Preparing for my fourth annual review, I dug out my old payslips from a while ago and noticed that the key change to my income and expenditure over the last couple of years ago is that my take-home salary has increased by approximately £10 a month.
However, unlike two years ago when my employer paid for all fuel and my salary was taxed for fuel benefit accordingly, I now pay approximately £130 a month in fuel costs.
So in real terms I am £120 a month worse off than I was 2 years ago. Yet my IVA monthly payments are now only £3 less than they were 2 years ago !.
Any other changes to my income and expenditure actually leave me worse off, so it's not like the £117 difference is addressed anywhere else.
It's also correct to say that just over two years ago I was restored to a 5 day week from a 4 day week, but despite submitting payslips quarterly to my IP they confirmed in writing that there was nothing extra to pay (despite for 2 months prior to my annual review my salary being £400 more than as set out within my I&E) yet more recently when my take-home pay increased by £5 (due to tax code changes and such like) my IP reviewed my payslips and demanded 50% of that extra (which I paid), yet in April of this year when a tax code change left me £60 a month worse off there was no reduction in my monthly payments.
This seems to add weight to my suspicions that my IP is taking a far tougher stance as I get closer to the end of my IVA, which simply doesn't seem fair - particularly as having been restored to a 5 day week halfway through my IVA my dividend is much higher than originally agreed by my creditors (my payments initially were £600 a month but I'm now paying over £960).
Interested to hear if anyone else has experienced their IP turning from 'nice' to 'nasty' the longer their IVA has lasted.
IVAs should not be a one way street and if your income goes down so should your payments especially since you are paying more than originally proposed. Your IP would not need to call another meeting to reduce these payments so speak to them directly and ask for a file review. In my opinion, tax code changes are addressed at the annual review and are not overtime,bonuses or similar so you should not have had to pay extra. However, when you had the reduction your payments could have been reduced and it does not sound entirely fair.
Thanks, I've always had a good relationship with my IP but now I look at these figures and it infuriates me. Broadly speaking I can accept the increased payments last financial year were to cover the shortfall resulting from me having to miss one monthly payment when I had to pay for some repairs/excess mileage to my company car.
But that shortfall was paid by March 2013, and I am 100% certain that when I spoke with my IP last year they indicated that once that shortfall was paid back my monthly payments would reduce considerably, yet in fact there has been no change whatsoever, and when I advised my IP in April 2013 that my tax code had changed and my salary would be reduced by approximately £60 a month they seemed not at all interested in reducing my payments.
One other question if I may. I have not been 'whiter than white' throughout the course of my IVA and I am currently (for 4 months) making token monthly payments towards my IVA whilst I clear unauthorised debts. My IP has agreed this, but has verbally indicated that my IVA will be extended by 4 months to cover that shortfall. I have never received anything in writing to confirm that. Bearing in mind that I am, regardless of that shortfall, after 60 months of my IVA (which would be in July 2014) I will have paid considerably more towards my IVA than my creditors originally expected (they originally expected £36k, I have already paid £34.3k as of today) is it reasonable for my IP to extend my IVA beyond its original 60 month duration ?.
It is hard to say without full knowledge of the case. However, it may be arguable that the unauthorised debts were as a result of having to pay too much into the IVA so if your payments were too high you should not be penalised for this. It may need a full review of the case and hopefully your IP will agree to do this to make sure you do not end up paying more that you ought to.
I would definitely get that agreement confirmed in writing as your IVA may be technically in default if you are four months in arrears. Your IP may well be able to extend the IVA, but only if the terms and conditions governing it allow him/her to do.
Thanks to you both, I had presumed that essentially my IP had 'full control' and did not need to obtain any agreement from my creditors given that my dividend is already significantly higher than when I first entered my IVA, but as you say the matter needs to be fully reviewed so I'll take this up at my annual review tomorrow.
To be fair to my IP, as a result of our annual review today they agreed to reduce my payments by £135 a month given the changes to my income and expenditure
