I can understand the frustration in waiting for cases to be closed, and hopefully IPs may soon be able to issue Certificates of Due Completion to at least confirm to their clients that they have fully complied with the terms of the IVA and are therefore released from all obligations (apart from to co-operate with their IPs) even if the case cannot properly be closed for good reason.
Hi Christine, i echo everything that has been said above, let's hope that you get somewhere today, it is shocking that you have had to wait all this time, fingers crossed for you. xx
Om shanti, namesté, good luck to all who are embarking on the IVA journey, it isn't always an easy one but the outcome is the best.
IVA COMPLETED August 2012, received Completion certificate 18.4.13.
Well am on the phone at this very minute to my IP, still not getting anywhere fast,on hold again,,do they think i,m made of money,this call is costing me a fortune,,well what a surprise,,NO update will let me know in mid November now, so now going to find the address of the regulating body of Insolvancy Practitioners and put in a formal complaint,,i didn,t even get to speak to him as usual,,,SO FED UP
I am not sure that this is something that the regulators will involve themselves in Christine - at a recent meeting I held with the IPA it was clear that so long as the IP could justify valid reasons for keeping cases open then they would not deem this to be malpractice on the part of the IP.
Mel, maybe there are valid reasons for keeping the case open, but surely the regulators can involve themselves in the apparent mis-treatment of the client --- total lack of communication and again blocking contact with the IP.
We are all aware that delays happen but many firms really need to brush up on customer care --- throughout the IVA they cajole us into keeping them informed of every change, yet, when the time comes for them to tell US something, or keep US in the loop, they fail miserably.
I will now, gracefully, fall off of this horse .......
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
Blocking contact with the IP is my book is a black mark - it should not happen.
The problem with PPI is that for most firms taking it seriously - such as my own - the situation remains fluid with many differing legal opinions floating around, and differing interpretations - often which boil down to what an individual word means.
I agree that communication with clients is key, but I do think that it would be more frustrating for clients if they were told one thing one week and another thing another week. I try to report honestly and currently on this forum about the PPI issue - which I can assure you is equally as frustrating for IPs as it is for our clients - but find I am continually defending our position, where individual IPs need to explain their own position to their clients. There will be guidance issued to IPs - but that guidance will not be prescriptive or statutory - and the most important part of that guidance will be that IPs need to seek their own legal opinions based on their own proposals and the terms and conditions associated to them.
We all want to do what is right, especially as the return to creditors and debt purchasers is enormous - but an IP who chooses to disregard his or her own barrister/lawyer treads a dangerous path - and if we get it wrong we are personally liable. No IP is going to put their own assets on the block if they have any sense.
So on behalf of my profession - a profession who have helped many people to avoid bankruptcy, repay a far lower amount to creditors than they were contractually liable, and to provide complete protection against the actions of greedy and pressurising creditors - a big apology for the inconvenience in us not being able to close your cases when you would like us to.
So after reading all that what does one suggest i do,,i was so angry this morning that i,m not allowed to talk to my IP,,shall i just hold on and wait? So far nobody has mentioned PPI from GT,that will be all i need,,guess i,ll just have to sit back and wait for another few months,,,,
I hope that Mel will be on leter - as it's not PPI but an overpayment to a creditor that is holding things up. I realise that IP firms have major headaches with PPI and VAT refunds but 18 months to recover an overpayment??? - I can't see that's acceptable.
I really feel for GT customers. I just hope they are increasing their staff every time they take over different companies caseloads.
I think that you need to contact GT - either by e-mail or letter, to ask them to confirm to you exactly what is holding up the closure of your case and the timescale in which they hope to have matters resolved by. This is a reasonable requeat and one which deserves a reasonable and truthful answer.
As a profession, we are working together to try and find a way to issue completion certificates which effectively discharge our clients from their responsibilities under the IVA agreements, whilst allowing the cases to remain open for the IPs to deal with VAT, PPI and any other matters which are currently preventing closure.
The phone call this morning to my IP who i wasn,t allowed to talk to, says they are still chasing the overpayments,and will update me mid November,and sorry for the delay,,
Hi Christine 23. As we are in the same situation as you. We have had an e mail today saying much the same. They will update us every 3 weeks so that seems to me that things are not going to end soon. 18 months after final payment.
Do either of you know specifically which creditors have been overpaid and why it is taking so long for them to repay the monies so that your IP can equalise the dividend and get the cases closed?
No they don,t tell me anything,i did ask but just get deathly silence,i will write to my IP today and ask him who the creditors are that are taking there time paying back the monies.
If someone has made a mistake when allocating our funds then this is not our fault . Whoever is withholding funds not belonging to them should by law hand it back immediately. Maybe the financial ombudsman could sort this out as it is really unacceptable and we just keep getting fobbed off
