www.iva.co.uk

If a Full and Final Offer is refused can we appeal?
Can an IVA provider change the amount of fees charged? Grant Thornton want to take 25% of the realised assets which in our case will be about £20K.

Hi there and welcome to the foru,

Nice fees if you can get them!! Why do GT feel that the fees charged to your case ought to be more than the usual 15% norm, which they and other creditor representatives insist that we all have to accept!n The basis of IP fees are set at creditors meetings, and can only be amended with the further agreement of the same creditors.

Assuming that you are already in an IVA, which you have tried to settle and this has been rejected by creditors, you could represent the offer but it would probably have to be improved. What level of contributions have already been paid into your IVA as a matter of interest?

I wonder if the realised asset is PPI and it's the claims company firms 25% that is being confused with GT?

Clivemrthn - In the first instance we would need to understand form your creditors the basis on which the F&F offer was rejected. As Melanie has mentioned the F&F offer may need to be improved.

Kind Regards
Karol

My wife recieved a Equal Pay Claim payment of £27K, we offered £18K as a full and final settlement. So in total we will have paid into the IVA £62K against an original debt of £50K.
We have good reasons for holding back some of the money, we live in a small 3 bed house and have 3 children 2 older girls and a 8 year old son. Due to the size of the bedrooms our son has had to sleep in our bedroom all of his life. We wanted to hold onto some money toward an extension. We were told that we had a good case but the proposal was refused by one creditor and therefore has been rejected. They class it as a windfall and expect 100% + interest + fees. They will take the £18K but want an extra 19 payments totalling £15K so in total we will pay back £77,000 against a debt of just over £50K.
The IVA provider is Grant Thornton and they will take 25% of asset realistaion. Which I think is an obscene amount considering we will be ending the IVA early. They will not consider lowering their fees in order that we can complete earlier. My son will be 9 soon it will probably be another couple of years before we can get any extra cash for the extension (which I believe would cost around £15K).
We waited 3 months for the variation meeting, were told we had a good offer. To be now told it was a windfall anyway and we will have to pay everything + interest + large fees. I have no confidence in the providers and none of our personal circumstances were taken into consideration.
Im 47, our mortgage is on hold as we were forced into an interest only mortgage. We owe £139K on the house with a secured loan as well. So even if the IVA was paid we will not be debt free. It just feels like this will go on forever.

When I am occasionally faced with cases similar to yours, and I have a standard percentage realisation basis for my fees, I would generally revert to the actual time I had spent on the case rather than necessarily sticking to the full entitlement - especially where there is to be a full repayment to creditors which effectively you are now funding.

You have a good IP firm working for you now, and they will want to assist you to resolve this matter, being mindful of your family needs all of which appear quite reasonable. Given that this is a significant decision for you, it might be better for you to arrange a face to face meeting with your IP to discuss your concerns, their costs and the basis of your offer.

Do GT currently have fees at 25% of realisations agreed with creditors, or is this what they are proposing? And do be mindful that they seem to have inherited a lot of difficulties in cases taken over from other IP firms, so their costs - whilst they seem very high - may be fully justifiable.

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

When I am occasionally faced with cases similar to yours, and I have a standard percentage realisation basis for my fees, I would generally revert to the actual time I had spent on the case rather than necessarily sticking to the full entitlement - especially where there is to be a full repayment to creditors which effectively you are now funding.

You have a good IP firm working for you now, and they will want to assist you to resolve this matter, being mindful of your family needs all of which appear quite reasonable. Given that this is a significant decision for you, it might be better for you to arrange a face to face meeting with your IP to discuss your concerns, their costs and the basis of your offer.

Do GT currently have fees at 25% of realisations agreed with creditors, or is this what they are proposing? And do be mindful that they seem to have inherited a lot of difficulties in cases taken over from other IP firms, so their costs - whilst they seem very high - may be fully justifiable.

Not sure that should have any impact on customers who had no choice but to switch firms. If it has cost GT more than they thought to take over so many cases then thats their problem.

Paul

Hi Clivemrthn - I have been reading your thread with interest - please keep us posted how your discussions with your GT IP go - I am sure they will work something reasonable out with you.

Thanks for your interest and replies to my post.
We were originally with Blair Endersby and were switched to Grant Thornton. Blair Endersby were expecting 20% of the asset realisations, but when GT took over they proposed a number of 'improved' new terms which included the adjustment to 25%. We signed up because we hoped to get a better service and I believe this was agreed by the creditors.
We have not taken advantage of any of the ‘improved’ terms but are being forced to bear the brunt of the increased asset realisations. In our case this amounts to almost £4,000.

what improved terms were listed?

Paul

If the windfall was your wife's surely only her creditors and joint creditors need paid in full? Depending on the split of the debts she could clear her IVA and you could continue on. She retains her share of the money and surplus income and hopefully you can move to a new premise.

Good point Michael - I had not thought of that, but it is very relevant to this case. Presumably the IVAs could now be split and dealt with separately.

Thanks again for your input.
My understanding is that we have individual IVA's but they are interlocked.
There are joint debts which are in each IVA.

In terms of the offer it was accepted by all the creditors on my IVA but not by all those on my wifes. Therfore the whole of the offer was rejected.

Thanks

If the IVAs were severed your wife's creditors could possibly be repaid in full and your IVA continue on. Basically that is what her creditors are seeking so speak to GT and see if this is possible.

You could also consider legal advice or ask what counsel's opinion GT or the creditor used when deciding the money is a windfall. As the right to this money was there before the IVA began it could be an asset such as PPI reclaims and not actually a windfall. In my humble opinion, any money paid for pre IVA periods would be due to the IVA as there would be no doubt the underpayment of wages had contributed to the insolvency.

However, any compensation paid for the period after the IVA was approved should be dealt with under the 10% 50/50 rule because had your wife been paid this [as she should have been] this would have been how it would have been treated.

There are a number of issues and perhaps you should have a chat with your IP to get these clarified. I think the creditor who rejected could have shown a bit more heart but they may have been within their rights and doing their best for their own bank.

Just beacuse they are interlocked does not mean that they are not legally two separate IVAs. They are only interlocked for the purposes of distribution to creditors, their legal status and individual arrangements rightly stands as Michael has pointed out.

Also good points made about the treatment of the monies. I recently had a similar occurance on one of my cases and we needed to get a barrister's opinion. If it is your wife who is entitled to the money, and she can pay her debts in full, the rejection then becomes irrelevant.