GT and the Financial Ombudsman

[emmaxpete]

Does the Financial Ombudsman have any say in the way Grant Thornton seem to be treating its customers. As with a lot of people on here they seem to be holding us to ransom too, with the EIC letter and holding the Completion Certificate back, despite having told us initially it would be up to 6 months and then within 4 weeks at the start of July.

We are going to try and get in touch with them again tomorrow, failing any reasonable response, I think we will be looking at contacting the Ombudsman, it cannot be right that they prolong the agony so much, we thought our nightmare was over when our F+F offer was accepted, however 9 months later there is still no end in sight!

[plasticdaft]

I think the more people than push via the regulatory body the better the service from GT will become.

Paul

[allancsn]

Hi emmasxpete

If you do speak with Financial Ombudsman or the Finacial Service Authority you might want to ask their view on GT 'introducing' a third party from outside the IVA -who will potentially benefit fiancially from that introduction to the detriment of creditors and any potential increased dividend.

You might in particular like to get their views on IPs threatening to fail IVAs and potentially cause bankruptcy when debtors have met their agreed payments and full and final settlement accepted by creditors. I would be very interested to see the Courts reaction to any papers served on them that try to fail an IVA because a client did not agree they were mis-sold PPI or that bank charges caused them financial hardship.

We all feel ashamed - but over the years that has become less - about the situation we found oursleves in and some of the phrases I see used regularly encourage us to do so but we bought and paid hard into something we thought had an end date only to find this was far from the case.

If - as it seems to be - IPs can continue arrangements indefinately to gather funds and fees after the end of the agreed payment period and when full and final settlements have been accepted by creditors that they do so without the specific approval of the people they are working for. I presume that certificates of completion and removal from the Insolvency Register are not being made until the IP decides there is nothing more to be extracted from us or them. (Them being the ones who'd pay the PPI or bank charges)

It would be interesting to see creditors views - the most variation modification is a IP fee cap not a PPI or bank charge re-charge request.

Andy asked, in a other post, what the next mis-sell or fee over charge reclaim might be - mmmmm I wonder. The 'ambulance chaser' have no loyalty.

[Gina.gu]

The only experience I have with gt is that they were working FOR my creditors . Part of gt have an arm called gt iva watch. They rejected all my proposals causing my iva to fail. Have said all along I don't know how an iva compay can work for creditors and on the other hand debtots. Could this be causing problems there? Gt iva watch caused my iva to fail tey accepted absolutely nothing my ip put forward.just my view..then again I have been stung by them , so can't say anything positoive really. Hope it sorts itself out for you all.

[nepensioner]

I may be totally wrong here, but I thought the arm of GT that votes at the creditors meetings does not choose how to vote but merely votes on instructions from your creditors and just represents them the same way as TIX

[Gina.gu]

That was not relayed to me by my ip. I was told the the creditor had given gt authority to act "in their best interests" if you read my old posts it was a right shambles. I had to provid petrol receipts etc to gt and give postcodes where I went and worked . My ip was on the phone to gt for hours. The creditor themselves I was told left it inthe hands of gt.

[nepensioner]

Because I did a F&F, there were no expenses to be challenged. I got confirmation from my IP of which creditors had asked GT to represent them and which ones were using TIX, and all the creditors chose how they were going to vote and then instructed GT or TIX to vote on their behalf at the creditors meeting.

[Gina.gu]

What happened to me happened over a year and a half ago. Maybe tour case was different. My ip tried to contact the creditor and was told "they trust in gts decision" maybe your case was different? Anyhow what happened happened and I for one do not agree with gt being able to do both. Conflict in interest. I was assured they do not do this and keep teams seperate. Doesn't wash with me. Maybe because of my experience. Then again everyone has their own opinion.

[Gina.gu]

Gt acted on behalf of 3 differnt creditors and voted "no" on aLl three. That's my experience anyway