www.iva.co.uk

Anyone know whether whether a couple, who have separate IVA`s, could have a F&F accepted for one and not the other at the same F&F creditor`s meeting?

As far as I am aware there would be two separate creditors meetings -- one for each, probably one after the other -- and, yes, different results could come about.

Yes - this is entirely possible, as the voting takes place in individual cases and not the combined debts. There are always two separate meetings.

Thanks Foggy. Don`t expect it to happen - our meeting is on 12 April - but just thought of it and the offices are closed now.

And thanks to you too Mel. I thought as much as we have always had 2 Iva`s and the F&F submissions are separate, but just the one meeting.

Not sure how you can actually hold two meetings at the same time!

Well we got a letter each with the same details so they`ll consider them in tandem I guess.

How interesting!

Good luck with the meetings I am in process of doing a ff . Bet the meetings hardly last any time at all just a quick yes no vote but then I guess that's all is needed

It`s a self-employed Partnership IVA Mel, so while we have 2 separate IVA accounts, we both have ownership of a business even though Mrs H has only minority status.

Do you have a PVA then as well as separate IVAs?

Our F&F was for 2 interlocking IVAs. My husband's was agrred by 78% of the creditors but mine only got 70%. Although if you combined the debt and votes, we got an acceptance of 76%, they were considered separately, so basically both were rejected (initially).

There is no such thing as a combined IVA, so no real point in comparing the voting outcome by pooling all of the debts into one pot. But irritatingly close, when looking at the comparison, nevertheless.

When I see things like this, I really do think it is unfair that we still have to have a 75% acceptance rate in IVAs, when all other forms of insolvency are governed by simple majorities.

It's a bit like having a Coalition government - the minority can dictate the outcome as they hold the balance of power. In my case, the creditors owed the most all accepted, it was the small creditors who objected, and the modifications they were demanding would have made very little difference to them due to the amount of debt they were owed. Very frustrating!

I couldn't agree with you more on that point.