It is normal practice with a few firms, though I believe it's use has also been suspended by some after legal opinion.
Basically it gives the IP the "ownership" of PPI refunds for distribution to creditors. It was used in an attempt to speed up formal completion, but this aim does not appear to have been served in all cases.
In any event the IP still has the power to deal with PPI after closure under the continuing trust created by the IVA.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
The main reason why some firms have stopped using deeds of assignment, and others (like mine) who never embraced that solution in the first place, is that it is difficult to run a set-off argument where ownership of the claim has passed.
PPI remains a grey and untested area, and IPs can only rely on the legal advice each firm receives. It is unfortunate that there is not even much common ground amongst the legal eagles - I really wish a few of these cases would get tested at Court.
I have been told I won't get my completion certification unless this is sent back ! I wish I could afford to take Lloyds to court for my poi as I'm sure under the judgement in the court which the banks lost the judge stated the repayments had to go back to the claimant !! Being in an iva is surley a conflict of interest as you don't see the returned money which was robbed off you in the first place !!
They are going back to the claimant! You are the claimant, and the monies are an asset of your IVA to which creditors are entitled to benefit (so long as the IVA proposal is worded in such manner).
