I was due to complete my IVA this month after five years of monthly payments of £165 to Payplan. I've now been contacted by them a few weeks before the final payment date to be informed that I will not meet my minimum dividend and have over a £1000 short fall! I have not missed any payments and have always adhered to what was asked of me by them.
It turns out the reason there is such a short fall is that they have had me on a repayment plan for the last five years based on initial estimated dividend of 24%. Which unknown to me was refused by the creditors who then accepted 30%. So for the past five years I have been paying an insufficient monthly amount due to incorrect information and debt management by Payplan, surely it is Payplans responsibility as a paid service to provide me with the correct information in order to repay my debt? It seems the information of the change from the proposed dividend to the minimum 30% failed to be updated their end and past on to me the customer. Instead they tell me just as my IVA is meant to be completed, now i find out that all these years of repayments are potentially undermined as I will not complete my IVA by the deadline
I guess my question is; is it reasonable for me to file a complaint?
if this increased dividend was not in your chairmans report then they have no comeback other than to stand it themselves.they should have checked everytime your yearly I@e sheet was done to keep you imformed.if you have no written statement comfirming you agreed to the increased dividend then that's there tough luck and yes you can make a complaint as I doubt this would stand up in a court of law.only if you have not signed anything to agree to the increase.
cc received 6th January 2014 now upwards and onwards
You must have had to agree the modifications which required the increase, at the time of your original creditors meeting, and then presumably you were reminded of this at each year's annual review, so I am a bit surprised that you say you are so in the dark about the need for additional payments?
How was the increased dividend to be paid, as a matter of interest?
Melanie, I haven't at any stage received notification of an increase of the minimum dividend, the picture I'm getting is that 24% was proposed and rejected, 30% was then agreed by the creditors however the payment plan that was drawn up and that I signed and have been honouring all this time remained at the 24% hence the short fall.
Payplan essentially has failed to amend the details and then pass them on to myself, which seems a major flaw in its service as a debt management company who take a premium for supposedly acting as a third party between myself and my creditors.. From day one until the last due payment the monthly payment requested by Payplan has been for the sum based on the 24% calculation.. As a customer this is the dividend return I have been under the belief I need to fulfil as this is the only information that has been supplied to me by Payplan.. It is only just before the end of my IVA completion that Payplan have made any mention of "of oh you've been paying 24% it's should of been 30%!" It is Payplan that has supplied my with the incorrect repayment plan and information for the last five years.. Which if I'm not mistaken is a service that they are being payed for to correctly fullfill?? Surely this is a major flaw on behave of Payplan?
Thanks for all your imput, it's been very helpful.
Samuel, thanks for your offer of assistance but I have just recieved a call from a nice man called David of which the case has been passed up to. He informs me that the reason there is such a large short fall is a collective of three reasons..
1. Changes in ppi charges.
2. Increase in VAT
3. And the creditors changing their mind about how much I owe them after the creditors meeting?
Does this sound correct and reasonable why there is such a shortfall after I have made all the payments asked of me?
I find it pretty disturbing to read a posting from a person who does not appear to have understood the amendment to the original IVA terms required by creditors, which of course he should have expressly agreed to to enable it to be incorporated into the terms of the contract.
I don't see why PPI charges should make any difference to the ultimate dividend returnable, and you should not suffer as a result of these in any case, neither do I understand the VAT issue, given that VAT is no longer charged on IP fees in IVAs, if anything this should improve the dividend and not reduce it.
Increased creditor claims will alter the position, and this is why it is important for IPs to independently verify the balances with creditors prior to presenting the proposals. Did your own IP do this exercise?
