Cccs

insider66

Numpty_Monkey wrote: »

Can you please explain to the Numpty what your real problem is with CCCS and DMP's

I've tried to understand this thread, and failed:o

:A

Ok,

Do we accept that there is more than one solution to debt problems? Yes? Good.

If we have a company "wholely funded" by the people who are owed the money, how can we be sure that the advice they give is impartial and in the interest of the debtor?
Sometimes another solution such as an IVA or bankruptcy are better for the individual, but can we trust the CCCS - who may have the creditors interests at heart (due to funding) - to be impartial?

insider66

A DMP is better for the creditor, as they get all the money back, albeit over a longer period, so would - in effect - a creditors agent, advise a solution where the creditor gets less back?

insider66

Making any more sense Numpty?

blind-as-a-bat_2

insider66 wrote: »

Ok,

Do we accept that there is more than one solution to debt problems? Yes? Good.

If we have a company "wholely funded" by the people who are owed the money, how can we be sure that the advice they give is impartial and in the interest of the debtor?
Sometimes another solution such as an IVA or bankruptcy are better for the individual, but can we trust the CCCS - who may have the creditors interests at heart (due to funding) - to be impartial?

Nearly two years ago, in my case yes, they gave the correct advice, even though i disagreed (i was still trying to deny the truth of my situation:o )

Fast forward to now, they seem to be pushing IVA,s, not DMP,s or BR.

coincedently with forming CCCSVA

blind-as-a-bat_2

insider66 wrote: »

A DMP is better for the creditor, as they get all the money back, albeit over a longer period, so would - in effect - a creditors agent, advise a solution where the creditor gets less back?

Hmmm that may not be true, as certain creditors are now refusing to enter into a DMP agreemant, or are pulling out of existing ones

Numpty_Monkey

insider66 wrote: »

Ok,

Do we accept that there is more than one solution to debt problems? Yes? yesGood.yes

If we have a company "wholely funded" by the people who are owed the money, how can we be sure that the advice they give is impartial and in the interest of the debtor? we can't
Sometimes another solution such as an IVA or bankruptcy are better for the individual, but can we trust the CCCS yes- who may have the creditors interests at heart (due to funding) - to be impartial?IVA's:rolleyes: and bankruptcy have been recomended when needed[/quote]

nope still can't see your problem

blind-as-a-bat_2

Numpty_Monkey wrote: »

[Ok,

Do we accept that there is more than one solution to debt problems? Yes? yesGood.yes

If we have a company "wholely funded" by the people who are owed the money, how can we be sure that the advice they give is impartial and in the interest of the debtor? we can't
Sometimes another solution such as an IVA or bankruptcy are better for the individual, but can we trust the CCCS yes- who may have the creditors interests at heart (due to funding) - to be impartial?IVA's:rolleyes: and bankruptcy have been recomended when needed[/quote]

nope still can't see your problem

Numpty Monkey, CCCS are now linked to an IVA company, CCCSVA, advice given to take an IVA has been wrong as shown several times on the BR board over the last month or so.

in short, regardles of the other views in this thread, i am very concerned they are not as impartial as they where

Numpty_Monkey

Thank you blind:kisses3:

coolcait

insider66 wrote: »

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

I know that 'the 3% stat' has been quoted in both ways - I read your posts

I note the absence of any cited source from you; I personally don't think it shows much rigour to effectively say 'lots of other people keep quoting it differently'; and I also note your complete failure to provide any kind of alternative statistic in support of your belief that 'the 3% stat' is wrong.

In the absence of all of the above, I can only surmise that 'the 3% stat' comes from this line in Martin's IVA guide:

"Leading debt help charity the Consumer Credit Counselling Service

recommended IVAs to only 3% of people with serious debt problems in 2006"

This statement appears to have been interpreted in a number of ways. You have interpreted it as showing that CCCS do not recommend IVAs because they are a tool of creditors, and thus will not recommend a solution which will not pay them back all of their money.

You state that others have "misinterpreted [it] to read that only 3% of people in difficulty should find an IVA the right solution". 'Misinterpret' is YOUR word. The truth is that other people have simply interpreted that statistic differently from you. Which means, in a roundabout way, that YOU may have misinterpreted it (especially as you seem to have been unable to find the original source of the statistic).

If you look at the strict outline of when an IVA should be appropriate (and it's very similar to trust deeds in that sense) then it wouldn't be surprising if it was only truly appropriate for a minority of people. It may be more than 3%, but I doubt if it would come anywhere near the percentage who are currently on an IVA. Thus the concerns about mis-selling.

And, if CCCS are receiving calls/emails from a representative section of the population, it may well be that their findings CAN be extrapolated to 'IVAs are only appropriate for 3% of people in debt". I don't know. And you haven't presented any hard facts to rebut such an extrapolation - just insinuations that it can't possibly be true because CCCS receive funding from creditor organisations.

The bottom line is that IVAs/trust deeds - if used properly - should be an alternative to bankruptcy, not to Debt Management Programmes, whether voluntary or statutory (like the Debt Arrangement Scheme in Scotland).

I have seen nothing in your posts which puts forward a cogent argument which would lead me to agree with your conclusion/belief about what CCCS recommend. I have, however, seen posts from people which belie those conclusions. And I have still seen nothing from you to back up your assertion that CCCS never recommend bankruptcy. Can you provide that please?

coolcait

insider66 wrote: »

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....

Yet how likely is it that everyone will go bankrupt or into an IVA on CCCS advice? As I have already mentioned, not everyone meets the basic criteria for an IVA/trust deed (even when you interpret them in the 'write off you debts' sense, rather than the 'alternative to bankruptcy' sense). Nor will everyone be able to go bankrupt.

I'm not sure if your argument here is a red herring or a straw man. However, it does smell a bit fishy, IMO, and I hope it has just gone up in smoke