Cccs

blind-as-a-bat_2

Whether it will win friends or not is irrelivent

There is evidence CCCS are advising CCCSVA in situations where income is not stable or guarenteed, there are no assets to protect and no other reasons why an IVA would be suitable

My question is why? Whats in it for them?

Something has changed at CCCS, they used to get slated for advising BR too often, but now seem to have gone the other way ever since CCCSVA came into being

This was what happened with PayPlan when they started there own profit making IVA company.

Could history be repeating itself

insider66

There is some great advice in these forums, I started this thread because I was concerned the CCCS were very regularly being advocated as THE people to talk to.

I wholeheartedly agree advice should be sought from as many sources as possible.

coolcait

Hiya

Insider, can I ask which of these statistics is the one you wished to put forward for discussion, and where you got these statistics from:

“The CCCS recommend 3% of people for an IVA, how many do they recommend bankruptcy to? None.”

or

"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. “

If the second quote should have been expanded to “an IVA is only suitable for 3% of the people who contact CCCS, that would tie in with the first statistic. It might then be a point in support of the claims you are making about CCCS. It might simply be indicative of the fact that – of those who contact CCCS – only 3% fit the criteria for doing an IVA.

If the second statistic is meant to be taken as an absolute statement that “an IVA is only suitable for 3% of people in debt” then – if true – that might indicate that CCCS (supposed) stats are completely in line with the wider picture. It might support your claims about CCCS. It might also be indicative of the mis-selling of IVAs which worried a number of entities – including the UK Insolvency Helpline, to whom you linked (“Our own specialist IVA advice unit receives over 100 calls a day from people being poorly advised by many profit-making advertising debt firms and persuaded that an IVA is right for them in circumstances where it clearly is not suitable.” http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/news/topnews1.php)

You also mentioned (not for the first time on these forums) that “A 30 year debt management plan is not a 'solution'”. How can you be so sure that it is not the best – or perhaps only - option for the people involved? (That doesn’t make it an ideal solution, but ‘best’ and ‘ideal’ are not necessarily synonyms).

IVAs (and Scottish Trust Deeds, which I know more about) are not accessible to everyone, simply because they do not have enough surplus income, or assets. Many people in that situation are also unable to access bankruptcy because they are not in a position to make themselves bankrupt, and their creditors do not take that step (this was at least part of the reasoning behind the introduction of the Low Income Low Asset route into bankruptcy in Scotland earlier this year).

For people in that situation, being harassed daily by creditors, a DMP will get them some relief from the harassment. The bare facts of the DMP may look startling (30 years or more!!), but that may well be indicative of the fact that the person is only able to make very small payments to it. For that person, a DMP may have been the only option open to them.

As for impartiality/giving advice which is best for the debtor, you seem to be worried if it is actually possible for CCCS to be impartial, given that they are funded by creditor organisations.

Surely that worry must also be applied to the organisations/trustees who run IVAs/Trust Deeds? IMO, that worry is amplified where those organizations are concerned. They derive a direct financial benefit when someone takes up their ‘advice’ to sign an IVA or trust deed. They are the only ones who are assured of getting any money (at least where trust deeds are concerned, IVAs may be different).

When IVAs are advertised as ‘write off up to 70% of your debt (or whatever figure is cited) I often wonder what that actually means for the person paying into the IVA. Where trust deeds are concerned, it CAN mean that the person pays an amount which is MORE than 70% of their total debt, but their creditors receive 10% of the total debt, and have to write off 90% (they may receive nothing at all).

Also, with trust deeds. there is no automatic discharge. It is possible for a trustee to be discharged, but not discharge the debtor. So, someone can find themselves a couple of grand out of pocket, still owing everything they owed at the beginning of the trust deed.

insider66

Hi coolcait,

I appreciate your post, but aren't you being a little pedantic about these stats? They are posted freely on several threads, and I have neither the interest or inclination to check their accuracy. The point is, that newbie's are told these statistics as being gospel when asking for advice, and I doubt they have checked their validity before acting and getting possible poor advice from the free companies.

Further, is it not better for a debtor paying for an enormous length of time to save the money and go bankrupt - there are also utility companies who can sometimes help with the cost of bankruptcy - so I'm reliably informed.

coolcait

insider66 wrote: »

Hi coolcait,

I appreciate your post, but aren't you being a little pedantic about these stats? They are posted freely on several threads, and I have neither the interest or inclination to check their accuracy. The point is, that newbie's are told these statistics as being gospel when asking for advice, and I doubt they have checked their validity before acting and getting possible poor advice from the free companies.

Further, is it not better for a debtor paying for an enormous length of time to save the money and go bankrupt - there are also utility companies who can sometimes help with the cost of bankruptcy - so I'm reliably informed.

Hiya

I don't think I'm being pedantic about the stats. You quoted the 3% in two different ways - potentially giving it two different meanings. That's why I was looking for clarification as to the way you meant it.

I was also curious about your claim that CCCS NEVER advise bankruptcy - when I know that some posters on MSE have said that they looked at bankruptcy on CCS's advice. That's why I was curious about where you had found that particular stat.

It is clear from many sources - including the insolvency helpline - that people are being sold IVAs (and trust deeds) when those solutions are not appropriate for their particular circumstances. The point of principle is that people are being mis-sold IVAs. That point is, IMO, shocking enough in itself that the percentages become less important (what a failure I am as a stats pedant here :rotfl: ).

You may believe that it is is better for a debtor to go bankrupt, rather than pay for an enormous amount of time. Some debtors do not want to go bankrupt OR go into an IVA. They WANT to try to pay their debts back. A good adviser, IMO, will respect their wishes.

Your posts suggest that you are concerned that CCCS may somehow be 'pushing' debtors towards paying back their debts rather than writing them off through an IVA or bankruptcy. I cannot see how it would be any better for CCCS (or any other adviser) to 'push' them towards an IVA or bankruptcy. How would that be 'the best solution' for the debtor, when it is clearly ignoring their own wishes in the matter?

I cannot speak for how it works in England, but in Scotland not everyone who wants to go bankrupt can do so. If they don't meet the Low Income Low Asset requirements, and they don't have any proof of apparent insolvency, they simply cannot make themselves bankrupt. And everyone has to pay the fee (£100), there are no exemptions.

I have certainly seen posts from people in England and Wales who want to go bankrupt, but do not have the money to pay the fees to do so. If they are already just making token payments, it will take them a long time to save up, even if they stop making those payments.

Under those circumstances, a DMP - however long it may be on paper - offers them some protection from creditor harassment until they are in a position to go down another route. Again, that seems to me to be 'the best solution' for those people, under those circumstances.

blind-as-a-bat_2

coolcait wrote: »

Under those circumstances, a DMP - however long it may be on paper - offers them some protection from creditor harassment until they are in a position to go down another route. Again, that seems to me to be 'the best solution' for those people, under those circumstances.

A DMP offers no protection from creditors at all, legal or otherwise.....yet........hopefully that may change next year, though i wont hold my breath.

The fact you believe it does though means you need to do some more research;)

That fact alone sickens me, that even though so many try to do the "right thing" they are not given any protection for doing so

insider66

The 3% has been quoted in both ways lots of times, it is actually that the CCCS recommend IVA's to only 3% of clients, but that figure is then regularly misinterpreted to read that only 3% of people in difficulty should find an IVA the right solution.

I don't believe that CCCS are offering people a choice between a DMP, IVA or Bankruptcy, merely selling them on a DMP solution as their wage payers are happier with a DMP

Deep_In_Debt

Not sure that dmps do pay their wages as they are free. however, IVA's probably do pay their wages.

insider66

Deep_In_Debt wrote: »

Not sure that dmps do pay their wages as they are free. however, IVA's probably do pay their wages.

Hello again

I said "selling them on a DMP solution" - not charging them.....

DMP's - I suggest - DO pay their wages, as the creditors may well withdraw the funding if everyone went bankrupt or into an IVA on CCCS advice....

insider66

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
sell

verb, sold, sell⋅ing, noun –verb (used with object) 1.to transfer (goods) to or render (services) for another in exchange for money; dispose of to a purchaser for a price: He sold the car to me for $1000. 2.to deal in; keep or offer for sale: He sells insurance. This store sells my favorite brand. 3.to make a sale or offer for sale to: He'll sell me the car for $1000. 4.to persuade or induce (someone) to buy something: The salesman sold me on a more expensive model than I wanted.