Cccs

coolcait

insider66 wrote: »

It seems to me that coolcait has already made their mind up before any discussion in this forum.

I simply cannot believe that of 80,000 clients of CCCS, only 2.2% were recommended for an IVA as being a solution.

The average debt is as stated in their summary approx 29-30k, with monthly payments of 230ish GBP

(I'm sure coolcait will dispute these figures as not being accurate enough!!!) but they are pretty close, making an average DMP 10.8 years. IF the interest is frozen.

Every one can make their own mind up, of course, but I for one welcome a detailed look into the work of a "charity" that is entirely funded by the people who are owed.

Isn't the CCCS a debt collector by another name?

You've already done the red herring/straw man thing.

Now you're using the approach of attacking the person not the argument :rolleyes:

Please feel free to show why you disagree with the points I've made so far, and explain why you think that any supporting evidence I've used is wrong. That would be more in the spirit of debate - and would help all of us see all of the angles under discussion.

You have stated that the average length of a DMP is 10.8 years. That's pretty much a third of the '30 years' you have used as your example until now. A little more than twice the length of an IVA.

Why do you feel that this is an unreasonable length of time for someone to pay off their debts, while avoiding personal insolvency?

You ask "Isn't the CCCS a debt collector by another name?" Is that what you think they are? For what reason(s)?

I don't have any issues with a detailed look into CCCS. I see no reason to question their charity status, given that it is a registered charity. I have doubts about it being entirely funded "by the people who are owed", given the many discussions about the interest accrued between the date payments are made to CCCS, and the date those payments are transmitted to creditors. I would also suggest that not all creditors are involved in funding CCCS.

However, in tandem with any detailed look into CCCS, I would like to see an equally detailed look into the advice given by other organisations who recommend and run IVAs and trust deeds. To echo your wording, these organisations could be described as:

'advice givers' who give advice which will allow them to take money from their clients, if they follow that advice.

P.S. As already mentioned, CCCS recommended insolvency in over a fifth of their case last year. The majority of these were bankruptcies - in direct contradiction to your earlier claim that they never recommended bankruptcy. My other points on IVAs have been ignored by you in favour of targetting me with another accusation ('coolcait's mind was made up before any discussion in this forum'). You appear to have inadvertently found something which we might have in common :rotfl: (if your accusation should be true ).

insider66

coolcait wrote: »

[/left]

I don't have any difficulty with that - they make sure that the client (and family) have enough to live on. DMPs are proposed provided there are sufficient funds. Other advice is offered as appropriate - including bankruptcy (19.4% of cases); IVAs (2.2% of cases); token payments (15.1% of cases).

Seems like a good spread of advice to me.

I doubt if anyone on token payments would be taken on by a company running IVAs/trust deeds. And we don't know what the monthly payments are in the DMPs (41.9% of cases. Down from last year - how does that sit with the assertion that CCCS are 'pushing' DMPs?). It may be that the monthly contributions are under the level which would interest IVA/trust deed providers.







[/size][/font]


[/font][/size][/size][/font][/font][/size][/size][/font]

What is your assertion that this is a good spread of advice based on?

insider66

coolcait wrote: »

You've already done the red herring/straw man thing.

Now you're using the approach of attacking the person not the argument :rolleyes: I suggest that you started on this route...

Please feel free to show why you disagree with the points I've made so far, and explain why you think that any supporting evidence I've used is wrong. That would be more in the spirit of debate - and would help all of us see all of the angles under discussion. You mention too many points in 1 post, and I have a life other than spending all day refuting every angle of your argument

You have stated that the average length of a DMP is 10.8 years. That's pretty much a third of the '30 years' you have used as your example until now. A little more than twice the length of an IVA. If the average is 10.8yrs, and you suggest some people are in a DMP lasting 6 or 7, so some are shorter, then others are in one for much longer - is this a 'solution', or a means of making people pay over an inordinately long period to make sure they pay the debt?

Why do you feel that this is an unreasonable length of time for someone to pay off their debts, while avoiding personal insolvency? See above

You ask "Isn't the CCCS a debt collector by another name?" Is that what you think they are? For what reason(s)? Already covered above

I don't have any issues with a detailed look into CCCS. I see no reason to question their charity status, given that it is a registered charity. I have doubts about it being entirely funded "by the people who are owed", given the many discussions about the interest accrued between the date payments are made to CCCS, and the date those payments are transmitted to creditors. I would also suggest that not all creditors are involved in funding CCCS. "Entirely funded" is a direct quote from the CCCS website - there is no mention of this interest accrual - where does this suggestion come from? No evidence to suggest this is true

However, in tandem with any detailed look into CCCS, I would like to see an equally detailed look into the advice given by other organisations who recommend and run IVAs and trust deeds. To echo your wording, these organisations could be described as: That's a different discussion - start your own thread

'advice givers' who give advice which will allow them to take money from their clients, if they follow that advice.

P.S. As already mentioned, CCCS recommended insolvency in over a fifth of their case last year. The majority of these were bankruptcies - in direct contradiction to your earlier claim that they never recommended bankruptcy. There is a strong steer away from bankruptcy, discussed by others in this forumMy other points on IVAs have been ignored by you in favour of targetting me with another accusation ('coolcait's mind was made up before any discussion in this forum'). "It seems to me..."You appear to have inadvertently found something which we might have in common :rotfl: (if your accusation should be true ) I never suggested my mind wasn't made up.. otherwise why would I have started this thread?.

Hope this helps

insider66

Off to work now cool....

I'll catch up with you later no doubt

Have a good day

thefoolonthehill

Have just read through this thread and found it extremely interesting.

I went into a DMP with CCCS in Oct 06, despite the recomendation from them to go BR. I also around this time recommended a friend use CCCS and their advise to them was also to go BR (which my friend did).

When I told them I was worried about BR they explained the whole process to me and told me their was nothing to worry about and that it would still be the best option for me.

I am therefore disappointed to learn that this no longer seems to be the case, and wondered what the posters on this board who have recently used CCCS have been advised.

As I said they were fantastic two years ago, and hopefully will be for the next 4 years of my DMP.

rugbymum

thefoolonthehill wrote: »

Have just read through this thread and found it extremely interesting.

I went into a DMP with CCCS in Oct 06, despite the recomendation from them to go BR. I also around this time recommended a friend use CCCS and their advise to them was also to go BR (which my friend did).

When I told them I was worried about BR they explained the whole process to me and told me their was nothing to worry about and that it would still be the best option for me.

I am therefore disappointed to learn that this no longer seems to be the case, and wondered what the posters on this board who have recently used CCCS have been advised.

As I said they were fantastic two years ago, and hopefully will be for the next 4 years of my DMP.

I started with them in Feb/March this year, and they advised BR then and are still advising it now. I just can't afford the fees! :rolleyes: