Cccs

coolcait

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

Except the OFT never are seen to act on there own guidelines, slight problem that:rolleyes:

(from personal expeiriance;) )

I'm not sure where you're coming from on all of this, bat

My original post talked about 'some protection from creditor harassment'. No absolutes, no mention of legal requirements. Just 'some' protection.

An assessment based, not least, on having read reams of posts which suggest - as stated before - that some creditors appear to back off voluntarily when a person is in a DMP. Maybe that's just the posters' perceptions, as they FEEL more protected having someone to deal with their debts. However, if they FEEL more protected, I certainly have no intention of trying to undermine that.

As for the OFT not acting - there are plenty of reports of creditors not complying with CCA requests, yet that hasn't stopped people trying to use those regulations.

Maybe if more people actively used the OFT's complaints procedure, it would create a 'critical mass' to get 'action'. Maybe not. However, it is an option available to people in a DMP if they are feeling harassed by creditors. And I have seen it recommended on MSE that people should write to creditors making them aware of such breaches of OFT guidelines (and others). I totally agree with such advice - on the 'put everything in writing' principle if nothing else.

Your experience of the OFT may have made you cynical about my posts mentioning their guidelines. Or it may be other experiences entirely. However, I take the 'keep plugging away' approach rather than the 'didn't work for me; didn't work for a guy a knew; didn't work for nobody' approach.
We are all different, I guess, and vive la difference :T

insider66

coolcait wrote: »

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

What about the people that do meet the criteria you mention "for an IVA/Trust Deed" and are still advised a DMP is the solution?

They are paying more money than they need to - to the benefit of the creditor.

Are you missing this point on purpose? It has been explained many times on this thread.

blind-as-a-bat_2

coolcait wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're coming from on all of this, bat

My original post talked about 'some protection from creditor harassment'. No absolutes, no mention of legal requirements. Just 'some' protection.

An assessment based, not least, on having read reams of posts which suggest - as stated before - that some creditors appear to back off voluntarily when a person is in a DMP. Maybe that's just the posters' perceptions, as they FEEL more protected having someone to deal with their debts. However, if they FEEL more protected, I certainly have no intention of trying to undermine that.

As for the OFT not acting - there are plenty of reports of creditors not complying with CCA requests, yet that hasn't stopped people trying to use those regulations.

Maybe if more people actively used the OFT's complaints procedure, it would create a 'critical mass' to get 'action'. Maybe not. However, it is an option available to people in a DMP if they are feeling harassed by creditors. And I have seen it recommended on MSE that people should write to creditors making them aware of such breaches of OFT guidelines (and others). I totally agree with such advice - on the 'put everything in writing' principle if nothing else.

Your experience of the OFT may have made you cynical about my posts mentioning their guidelines. Or it may be other experiences entirely. However, I take the 'keep plugging away' approach rather than the 'didn't work for me; didn't work for a guy a knew; didn't work for nobody' approach.
We are all different, I guess, and vive la difference :T

To start going into the uselessnes of the OFT would hijack this thread, but trust me, it not just me being cynical

Just ask yourself why DCA,s ( and some creditors) dont care about breaching OFT guidlines, and even openly state they dont apply to them;)

insider66

I quote from it:

"1.3 INSOLVENCY

The number of new IVAs dropped sharply
in 2007, reversing the upward trend of
previous years. One of the major reasons
for this decline was CCCS’ entrance into the

IVA market"

ALSO:

Table 3.3.2 details how much money has been repaid by clients to their
lenders through CCCS. In 2007, CCCS repaid over £194 million to lenders,
almost double the amount repaid in 2005.
Table 3.3.2 – Repayments to lenders
2005 2006 2007

Total repayment £99,269,884 £140,327,999 £194,814,158

Table 3.6.5 – Appointment recommendations
2006 2007
DMP 45.8% 41.9%
Bankruptcy/sequestration 20.0% 19.4%
Token payments 13.9% 15.1%
Meets actual payments 6.3% 7.4%
Client to deal directly with creditors 4.6% 6.6%
Realise assets 4.1% 4.4%
IVA/trust deed 3.0% 2.2%
Income maximisation 1.9% 2.4%

Administration orders 0.5% 0.6%



ON CCCS INTERVIEWS

The interview consists of a full review of their household budget and
debt situation. The fi rst priority is to ensure that the client and the client’s
family have enough to live on: only then will the counsellor discuss options
for repaying debts. Provided there are suffi cient funds, the counsellor will
propose a DMP which CCCS will administer. Other advice is offered as
appropriate, including bankruptcy, IVAs and token payments.

ANY ONE WANTING TO READ THE FULL DOCUMENT

http://www.cccs.co.uk/research/2008/Stats%20Yearbook%202007.pdf

shinyhead

I've just caught up with this thread again and have one question that doesn't seem to have been mentioned:

If you're on a DMP with CCCS they take the money at the start of the month but don't pay it out to creditors until the 25th. Presumably they use interest gained from this as part of their funding, or do they?

Do they do the same if on one of their IVA's?

If they do use this as part of their income wouldn't this tempt them to bias towards DMP's?

coolcait

insider66 wrote: »

What about the people that do meet the criteria you mention "for an IVA/Trust Deed" and are still advised a DMP is the solution?

They are paying more money than they need to - to the benefit of the creditor.

Are you missing this point on purpose? It has been explained many times on this thread.

"missing the point on purpose".... :rolleyes: Well hellooo, Mr Pot! :hello: (Still waiting for that back up for your claim that CCCS NEVER recommend bankruptcies ).

I appear to have missed the cases you put forward where the people met the criteria for an IVA/trust deed, but were still advised a DMP was the solution. Which are the relevant posts?

Unless you are taliing about your references to 'a 30 year DMP'? I noticed, and addressed those claims. I put forward a number of situations where it might in fact be the best (or even only) solution for some people. You may have missed those points... You certainly failed to address them, preferring to leap again to the question 'why not bankrupcy?' (despite my earlier points about some people not wanting to, and some people not being able to...)

The most obvious reason why some people may not choose to go bankrupt or on an IVA, is that they WANT to try to pay their debts off in full. For them, the amount that they NEED to pay is the amount they owe. Even if they COULD pay less than that. A point which I have made before, but which has gone unacknowledged

If your, so far unsubstantiated, claims about CCCS are true, it may be that they are considering IVAs/trust deeds against this background:

- IVAs/Trust Deeds are intended to be an alternative to bankruptcy. If someone has reached that level of insolvency, then will a DMP be feasible? If they have reached that level of insolvency, then IVAs/trust deeds should really only offered to a limited number of people - if you are following the original intent of the legislation.

If a DMP is feasible, should insolvency be recommended (under whatever guise)? Arguably not. For the sake of the debtor as much as for the sake of the creditors - not everyone wants to go down the personal insolvency route. And, if we're looking at 'what's best for the person', is personal insolvency 'best', when there is an alternative?

The fact that someone owes 'x' amount and can pay 'y' amount per month does not necessarily mean that an IVA/trust deed is the way forward for them. You have talked about '30 year DMPs'. What about 5 year DMPs? Or 7 year DMPs? 9 year DMPs? Would an IVA/trust deed necessarily be better for those individuals? Those cases - rather than your '30 year' one - are the cases where mis-selling becomes much more obvious.

Scottish trust deeds are supposed to be for the benefit of the creditors. I don't know if this also holds true for IVAs. However, they are both being sold to debtors as 'write off your debts!'. Going by the figures on dividends, trust deeds are currently working to the benefit of trustees . Debtors are paying significant amounts into trust deeds - sometimes enough to pay off their debts. Yet they still appear on the Register of Insolvencies; they still bear the risks and disdvantages of personal insolvency. Why is that better for them than choosing an option which will lead to them paying all of the money owed to their creditors, without having to publicly declare themselves personally insolvent?

If you see IVAs/trust deeds as a way of deliberately paying back less than you owe (although you could in fact pay it in full), then you may be frustrated if you feel that it is not being recommended. If you are part of the sector which gains financial advantage from IVAs, then that frustration may be even more likely.

Does that mean that IVAs should be recommended so that people who CAN pay their debts deliberately pay back less than they owe? IMO they shouldn't. They should be used - as intended - for those people who CANNOT pay back what they owe, whose only option is bankruptcy, and who are in those groups that IVAs/trust deeds were intended to help avoid some of the effects of bankruptcy (eg those with business interests).

They were not intended as a way to "write off x% of your debt" - even if that is how they are being sold, by companies who derive a significant financial benefit from them.

Which rather brings us back to where your concern - you say - originally sprang from. You were concerned about the advice given by an agency which is funded by a disparate group of organisations within the credit industry.

I remain more concerned about the advice given by organisations which derive a direct financial benefit (fees) from the IVAs which they may recommend to clients.

coolcait

insider66 wrote: »

I quote from it:

"1.3 INSOLVENCY

The number of new IVAs dropped sharply
in 2007, reversing the upward trend of
previous years. One of the major reasons
for this decline was CCCS’ entrance into the

IVA market"....

quote]

And I quote the full paragraph:

"The number of new IVAs dropped sharply
in 2007, reversing the upward trend of
previous years. One of the major reasons
for this decline was CCCS’ entrance into the
IVA market, offering radically lower costs
and higher transparency. As a result banks
were reluctant to approve IVA proposals,
because of the high levels of fees charged
by IVA companies. Additionally, increased
regulatory attention from the OFT and the
ASA restricted the permissible marketing
techniques on which IVA companies have

heavily relied to gain new customers."

I have put in bold the parts you omitted, as I think they do make a difference to the overall meaning of the part you quoted.

And, let's not forget, any organisation presenting an annual report type document is going to want to take as much credit as it possibly can for itself... ;-)

coolcait

insider66 wrote: »

I quote from it:

"ALSO:

Table 3.3.2 details how much money has been repaid by clients to their
lenders through CCCS. In 2007, CCCS repaid over £194 million to lenders,
almost double the amount repaid in 2005.
Table 3.3.2 – Repayments to lenders
2005 2006 2007

Total repayment £99,269,884 £140,327,999 £194,814,158"

Is it a problem that more debt is being repaid? If so, why?

"Table 3.6.5 – Appointment recommendations
2006 2007
DMP 45.8% 41.9%
Bankruptcy/sequestration 20.0% 19.4%
Token payments 13.9% 15.1%
Meets actual payments 6.3% 7.4%
Client to deal directly with creditors 4.6% 6.6%
Realise assets 4.1% 4.4%
IVA/trust deed 3.0% 2.2%
Income maximisation 1.9% 2.4%

Administration orders 0.5% 0.6%"

Well, I guess that answers my questions about your claim that CCCS never recommend bankruptcy...

Recommendations of bankruptcy plus recommendations of IVA/trust deed: 19.4% + 2.2%. So personal insolvency is recommended in just over one-fifth of cases. I can't see how this supports your assertion that CCCS are 'pushing' DMPs to keep their creditor masters happy.

Still reading through. It's pretty user-friendly, except where the colours in the pie charts are (to my eyes) too similar!

coolcait

insider66 wrote: »

I quote from it:

ON CCCS INTERVIEWS

The interview consists of a full review of their household budget and
debt situation. The fi rst priority is to ensure that the client and the client’s
family have enough to live on: only then will the counsellor discuss options
for repaying debts. Provided there are suffi cient funds, the counsellor will
propose a DMP which CCCS will administer. Other advice is offered as
appropriate, including bankruptcy, IVAs and token payments.

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.

insider66

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?