What courses of action are open to me to appeal

[Steve.t1]

I could accept that Melanie, I am ashamed that I could not pay back my debts. However that is not how the IVA was 'SOLD' to me. It was a five year plan and nothing else.

My share of the equity is currently valued at about 25,0000 pounds. I have no idea what it was worth in July 2006 but it would have been less, house prices have risen substantially in that period. I live in the bottom scale of the market, my current property is valued at about 130,000 and my mortgage redemption is 71,393 made up of a 54,000 original mortgage and 17,000 secured loan. both are have about 19 years to run.


I would like to make the point that when we signed the proposals it was deemed nessecary by my IP to send a representative from Bolton to my home in Essex to explain everything and to 'sign us up' to a proposal that contained no equity clause.

Yet the modification of this magnitude is sent through he post with no effort to make sure I understood the seismic ramifications. At that time I would have signed anything put in front of me, if it came with the promise of debt free in five years.

I know I am like a dog with a bone about this and that I probably sound like i am whinging and wriggling, but I cannot put into words how devastated I am. In the 1980's I Suffered the full effect of negative equity as my house plummeted from around 60,00 to 20, 000. It was the major factor in me getting into so much unsecured debt.

I am taking on board your advice even if it doesn't sound like it.

[MelanieGiles]

The equity must have been calculated at the time you entered into your IVA - as the IP would have to have had to confirm the valuation and mortgage redemption figures for the purpose of presenting your statement of affairs.

If the creditor modification was not properly explained to you, and you can prove that, then you may have grounds that it was never incorporated into the IVA in the first place, however your case is weak in that you recognise that there was a need to raise equity over a year ago and for various reasons this has not occured.

I cannot see that you have a case for mis-selling - perhaps one for malpractice by your IP in not confirming your understanding of the implications of the clause. Why not try and do a deal of the equity sum on grounds of affordability at say £10k.

[Steve.t1]

I did speak to debtmatters about the 4th year clause in the fourth year on the telephone. They advised me to carry on paying and they would contact me if anything changes. They had ample opportunity to write to me and advise or instruct me. Is there no onus on them do do so. What exactly were they supervising.? They do not appear to have acted in my interest at all

Payplan, in complete contrast have since written to me requesting exactly what I have to do.

[Steve.t1]

I have now located on my original proposal that my house was valued at £95,000 in July 2003

[jane.l]

Can I just say, Steve, I really do feel for you, your scenario is one of the reasons why we decided not to pursue an IVA and went bankrupt instead, we were so scared of this debt millstone hanging around our neck for the rest of our lives!

[Steve.t1]

Thanks Jane. Its funny. When I read my own posts back on here, I realise that I am coming across as a whinger.If it was someone else and I was reading it I would probably be thinking

'You signed the agreement, if you didn't like it you should have said so at the time. Shut up and pay what you owe and count yourself lucky.'

But at the time it didn't happen like that. The equity clause was introduced after I had totally bought into the idea of the IVA. Bearing mind the state you are in by the time you reach that point, it just seems to easy to accept verbal assusrances and sign whats put in front of you.

Yes I signed the modification, but if that man had sat in my lounge and put it to me as it later turned out, I would not have taken him up.

[jane.l]

I don’t think you moaning at all, I would be stressed and worried if I were in your position too!

In our case, we had negative equity so there was no equity clause in the IVA proposal we had drawn up, but there was always the worry about “what if house prices rise rapidly and suddenly a clause is requested” It was a worrying prospect of paying ALL your disposable income for 6 years and then having to re-mortgage for another God-knows how many years! I do feel it is quite unfair.


It is not quite the "debt free" that is promoted, cos then you stuck with another mortgage, you just have loads of secured debt but no unsecured debt.

[Emily]

I think Jane has anwered the query spot on!

An IVA let you keep the house and in return you give a chunk of your remortgage to the creditors. In BR they would have taken it.It would be less complicated without that asset...and you would have more written off.A geezer post here recently said he was paying 17p to the pound over 70k OF DEBT WITH NO ASSETS.

As you have 25K now and not neg EQ, I can see how miffed you are - you are nearing the end of your journey. But blame the 'Boom and Bust'debacle under Labour and not the IP or creditors.If your house had 1K of EQ now you wouldn't care if they took that.

You have to say to yourself whether you would have gone BR instead if you were told of the 4th year EQ clause in those years ago? And yes your IP didn't say which was stupid of him but the facts of the 4th year EQ release existed despite what your IP or you might have have thought at the time. You were misinformed but sorry to say not missold

[Steve.t1]

If you are asked to sign something by an expert acting on your behalf and you say to him, "but what about this bit, isn't that a problem?" And he answers " Dont worry about that , they always put that in but in your case it wont happen" and on the strength of that you sign, wouldn't you consider yourself mis- sold when it later transpires you have to hand over 25,000 grand and take out a mortgage to pay for it?

[MelanieGiles]

I think it definately gives you grounds for a compliant Steve. I know of an IP recently who got fined £7,000 by her regulatory body for not being able to demonstrate that she had received her client's approval to a modification - and this also related to the raising of equity in her property during the final year.

Whilst a complaint against your IP may ultimately provide you with some satisfaction, it does not really address the real issue - in that creditors are still owed money and will expect to get some share of your property equity. And you would not have had an IVA in the first place, had you not agreed to raise this - albeit I accept it could have been done earlier.

[mazaratichick]

Hi,

I am in a similar position to Steve, with similar equity in my house, but my original agreement with Debt Matters did not include any reference at all to me having to re-mortgage my house, in fact there is no mention of the house at all. Now that my arrangement has been transferred to Grant Thornton and I have 'agreed' to changes, are they allowed to introduce this change? I am very worried now?

[MelanieGiles]

No they are not - but do check your original Chairman's Report to make sure that this was not modified in by creditors - or course this would have had to be with your express agreement.

[mazaratichick]

I only have a copy of the report produced prior to the meeting, I was never notified of any changes so I hope that none were made that I don't know about. I feel a bit daft now but I didn't realise that things could be changed??

[OPTIMIST12]

All Modifications must be agreed by the debtor - mine were read out to me over the phone on Meeting day AND I was then required to sign a written version.

If you are absolutely sure you were never notified - no phone call, no letter, - then I do not see that you can have had any Mods!!!

[mazaratichick]

Well that's a relief... thank you for clarifying this for me!