Posted: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:44 am
I’d appreciate any thoughts anyone might be able to offer on what appears to be a shifting of the goalposts on my IVA.
A few months ago I took on a second job. It’s at a pub I used to work at part-time and they asked me if I’d like to come back for a bit, so I said yes. It’s generally on an ‘as and when’ basis, so I can go for weeks without a single shift, then perhaps do a couple over a weekend then nothing for a couple of weeks, then a burst of shifts over a couple of weeks. It’s paid monthly, so my earnings fluctuate depending on the hours I’ve worked, and generally they’ve been well below the threshold where I have to make extra contributions towards my IVA.
Of course, I’m aware that if what I earn from the second job exceeds 10% of my earnings from my main job, I have to pay 50% of the difference towards my IVA, and I’m more than happy to do that. I discussed it with my Relationship Manager at my IP, and as I send him my bank statements and wage slips every month, he was quite happy for this to be handled on a month-by-month basis as my shifts at the pub, and therefore what I earn from doing them, fluctuate. As yet, I haven’t been required to make any extra contributions. It’s been useful as I’m a bit better off and I have the flexibility to be able to turn down shifts if I’m unable to do them, so it’s a handy arrangement.
My six month review was done a month or so ago, and everything was fine, no changes were required at all.
And then, from out of the blue, I took a call a couple of days ago from someone at my IP (not my Relationship Manager) who told me that she was about to submit a report to my creditor (I only have one), and had been going through the statements I’d submitted. She’d added up all my earnings from my second job and calculated a monthly average from them, and told me that my monthly IVA payment was to increase by £53 as the average figure she’d calculated took me above the 10% threshold.
This was news to me. As we all often do, I thought of all the things I should have said after the call had ended. But I did point out that my extra earnings fluctuate and come below the threshold, and that this was something I’d discussed in detail with my RM, but she told me that calculating them as an average was the ‘fairest’ way to present them to my creditor. I had the impression that this change was happening independent of my RM and wondered if he was even aware that it was happening. But I didn’t want to appear argumentative or uncooperative.
After the conversation, I had the feeling of having been railroaded into something I hadn’t necessarily agreed to, and wondered why this change had been implemented so soon after my six month review had concluded that no changes were necessary.
The situation it creates is this: My second job earnings fluctuate from next to nothing to just under the threshold. An ‘average’ sum is not representative of what I actually earn each month, and the extra £53 I’ve been told I must pay each month (regardless of what I have or haven’t earned) potentially makes me worse off each month because I have a second job, which defeats the object of having it. It may be better for me to quit the second job just so my monthly payment can revert to what it was, which would be a bit daft.
I contacted my RM and he said he would look into what’s happened and get back to me as soon as possible, which made me further suspect that this was as much news to him as it was to me. A worrying and unwelcome development.
Any thoughts?
A few months ago I took on a second job. It’s at a pub I used to work at part-time and they asked me if I’d like to come back for a bit, so I said yes. It’s generally on an ‘as and when’ basis, so I can go for weeks without a single shift, then perhaps do a couple over a weekend then nothing for a couple of weeks, then a burst of shifts over a couple of weeks. It’s paid monthly, so my earnings fluctuate depending on the hours I’ve worked, and generally they’ve been well below the threshold where I have to make extra contributions towards my IVA.
Of course, I’m aware that if what I earn from the second job exceeds 10% of my earnings from my main job, I have to pay 50% of the difference towards my IVA, and I’m more than happy to do that. I discussed it with my Relationship Manager at my IP, and as I send him my bank statements and wage slips every month, he was quite happy for this to be handled on a month-by-month basis as my shifts at the pub, and therefore what I earn from doing them, fluctuate. As yet, I haven’t been required to make any extra contributions. It’s been useful as I’m a bit better off and I have the flexibility to be able to turn down shifts if I’m unable to do them, so it’s a handy arrangement.
My six month review was done a month or so ago, and everything was fine, no changes were required at all.
And then, from out of the blue, I took a call a couple of days ago from someone at my IP (not my Relationship Manager) who told me that she was about to submit a report to my creditor (I only have one), and had been going through the statements I’d submitted. She’d added up all my earnings from my second job and calculated a monthly average from them, and told me that my monthly IVA payment was to increase by £53 as the average figure she’d calculated took me above the 10% threshold.
This was news to me. As we all often do, I thought of all the things I should have said after the call had ended. But I did point out that my extra earnings fluctuate and come below the threshold, and that this was something I’d discussed in detail with my RM, but she told me that calculating them as an average was the ‘fairest’ way to present them to my creditor. I had the impression that this change was happening independent of my RM and wondered if he was even aware that it was happening. But I didn’t want to appear argumentative or uncooperative.
After the conversation, I had the feeling of having been railroaded into something I hadn’t necessarily agreed to, and wondered why this change had been implemented so soon after my six month review had concluded that no changes were necessary.
The situation it creates is this: My second job earnings fluctuate from next to nothing to just under the threshold. An ‘average’ sum is not representative of what I actually earn each month, and the extra £53 I’ve been told I must pay each month (regardless of what I have or haven’t earned) potentially makes me worse off each month because I have a second job, which defeats the object of having it. It may be better for me to quit the second job just so my monthly payment can revert to what it was, which would be a bit daft.
I contacted my RM and he said he would look into what’s happened and get back to me as soon as possible, which made me further suspect that this was as much news to him as it was to me. A worrying and unwelcome development.
Any thoughts?