overtime

[jeffw]

Yes Melanie,Fees with BE were just over 6K GT claim its 18K This has been my ongoing argument with GT for quite a while, They claim they are looking into the original proposal taken on by GT from BE and will get back to me. When they will and if they do get back to me remains to be seen.

[MelanieGiles]

On what basis are they charging those higher fees jeffw, are they reunerated on the basis of time costs, fixed cost or a percentage of realisations? They must give you a response to this, as the overcharging of fees is one of the most heinous crimes in the eyes of our regulatory bodies.

[jeffw]

I am waiting for their reasons and explanations which at present they cannot or will not give. This is why I have offered to produce copies of the proposals complete with all fees clearly printed on them.
I have insisted with them I will fight it all the way through the courts if they so wish.

[MelanieGiles]

What basis for IP fees is set by the proposals jeffw - and you should also consult the Chairman's Report as IP fees are generally modificed by creditors at the first meeting.

[Foggy]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by MelanieGiles

I would not have those terms included in any of my proposals - and I question their validity in any case. It is normal to have one bank account, however all debts are not ever considered to be joint (despite the fact that this is how they are treated within the interlocking proposals.

I do not agree with Foggy's interpretation of the 10% ruling and other forum posters should exercise caution if they seek to rely on this within their own cases. Sorry Foggy - but we have to be clear on this, and I will be interested to see what GT's interpretation to this actually is.

Yes, thank you Mel. I, too, would like to emphasise that "my" interpretation of the 10% ruling does only apply to the way I read my own proposal (and was confirmed by my IP at the time) and, in every case, it is down to your own IP's interpretation in your own cases.

[Michael Peoples]

Foggy I disagree. I do not think it comes to interpretation and certainly a regulator would look at the exact wording of the proposal and Chairman's Report. If the IP has any doubt they need this clarified by obtaining legal advice or even summoning a meeting of creditors.
We recently called an additional meeting of creditors because of minor wording issues in the modifications which we wanted clarified. They could be interpreted differently and while eveyone knew what everyone meant this was not good enough for the IP. He wanted it in black and white in case the regulators [or a future smart-a**ed lawyer] noticed.
I will give you an example of what may seem minor but can be crucial to an IVA. A creditor for one debtor in an interlocking proposal submits a proxy saying the debtor's interest or the debtors' interest. The first relates to one party but the second binds both parties even though the creditor has no right to do so.

[Foggy]

Michael, I understand where you are coming from, but it is a fact that these clauses ARE being interpreted and dealt with in different ways by different IP's (or, at least, their staff).

As in my case I was specifically told one thing, by an IP himself, which you and Mel are saying was incorrect ---- if not a difference of interpretation, then a difference of opinion, which amounts to the same thing.

This is happening time and time again where we are told different things, sometimes by the same firm. We are lay clients, dependant upon the advice we are given by our Expert Supervisors --- yet when we are given incorrect or conflicting advice it is WE who have to put things right and, in many cases find money we didn't expect to have to pay over.

As I said before, for me, it is a moot point, as I never kept back any 10%. But if, I had, and then was asked for this back at the end of year 5, Vesuvius would have been an annoying zit by comparison !

[MelanieGiles]

I agree that there is a certain amount of scope for interpretation of various things in IVAs, but the income review is not one of them. The rules are very clear - each individual is assessed, and this is most definately not done on the basis of a joint household income.

That said, if your own IP is happy to misinterpret and run your IVA in that manner, it is unlikely that this will be an issue unless it is one of the files selected for their regulatory inspection.

[Foggy]

Well, Mel, the IP that did that is no longer my IP. I have yet to see what GT will do, as I have yet to have any extra income this time.

But, as I mentioned elsewhere, despite another (possible) misinterpretation by my IP, who insisted I had this 10% disregard, when my particular proposal refers only to a 50/50 split, I never applied any disregard to extra payments.

Out of interest Mel, my Proposal states it is Protocol Compliant and makes continous reference to the Standard Conditions. Yet the extra income clause specifically states 50/50 (no mention at all of the 10%).
Was I correct in paying 50/50. Or do the Standard Conditions, override and my former IP was correct.

Personally I would rather overpay a little here and there and prevent nasty big surprises later on

[MelanieGiles]

The terms of your Proposal, as modified by creditors at the meetibg, dictate the terms that you are required to abide by. I would question whether you have a Protocol proposal at all - but let's not get into that debate as it has no bearing on what you can or cannot do.

You've exhausted me for one day already!

[Foggy]

I must admit I have wondered that myself -- but I will let you rest .... for now .... mwah ha ha

[MelanieGiles]

I'll be back with some refreshed batteries a little later on!!

[downandout]

Back to the original post .. still waiting for a an answer from GT they have got back to let me know they recieved the e-mail 2 days ago but thats it. I know i should call but i dont like having to pay premium rate for a call when there is supposed to be a free alternative "i'm on a budget you know" .

[moneyprobs]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Niobe

downandout - have you tried checking the number via 'Saynoto0870' - doesn't always work but worth a try!

try this 02890315500, i was using this to get hold of carol bout 6 mths ago

[Grant Thornton]

downandout - have you sent your email to ivacustomerservices@uk.gt.com with IVA Forum in the subject line? Would you mind re-sending again and I will look out for the email and reply today.

Thanks
Karol