yet!!!!!
Let me assure you Vince that the firms that I own, run and operate will be making little out of the VAT ruling - in fact we are facing substantial additional costs in having to make the claim in the first place and also a 20% hike on my standard rated items which I can no longer reclaim. The vast majority of IP firms will be worse off as a result of this ruling not better.
Last edited by MelanieGiles on Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No doubt, but some firms such as DFD and Paymex will be quids in, hence the reason Paymex brought the case in the first case.
I assume it has something to do with whether the fees agreed in the proposal were inclusive or exclusive of VAT. I'm guessing DFD and Paymex fees were inclusive of VAT and therefore they will get to keep the refund, whereas maybe you charged VAT on top of the amounts in the proposal, so any VAT recovery has to go back to the creditors?
I am not too sure that DFD had that type of fee provision, but perhaps Declan can clarify that point. Paymex certainly did.
Talking to the number of IPs that I do regularly, most of us would charge a fee plus VAT rather than inclusive - this would be normal with fees in most other professions, and so far as we are concerned we were providing professional services to our clients and the creditors, and were rightly charging VAT at the appropriate rates.
Thanks Melanie. Are you saying that Paymex (and BE) definitely charged inclusive of VAT?
If that is the case then surely they will be entitled to hold on to the refund and there will be nothing to pass on to the creditors.
Having gone back and reviewed all of my paperwork, I am now fairly confident that GT did not raise any fees until after the ruling on the Paymex case, as they were waiting for a variation to be agreed by the creditors following the transfer from BE (one clause of which significantly increased their fees from what BE were charging as the BE fees had a monthly cap). So I would assume any fees raised by GT would have been without charging VAT.
If all the above is correct, there can be no "windfall" in my case and surely therefore no reason to delay closure. I've written directly to my IP to seek clarification.
