Cleardebt completion cert.

[Adam Davies]

Hi

Yes, I think for yourselves and others Michael it is nothing short of a pain in the neck

However for the larger listed companies it is a welcomed revenue stream, see the report on Fairpoint [DFD] below

"Fairpoint Group plc (FRP.L: News ), in its trading update, said the board currently expects adjusted profit before tax for the year ending December 31, 2012 to be ahead of market view.

The Group noted that its claims management services for its IVA portfolio, which began in the second half of 2011, have continued to develop positively during the current year, resulting in strong growth in revenues and profits from those activities. The board anticipates claims management activities to continue to contribute positively throughout the remainder of 2012 and into 2013.

Market conditions in the Group's core activities remain subdued. "

Regards

[size5]

Evening all, I have been asked to post the following;

"Some of heretoday’s comments are particularly forthright and not necessarily representative of the situation. I will do my best to answer all of the questions as best I can without disclosing the full details of the case, however, Heretoday – If you are happy for the circumstances surrounding your specific case to be posted on a public forum then I will happily oblige.

1 Did I legally have to sign the authority forms for the claims company to make a claim on my behalf for mis-sold ppi?

You have the obligation to assist the IP in realising assets. As others have already pointed out, IPs do not have MOJ licences so need the assistance of Claims Management Companies to make the claims. If a banned product has been sold to someone to whom the benefits would not have paid out then it has been mis-sold and as such is an asset. If this is not recovered then the IP is failing to fulfil his duties, accordingly it is not unreasonable to request compliance.

2. If I refused to sign these forms based on my own personal belief that I had not been mis-sold PPI what would have happened to the IVA considering I had made payments into it for 72 months?

You would be in breach of your IVA and the IVA would fail. The terms of the IVA are fairly straightforward – You must repay as much to your creditors as you reasonably can. The consequences of a debtor refusing to comply in realising assets are the same regardless of the asset. Saying you do not believe you have been mis-sold PPI when a professional organisation confirms that you have been is tantamount to saying you should not have to sell a property because you do not believe it is worth anything despite all other professionals confirming that it is.

3. Why did the process of reclaiming mis-sold PPI not start until April 2012 when the last payment of my IVA was in January 2012?

The phenomenon regarding PPI is a fairly new one. Although you posted a link to our site from May 2011, this was actually updated in April 2012 following the change of view as to how PPI should be dealt with. Previously the page advised that creditors will offset claims so you will not be eligible for money for claims within an IVA. If you want the original text this can be sent to you.
The intention is not to send PPI letters to all debtors following receipt of their last payment; it is merely a matter of resources. Currently cases approaching completion are being prioritised but will be sent out to all debtors well in advance to their scheduled completion.

4. I am being forced to claim against Halifax for mis-sold PPI. I am supposedly doing this for the good of my creditors (including Halifax) as this money will go straight back to those creditors minus the 33.95% commission that the claims handling company are charging!

Am I missing something here?

Would it not be better to sign a document that said that you accept that you have no future claim for mis-sold PPI and cut out the middle men?

Are ClearDebt truly chasing mis-sold PPI because they have to? Or is there something more sinister happening with ClearDebt and others?

Yes, you are missing something. In typical IVAs there will be a number of creditors. Some of these creditors will be guilty of widespread mis-selling and poor practices. As a result of their increased claims they will benefit from additional dividends which should have gone to other companies. Ensuring legitimate claims are realised means that all creditors are treated fairly and receive the appropriate amount.
In addition to this it ensures that no subsequent claim for PPI could possibly succeed where the debtor could potentially be the beneficiary (even though this money should still go to the former Supervisor) and creditors are fully protected. This is the duty of the IP.

There have also been questions regarding practices differing from IP to IP. Our view is that signing a simple declaration is not sufficient. How can you sign a form to confirm that you have not been mis-sold PPI without first establishing if PPI is present and the circumstances surrounding this policy? It is perfectly conceivable that any debtor could sign one of these forms only to put in a subsequent claim saying “I didn’t realise it had been added to the debt” – in which case the simple declaration is not worth the paper it is written on and the IP has neglected his duties.
No IP would accept a declaration to say that any other type of asset had been disposed of – proof would be required. This is the same situation as with PPI claims and our view is that the practices of some other IPs could result in legal action being taken against them by creditors.

I hope this answers everyone’s questions.

David E M Mond FCA, FCCA
Chief Executive Officer
ClearDebt Group plc"

Regards.

[Niobe]

Thanks for that Mike.

Have to say that in my case (and I am not with Cleardebt) that I have never ever taken out PPI - I have been receiving occupational pension since 1994 so PPI was never an option for me as my income was guaranteed.

Both myself and my wife have always refused PPI as our income was always guaranteed. We have told our IP that we have never taken it out and they are quite happy with that.

On previous loans we have had, there have never been any figures added to them to say that we had PPI added.

I do agree that some people were missold but if you knew exactly what you were doing then you cannot possibly make a claim.

[size5]

Mrs Size works in the NHS. If she was poorly, she would get full pay for 6 months. Any loan she had running would continue to be paid as normal. The PPI, should she have it, on which undoubtedly she would have paid interest as well, would not pay out under these circumstances. It is therefore not fit for purpose, or mis-sold.

This is a personal example, and there are obviously hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of examples of others.

The point is, if the product was not fit for purpose then it isn't good enough to simply say that I was happy with it therefore it wasn't mis-sold.

Regards.

[Skippy]

But how can anyone say it wasn't fit for purpose as a sweeping statement? People have claimed and pay outs have been made so it was obviously right for some people.

[size5]

I don't doubt that some have benefitted, the general idea of PPI is a very sound one, the problem arose only when providers got greedy and sold it to all and sundry. Selling a redundancy policy to someone who is self employed doesn't stand up, nor does selling a sickness policy to someone who gets full pay if they are sick.

There are numerous other examples, but if the banks didn't have a case to answer than this debate would not exist. They got greedy, they got it badly wrong and they are now paying the price for their actions.

Not all banks were so reckless though, so those that were not should not have to subsidise those that were.

Regards.

[oddbod]

That's an interesting and informative post from Size5/David Mond.

However the fact remains, that some IVA providers are not pursuing PPI claims in such a robust manner.
This difference of approach disproves the view that all IPs are duty bound to ensure a PPI claim is submitted and that if they don't, they have neglected their duties.

I don't believe for a minute that the IVA providers (in my case one of the larger IVA factories) who are not pursuing claims in such a manner, have not analysed the implications of taking this stance. They just wouldn't leave themselves open for legal action by creditors at a later date.

In my case, instead of ending my IVA satisfactorily after 60 months having fully complied with everything during that time, if I had been a client of Cleardebt I would now be threatened with my IVA failing unless I allow them to claim for PPI which I know I have never taken out.

[size5]

That is not what was said at all.

It is NOT a duty of IP's to ensure that a PPI claim is submitted. It is the duty of an IP to determine whether there is mis-sold PPI which can be recovered for the benefit of the estate There is a world of difference between the two statements.

If there is an element of mis-sold PPI, then an IP, in our view, is clearly failing in his duties if it is not investigated and subsequently recovered for the benefit of all creditors. ClearDebt are not prepared to take any chances on this. If there is no element of mis-sold PPI then it should not take too long to find out. Whether other IP's take a different view is a matter for them.

Regards.

[oddbod]

How does an IP determine whether the client has or has not had PPI sold to them in the first place (whether it's been mis sold or not)?

Does the IP gain proof from the creditors that PPI has been sold to the client in the past before this process of submitting a claim begins?

[Muggins]

David Monds reply implies though that the debtor may claim back any mis-sold ppi once the iva has completed and be able to keep it! That is the real issue I feel! Threatening failure of an iva is still what I would challenge as he also says that it is not unreasonable to request compliance! If all companies were doing this then I would fully understand! It will be interesting if another ip who doesn't act in this manner give their viewpoint! I still feel that this is a money spinner!! Sorry folks

[Foggy]

A hell of a lot of IVA procedure is, as we have seen on the forum and elsewhere, open to interpretation by the IP, his staff and us debtors. Sometimes those interpretations differ, and PPI is no different.

As with most British case law, interpretations get ironed out over time with the input of judicial opinion. However, not many debtors are of a mind, or, indeed, in a position, to mount a case which would go far enough to be heard in the courts.

So, we are stuck with differing interpretations !!

[oddbod]

And stuck with the bully-boy attitude of some IVA firms over this issue.

My sympathy to all those who are approaching the end of the IVA path, anticipating an imminent, successful completion having adhered to all the requirements of the IVA, only to be threatened with failiure due to the 'whim' of a particular IP.

That'll be good for business........................

[Muggins]

Will be interesting to see if anybody eventually mounts a case for the mis-selling of an iva!! Same principles may apply! There are alot of posts on this forum of people struggling to keep up with payments and wondering whether this really was the right course of action under their personal circumstances! I'm still struggling to see how any court would sanction failure in the cases above! It's going to take one brave person to try and that's probably why these companies behave in the manner that they do!

[Andrew197]

I am another ClearDebt person and very rare participant here. My only purpose in joining this debate is to point out a blog posted on our website last evening, really just to tell people about the reasons bhind our attitude to PPI claims.

I reproduce it below and hope it helps. It is not ClearDebt's intention to bully anyone.

"ClearDebt began life with a determination to be the most ethical and transparent IVA company that it is possible to be. We have never abandoned that goal.

Our view is that an IVA is not a “get out of jail free” card for people who have unsustainable debt: It is a deal between creditors and debtors that is fair to both parties, represents the debtors wish to repay as much as they can afford, is a fair detail for the firms that lent the consumer money in the first place and that is affordable, achievable and represents the debtors best efforts.

IVA proposals have always included windfall clauses, which mean that, if you come into money during an IVA, you must use that to repay more of what you owe. This sometimes seems hard, but it is fair to creditors and does represent the person who owes the money using their best efforts to repay what they owe.

Until recently, windfalls have only been an issue in a small number of IVAs. The legal decisions regarding mis-selling of payment protection insurance changed all that. Now, it is a problem for thousands. To be fair, we’ve worried about this for some time and first pointed it out to people in May 2011 (in a blog since updated – you can find it here).
ClearDebt regrets the necessity of pursuing PPI claims for their clients in IVAs. But, we really do believe it is an absolute necessity. And we are concerned that IVA firms that do not do this could come a cropper, with claims against them from creditors that might necessitate proceedings to recover monies from debtors maybe years after they’ve forgotten they were even in an IVA. Being transparent, ethical and fair is not an easy path. It is a tightrope.
The facts are these. If you are in an IVA, or were in an IVA and have claims for PPI refunds and compensation that became possible during the period of your IVA then ClearDebt is absolutely convinced that we have to make every effort to recover that money for the organisations who had lent you money and which you could not pay. The monies payable are a windfall, therefore we need not just to recover claims payments from those creditors who agreed the IVA with you, but from any organisations which have mis-sold you PPI at any time as long as the claim became valid during the period of the IVA.

So, if you are or were in an IVA with us and the PPI claim exists – we have to get that money back for the benefit of your creditors. If the total we get back is more than the total you owed, then you’ll get the rest. After the claim’s company’s fees – and ClearDebt gets a share of those too. I know that sounds hard, but as far as we are concerned, we earn them.

If you want to do the job for us and reclaim the fees for yourself, then fair enough – we are happy for you to go ahead and do it. But, we will insist you do it diligently, and that does include pursuing years old claims you may not even realise you have, but which a claims company can often dig out.

If you think that, by avoiding claims’ company fees that you can create a PPI windfall that repays all that you owe and leaves you something for yourself, then it may be worth doing, then it might be an idea to do it yourself.
If you think your PPI reclaim is going to pay back only a bit of what you owe, then why would you bother doing the work?

The whole PPI reclaims thing has forced significant extra work on IVA providers and ClearDebt is quite confident that the PPI windfall is no windfall for us, but just a recompense for significant additional work that we have to do.
We understand how this must seem to many, and we know it is unsatisfactory that, for example, some IVA completions have been delayed. But an IVA company’s gotta do what an IVA company’s gotta do. And those that ignore this are, in our opinion may be storing up trouble for themselves and their clients in the future.

At the end of the day, however, that really doesn’t matter. What is most important is that this is the right thing to do: An IVA is an arrangement between debtors and creditors where the debtor uses their best efforts to repay as much as they can afford. Protocol compliant IVAs require that windfalls are contributed in full. This is the debtor’s duty to their creditors and this is what we are doing.

David E M Mond FCA, FCCA
Chief Executive Officer
ClearDebt Group plc"

[oddbod]

All very interesting Andrew, but really nothing new there that we haven't been made aware of on this thread.

It just reiterates Cleardebt's stance over this matter - that they are right to force clients into submitting a claim for PPI and other firms are wrong not to.

I suppose it depends who your're willing to believe - a company who are 'bullying' clients into agreeing to submit a claim, with threats of failing the IVA if they don't comply with their recently derived 'interpretations' and then taking a cut of any reclaimed funds

or

other IVA providers who are taking a less heavy-handed approach to the PPI claims procedure, and who obviously don't agree with Cleardebt's opinion that 'those that ignore this ...... may be storing up trouble for themselves and their clients in the future'