Cccs

skylight

30 years is not acceptable. I have known CCCS to suggest this and fee-charging ones to as well (from posts on the boards).

However, not one fee-charging one recommended bankruptcy to me - Payplan did (I did not speak to CCCS about my personal circumstances so I cannot comment about them here) and Payplan are funded in a similar fashion to CCCS.

Not everyone can get it right all the time in any industry so its imperative that people speak to as many places as possible. Which in turn is difficult when you are facing meltdown and for some its a harder place to be than rock bottom. Talking to one person can take a tremendous amount of effort, talking to more than one can be impossible for someone to do.

Deep_In_Debt

Yep, CCCS gave the best advice to me. Every fee paying company recommended an IVA to me when I knew it was not suitable for me. Sometimes their advice is a bit "suspect" but generally I go with what I feel is right.

Yes, I knew they were funded by the credit industry which is another reason why I went with them as I felt the credit industry were unlikely to fund a charity they don't trust. They also fund Payplan who are a fee paying company and tend to push IVA's more than dmps (in my experience any way), so creditors receive less, and Payplan make more!

I was also told by 2 of my creditors that if I contacted CCCS and set up a dmp with them, they would accept it and they did.

itsalongroad

Hi

this is a really interesting thread, and its got me thinking

in june I joiuned a cccs DMP, at the time I was expecting bankruptcy to be the only route to go, but was conselled against this. Last month pointing out ongoing interest with several creditors and an expectation that 5 yr(interest free) was becoming 12 (onoging, and increasing mortgage payments reducing disposable income etc etc), I spoke to them again last week

There seems to a strong anti bankruptcy - its the final option and as you are paying alot each month we say carry on.....- steer to the discussion....

mmmm

insider66

Thank you for your comments itsalongroad - I really thought that I would be slated for daring to suggest the CCCS may not be as impartial as so many on here believe.

skylight

I don't think that anyone here really believes that CCCS are totally impartial. We are all well aware of the non-existance of impartiality in every industry and consumer debt is just another one!

But to chose between a fee-charging company and a place like CCCS? Its a no-brainer really. You should never chose a fee-charging one. You should take as much advice as possible and do as much research as possible before you make a decision on the best course of action for you. Places like CCCS can only advise. They cannot tell you what to do. That decision will always be down to the individual.

And really, what we should be doing, is getting this point across to others rather than slate the charity sites. We should be shouting from the roof-tops that debt is not a crime. Is nothing to be embarassed about, we are not the scum of the earth. We just need some help without being taken for a ride.

insider66

skylight wrote: »

I don't think that anyone here really believes that CCCS are totally impartial. We are all well aware of the non-existance of impartiality in every industry and consumer debt is just another one!

And really, what we should be doing, is getting this point across to others rather than slate the charity sites. We should be shouting from the roof-tops that debt is not a crime. Is nothing to be embarassed about, we are not the scum of the earth. We just need some help without being taken for a ride.

I'm sorry skylight, but i disagree - lots of people believe they are impartial and tell you what your best option is, especially when they are recommended so often on here.

The statistic "an iva is only suitable for 3% of people" which is so often used to put newbie's off going into an iva comes straight from the CCCS - and my view is this is wrong. The CCCS are clearly not informing people their best option is an iva or bankruptcy when they can make them pay all the money on an impossibly long or too high a monthly payment dmp because it benefits the creditors who pay their wages.

insider66

skylight wrote: »

Not everyone can get it right all the time in any industry so its imperative that people speak to as many places as possible. Which in turn is difficult when you are facing meltdown and for some its a harder place to be than rock bottom. Talking to one person can take a tremendous amount of effort, talking to more than one can be impossible for someone to do.

you also suggest yourself that people only take one companies advice, and if that's the CCCS - is it the best?

skylight

insider66 wrote: »

you also suggest yourself that people only take one companies advice, and if that's the CCCS - is it the best?

I would personally never suggest that you spoke to one organisation.

But if you only want to talk to one and that happens to be CCCS, then yes. They are far better than a fee-charging company who do not give a flying monkeys about you at all. Its one thing for CCCS to get stuff wrong - its another thing for a company to want to make money out of you (and probably the "assistant" on commission) for their own gain and nothing else.


Who would you recommend people spoke to? And why?

Miss_Piggy_2

insider66 wrote: »

you also suggest yourself that people only take one companies advice, and if that's the CCCS - is it the best?

Surely its the best for those who have found them helpful? No-one is trying to say they literally are the best option for everyone. Everyones situations are different and its down to the individual to assess the advice given and to choose whats right for them.

Could I just ask why you have this thing about them? (just interested, not trying to cause an argument!)

Miss P
xx

moneysavingplumber

insider66 wrote: »

The statistic "an iva is only suitable for 3% of people" which is so often used to put newbie's off going into an iva comes straight from the CCCS - and my view is this is wrong.

The view seems to be based on the level of risk involved to the debtor in comparison to bankruptcy or dmp, and now also seems to be based on the level of poor practice within the IVA industry. I personally believe the statistic is too low and would be interested in the analysis of how they came to that figure; I think it could be suitable for more people provided they were made fully aware of the risks of not being able to sustain the payments. It is buying a service and, like buying any other, has it's risks. All other solutions are not buying a service. I've posted somewhere else in reference to the anticipated SIVA (Simple Individual Voluntary Arrangement) which is rumoured to be being launched next spring which may be suitable for more people, as it apparently will be applicable to people with under £75,000 unsecued debt, will not allow creditors to impose conditions and will have no annual review. I couldn't find reference to equity release on the Insolvency Service proposal site, but it's bound to be different to the current arrangement. It would be great to have more information on it posted as a separate topic on the IVA board if anyone within the industry happens to visit this thread.