www.iva.co.uk

Much is written here about the recovery of bank charges whislt in an IVA - has anyone persued this after an IVA had finished? The windfall would then be 100% yours? As much as I would want to repay all my creditors the full amount if I could, for the sake of holding off a claim for a few years, I could have it all!

I would guess that if you waited until the IVA was over the statute of limitations on claims may have expired anyway. I believe that there is a six year rule regarding torts not pertaining to personal injury but maybe someone on here with legal advice could confirm this.

i claimed mine , well the credit card ones whilst in year 2 of my IVA.

Received about 2k over the year and i was allowed to keep it all. I was surprised the banks offered to refund it to me directly but once they did i'm not going to complain.

Then my IP allowed me to keep it result.

I'm hoping they will get a move on with the overdraft charges case that's about a year late.

I stand to make about 6k on that.. Not that i'm even expecting to a) receive it or b) be allowed to keep it all.

All i'd say is if you don't ask you don't get.

£35 court fees x 3 for £2000 back . Reeeesult.

I should add that the 6 year thing with bank charges is now debatable.

Check out www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk who have a bank charges section. You'll find all you need there.

What a generous IP!!! On what basis were you permitted to retain the monies - and was this disclosed to your creditors?

I am "Post IVA" and I have successfully claimed back charges from 2 creditors (so far). The argument I used was this ...

"If the IVA is in progress, I am advised that if the creditors include unfair charges in their claim then these should be reflected by a reduction in the size of the claim the bank/credit card companies can make in the IVA, therefore reducing the share of the dividend the IVA will payout to that creditor and increasing the share of the dividend the other creditors will receive.

This is because the creditors would otherwise receive an unfair share of the dividend.

[Moreover, I am aware of some people in this position, where they were able to reclaim the charges, which they were then obliged to declare as “windfall payments” and as such, pay into their IVA.]

However, once the IVA completes, the opportunity to reduce the debt in the IVA dies, as it is considered settled.

The creditors may argue that I should not receive a refund of the charges as I never actually paid them, or, I still owe them as part of the debt I entered and the creditor claimed in the IVA which, I didn't repay in full anyway.

However, I am advised that the credit card companies and banks chose to unlawfully and unfairly claim the charges as part of their claim (thereby denying other creditors of their share of the dividend), furthermore, they state in their terms and conditions on the loan/credit card agreements that repayments are made reduce the balance on a customer’s account in the following order:

1. Default charges and interest on default charges
2. Promotional balances (including interest) and fees
3. Other interest fees and charges
4. Standard rate purchases and balance transfers
5. Cash balance.

Therefore – where they have received a dividend under the IVA, their default charges and fees would have been the first element of the debt to have been paid. Therefore it is fair that I am able to request them back, in full, including interest at the statutory rate."


On the other matter about statute barring (the six year rule) - I have also claimed back PPI from a company who attemped to have my county court case struck out as it was time barred. I only became aware of the whole mis-selling issue earlier this year

In this case - the argument (that was accepted by the District Judge) was as follows:

"Section 32 (c) of the Limitation Act 1980 postpones the commencement of the limitation period in cases of mistake. In my case my mistake was in believing what I was told by the salesman. I only learned of my mistake earlier this year when I took advice after reading about just this type of mis-selling of PPI in the press. I have now been advised that the House of Lords in Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council [1998] UKHL 38 changed the law of mistake so that 'ignorance of the law' is now no longer 'no excuse'. The consequence of that decision as Lord Hoffman pointed out, is that limitation will only now run from the date of my first knowledge of my remedy in law."

I'm not a lawyer - but I hope that this helps...