IVA failure/completion stats now released for 1987 - 2008

Charco_2

An IVA has nothing to do with those adverts... You're talking about a different "product", advertised by different people. You may as well post that IPs didn't warn you that you Skittles wouldn't make you "taste a rainbow"!

It doesn't matter if you have £25k in your home, £25k in a savings account, £25k in a high interest savings bond off shore or £25k stuffed in your mattress... How could you (ANYONE) argue that you've got £25,000 in 1p chews but you didnt think you'd have to realise their value to address your outstanding debts - it's incredulous!

I realise Not everyone is educated enough in finance to realise the implications of unsecured debts, and the creditors are in no way inclined to educate them BUT that doesn't mean you have to find someone else to blame!

That said however, it would be helpful to keep the gist of the posts on this thread directed towards the STATISTICS the thread was invented for. The statistics that no-one is talking about!?

blind-as-a-bat_2

Charco wrote: »

Now we're getting somewhere.

10% is a rather large figure but as you say, the IP draws the proposal and gives their recommendations BEFORE the Creditors get their hands on it and start to squeeze the pips so to speak for the crediotrs meeting. A few £s on a modification here, a few £s there...

So you agree that the failure of an IVA stats, at least in some, was down to an unrealistic plan in the first place.

So the question is how would the stats be affected if the IP put people before profit and refused to allow the IVA to go ahead knowing it was not realistic

Stats are great when you look at % all looks rosy, but if you look at the actual numbers..............

Its easy to de-personalise any stat with a % sign;)

Charco_2

Yes i do agree, but have you even read the post?

The IPs original proposal is not generally what is unrealistic. The IP draws the proposal and then makes his recommendations... the proposal is then subject to various modifcations from the creditors for a period of over two weeks during which time the proposal could have changed from £250 a month to £300.

You're living on cloud cuckoo land if you think an IP has the power to just then cancel the IVA - despite the Creditors AND the Debtor agreeing to it! The proposal belongs to the debtor, the IP merely then supervises it!

And anyway, why should the IP cancel it even if he had the power... Almost EVERY IVA is subject to various modifications from the creditors - it's still impossible to tell which ones will succeed and which ones will fall by the wayside - around 90% of them are still completely viable after the mods!

Also, for those that turn out not to be viable, there is still an opportunity to vary the proposal again a few months down the line to make it something more likely to succeed - if the debtor approaches the IP to raise their concerns!

Stats are great when you look at % all looks rosy, but if you look at the actual numbers..............

Its easy to de-personalise any stat with a % sign;)

I wasn't even going to credit this with a response, suffice to say if you want to go hug a few thousand strangers be my guest!

It strikes me that you're grasping at straws to continue to sling mud at those dastardly IPs and IVA factories.

So_Sad_Angel

Can I just say that personally I think the rise in failed IVAs is due to a few (IMO very basic) key drivers.

1/ Since 2005/6 property values have slumped therefore less successful remortgages = less potential to settle IVAs

2/ Sales targets/greed by the IVA companies who`s need to `grow their business` has become more important than what is right for the client.

3/ Higher levels of consumer lending that mean an IVA although possible would leave the debtor still with massive debt at the end anyway

4/ Excessive fees

5/ Rise in unemployment, wage cuts, businesses going bust

I was 60K in neg equity & still offered an IVA by a company even though all the debt charities advised BR. Thankfully I did my homework...but the sales process was very hard-sell :eek::eek:

Just my thoughts.

Angiexx

nervousmother

My OH was also advised to enter into a IVA from one company, of course they wanted him to give them £3k fees upfront...
He went to see another IP who he had business dealings with in the past who looked his affairs and told him we had no real choice other than BR as we could not afford to do an iva.

Charco_2

SoSad, that quite a sensible and moderately balanced post however I do disagree with a point or two (Shock horror! A disagreement on a public forum! :rotfl:)

Points 1 and 5 certainly have a baring on the viability of an IVA.

However point 4 is neither here nor there... it's the type of emotive theory put forward by the naysayers! Fees are agreed with the creditors prior to a IVA commencing, if the fees are agreed then it's neither here nor there if the fees amount to £1m or £1k... the IVA will travel through to a successful termination so long as the debtor is able and willing to make their 60 monthly payments! The fees will have no effect on the clients ability to pay their agreed contributions.

Point 2 isn't really borne out by the stats either... certainly there is a growth in the numbers of IVAs being agreed but this has not led to a catastrophic rise in failures (yet, gulp!?)

blind-as-a-bat_2

You're living on cloud cuckoo land if you think an IP has the power to just then cancel the IVA - despite the Creditors AND the Debtor agreeing to it! The proposal belongs to the debtor, the IP merely then supervises it!

So what happens if the IP refuses to supervise it because s/he does not believe it is realistic?

I am speaking hypertheticaly of course;)

Charco_2

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

So what happens if the IP refuses to supervise it because s/he does not believe it is realistic?

I am speaking hypertheticaly of course;)

They would give their recommendations that in their humble opinion the IVA was untenable... in theory i suppose they could resign and another IP would be appointed to supervise it but at the end of the day somebody is going to supervise it!

And just because an IP has their reservations aout the case doesn't mean it definitely IS going to fail! THERE ARE NO CRYSTAL BALLS!

And of course, if things do happen to go pear shaped within the IVA, the IP who is supervising the case would be in a position to propose a variation to the creditors to try to salvage the situation.

blind-as-a-bat_2

Charco wrote: »

They would give their recommendations that in their humble opinion the IVA was untenable... in theory i suppose they could resign and another IP would be appointed to supervise it but at the end of the day somebody is going to supervise it!

And just because an IP has their reservations aout the case doesn't mean it definitely IS going to fail! THERE ARE NO CRYSTAL BALLS!

And of course, if things do happen to go pear shaped within the IVA, the IP who is supervising the case would be in a position to propose a variation to the creditors to try to salvage the situation.

Thank you, that jusifies fermi's sig for me, perfectly

Oh and no crystal balls are needed, just a bit of sense, and a bit less greed.

I agree, not all proposal will be clear cut if they will fail or not, but i hve seen plenty that should have been;)

Now back to the stats, there is nothing to discuss as there simply is not enough detail, eg how can you gauge if things are improving or geting worse you have nothing to compare a failure rate say in the first year of 2007 to the figure in 2008

fermi

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

eg how can you gauge if things are improving or geting worse you have nothing to compare a failure rate say in the first year of 2007 to the figure in 2008

Which is why I emailed the IS on Friday to see if they would provide that info. No reply yet.