IVA failure/completion stats now released for 1987 - 2008

Charco_2

Right go on then, enlighten me, enlighten US ALL! How does the fact that an agreed IVA will be supervised regardless of whether the IP thinks it's got the legs for five years or not justify Fermi (and MrsTine's) factless signatures?

Do you just read the lines that suit your agenda and then post willy nilly about them?

I'll explain it one last time but then we really should move on, can't hold back the rest of the class just because you're too slow to keep up...

When a Proposal is modified, more often than not, it is to bring in more money from the debtor. The IP has already been through a rigorous Income and Expenditure with the debtor and made his recommendations based on THAT!
When the IVA proposal is changed his old recommendations don't necessarily apply to something that is now different. The IP can now comment again on the viability of the IVA however if the Creditors and Debtor are now in agreement, it's not the IPs place to tell them they can't have an IVA.

Just because the IP doesn't think the IVA is a nailed on success doesn't mean it will fail. So long as the debtor is happy and the creditors are happy there is no ethical questionmark over the IP's involvement, it needs to be supervised! The IP has made clear his reservations and can hold his head up high.

If the IP is going to supervise the IVA then that also puts him in an ideal position to salvage the IVA when things go wrong BEFORE it actually fails - if there is any way to rectify the wrongs!

For example: The IP sets up an IVA for £300 a month, the creditors mods bring this up to £380 a month, the debtor agrees and the IVA is on - even if the IP thinks a 25+% increase is ridiculous! Five months in the IVA goes off the rails, the debtor complains to the IP that he is struggling and the IP then puts forward a variation to bring the monthly contributions down to something that is more affordable... like say £300!

An IP saying an IVA might fail doesn't mean an IVA will fail!
You saying that IPs are money hungry crooks profitting in other peoples misery doesn't make it so!

Funny how the Stats became meaningless once you weren't able to use them to disgrace the Insolvency Industry!

PS - How many legs does a dog have if you call it's tail a leg!?

blind-as-a-bat_2

Charco, save your speeches, this is the Bankruptcy & Living With It board, no one is intrested in your views or discussing the stats for you to just disagree and defend an industry we see the missery it has caused all too often.



And for the record, i have not suddeny decided the stats are meaningles, see my first few posts in this thread

debtinfo

Charco - Please do not confuse the the idea of a debtor being happy with the modifications with the debtor thinking that they have no other choice. Many debtors are in the position they are because they are not good at analyzing their spending. The IP should be an expert

Charco_2

OK, maybe HAPPY isn't the right word, try

"if the debtor wishes to proceed..."
"if the debtor expresses an interest in pushing forward..."
"if the debtor thinks that that is ok..."


Charco, save your speeches, this is the Bankruptcy & Living With It board, no one is intrested in your views or discussing the stats for you to just disagree and defend an industry we see the missery it has caused all too often.

Sorry, i hadn't realised this was a board of determined mis-inforumation, where you can spout any old c-rap you like with impunity. The Stats were heralded this week, and then posted in here - as i have already said, i'd have thought the IVA board would have been more suitable but there you go!
Perhaps the Stats were simply posted so people could simply sit and stare at them while drooling down your chin and saying "duh gee george, i dont understand!" or perhaps, just maybe, they were posted on a public forum so that people might discuss them. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they are irrelevant. For me they highlight an area of the industry that certainly needs some improving - by the IPs, by the Creditors and by the lawmakers!

But i think what really hurts you is that they show that the IPs aren't to blame for all the wrongs in the world! They don't indicate that IPs are uncaring vultures making a qiuck buck before swooping onto their next victims! Sometimes ye know BAT, !!!!!! just happens!

blind-as-a-bat_2

Charco wrote: »

OK, maybe HAPPY isn't the right word, try

"if the debtor wishes to stop the constent phone calls..."
"if the debtor expresses an interest in stopping the threats of legal action..."
"if the debtor does not care as long as it gets the creditors and DCA's of there backs and stops the threats of 'home visits'..."

I could add more, but i think that paints a more realistic picture

blind-as-a-bat_2

Charco wrote: »

But i think what really hurts you is that they show that the IPs aren't to blame for all the wrongs in the world! They don't indicate that IPs are uncaring vultures making a qiuck buck before swooping onto their next victims! Sometimes ye know BAT, !!!!!! just happens!

Who said i based any of my posts on Those stats, I have already stated those stats dont tell us anything

However your more and more childish responces tell us a lot;)

Charco_2

I'm actually embarrassed for ye now BAT.

No-one said you based your posts on those stats - in fact the opposite! I said it's clear you were disappointed with the stats that you COULDN'T use them to back up the nonsense you were chatting.

As for childish responses, i'll redirect you towards 36 where you edited my post - you couldn't have said it worse if you'd ended your post with "i know you are but what am I?"

Thanks for indicating some of the benefits of an IVA though. (ye know, the end of constant harrassing phonecalls, the end to legal action against you, that sort of thing!)

debtinfo

Charco wrote: »

OK, maybe HAPPY isn't the right word, try

"if the debtor wishes to proceed..."
"if the debtor expresses an interest in pushing forward..."
"if the debtor thinks that that is ok..."

As i said the debtor often feels that they have no other choice.

The above could be replaced in the thought of the debtor as

"the debtor must proceed if they dont want to be kicked out on the street..."
"the debtor must proceed if they dont want to harrassed from morning until night..."
"the debtor must proceed if they dont want all the belongings taken and sold at auction..."

You do have somewhat of a special quality, Bat and I rarely agree on anything, a rare result for you i might venture:D

blind-as-a-bat_2

Charco wrote: »

Thanks for indicating some of the benefits of an IVA though. (ye know, the end of constant harrassing phonecalls, the end to legal action against you, that sort of thing!)

The same benefits with going BR, but without the five+ years of unrealistic payments;)

Now how many posts have i seen on here that should never have been advised to go for an IVA, as they had no assets, no job to protect....................no reason to go for an IVA

But there IP still said an IVA was the way to go........no stigma attached.

Until a bank treats them the same for having an IVA as they treat us Bankrupts.

Now remind me why is an IVA better than BR if you have nothing to protect

Charco_2

this post is for both you guys... An IVA is an OPTION! And yes, the reason people use it is often because of creditor letters and phonecalls and avoid their pressure... I fail to see your point! Now i'm away out strictly dancing, dont miss me too much - i promise i'll be back tomorrow!