A new question - different IPs for different payment levels?

sfjnet

I am so pleased by the quick and considered responses to my first question on this forum that I have very quickly come back with another.

I originally started investigating IVAs via the very helpful forum on the iva.co.uk website. Through reviews and recommendations on that forum I gravitated to an IP called Melanie Giles, and I made my first contact with her office last week (dealing with one of her staff). Initial impressions are excellent but after going through my estimated expenses (using the CCCS categories and limits) it became clear that I wouldn't actually have very much left over to offer creditors (initially nothing if I claimed the maximum in each of the categories allowed by CCSS). I have since reworked the budget and brought things down to sensible limits (we are used to living on a tight budget while trying to keep up the credit payments) and now can offer about £250 per month against £32K debt. Not much I know, but I was surprised to read posts on this forum from people who had IVAs accepted for a lot less per month.

This got me thinking - are there IPs who specifically deal with cases where monthly repayment levels are at the lower end of the scale? The lady I spoke to said that they don't usually go ahead with proposals where the offer is less than £250 per month (I think that's the number she quoted anyway - it was all a bit overwhelming at the time) but they might be able to recommend an IP who could go ahead at a lower rate (£200). BTW I'm just wondering how this works, not finding fault with Melanie Giles!

Charco_2

Melanie Giles is a very good IP - I know of her by reputation only and have no vested interest in her but I can confirm that her practice is very highly thought of.

Now that that's out of the way, lets get back to your question.

NOT REALLY, NO! Would have to be my first response but there is a grey area there. Most IP companies would put a lower limit on what they deemed to be an acceptable monthly contribution - you can look at this two ways

1. A cynic might say they couldn't be bothered because the profit levels would be rather low (and they might be right) OR
2. Somebody with more insight might suggest that if your monthly contributions are that low then perhaps an IVA isn't the right solution for you - another solution might actually suit you better! (and they might be right too)

As you say, the CCCS guidelines provide ranges of acceptable expenses for debtors looking into solutions - and this can result in a wide range of what your monthly disposable income might be. The trick is to come up with a reasonable figure.

For my tuppence worth, the CCCS Guidelines are ridiculously out of touch with reality but they have become a necessary evil in the industry now because of the banks/cccs relationship! Strcitly speaking, any IP you go to should come up with exactly the same figure as another IP when calculating your I&E - but because of the ranges involved these figures can easily differ. Some IPs might maximise their income/the banks return by only noting down the expenses you list to them, other IPs might remind you of other categories that you might have forgotten about but for which there is an acceptable allowance!

All you really want is a realistic and affordable figure that reflects your situation - and hope that that doesn't change to much ion the next fve years.

As for different companies only dealing with different levels of contributions!?
NO company I imagine would put an upper limit on the debts they'll deal with (unless we're talking about huge company debts that a small practice simply wouldn't have the staff to deal with) but some companies might have a lower limit (if they have so few staff that by doing a small case they would miss out on doing another bigger case - can happen!)

However most companies would be happy to run through an I&E with your quickly to establish your disposable income and very few would turn you away!

foreverautumn

I had no idea about that SFJNET, i dont think that is widely known on the iva forum. I was thinking of using her but that will be out of the question now. We are going to be border line 200 or less for sure. That means she would not want to know us. Shame because i thought i may of got along with her. I did get the feeling that if it was going to be a low dividend she seem to back away and leave it to the other experts too pick up on it. As you can see i have been reading for a while.

sfjnet

foreverautumn wrote: »

I had no idea about that SFJNET, i dont think that is widely known on the iva forum. I was thinking of using her but that will be out of the question now. We are going to be border line 200 or less for sure. That means she would not want to know us. Shame because i thought i may of got along with her. I did get the feeling that if it was going to be a low dividend she seem to back away and leave it to the other experts too pick up on it. As you can see i have been reading for a while.

I wouldnt say you should reject Melanie (who is extremely highly rated) based on a conversation that I had. Speak to her or her people - I am sure they will give you enough detail to make your decision on their advice for your situation, rather than something I've said in passing!

skintflint103

MelanieGiles does unusually in the Debt Industry, have a better than average rep. She does a lot of on line q/as although cynics might say this attracts business, but if it's good advice why not? Just remember as with all solutions to most problems the devil is in the detail.An IVA prposal is very detailed , beware the bit where it compares bankruptcy costs to IVA costs, some people read it that someone going bankrupt has to pay those costs up front. I suppose it's how it's read and who is explaining it. This is a 5 year program more than 5% of most people's lives. If you have no assetts or restrictive employment you may want to look at the BK option. not for every one but I'd heard that 40% of IVAs fail in the first 2 years anyway, worth checking though.You won't get hounded by creditors but they quite often still keep writing, perhaps it's because they don't start to get paid until the IVA company have all their fees. Still I suppose that's fair isn't it? I had heard that the CCCS are now doing an own brand IVA without fees. This could mean that as the creditors get more money quicker ,the contributions may be lower. Worth checking though. Good luck

Charco_2

MelanieGiles does unusually in the Debt Industry, have a better than average rep. She does a lot of on line q/as although cynics might say this attracts business(1), but if it's good advice why not? Just remember as with all solutions to most problems the devil is in the detail.An IVA prposal is very detailed , beware the bit where it compares bankruptcy costs to IVA costs, some people read it that someone going bankrupt has to pay those costs up front.(2) I suppose it's how it's read and who is explaining it. This is a 5 year program more than 5% of most people's lives.(3) If you have no assetts or restrictive employment you may want to look at the BK option(4). not for every one but I'd heard that 40% of IVAs fail in the first 2 years anyway(5), worth checking though.You won't get hounded by creditors but they quite often still keep writing, perhaps it's because they don't start to get paid until the IVA company have all their fees(6). Still I suppose that's fair isn't it? I had heard that the CCCS are now doing an own brand IVA without fees.(7) This could mean that as the creditors get more money quicker ,the contributions may be lower. Worth checking though. Good luck

See how easy it is to post a reply without looking for a fight with everyone who doesn't/wont agree with you!?

1. Attracts a huge amount of business but as you say, sure why not, it's helping!
2. I've never heard of people doing this. The bankruptcy comparison is for the creditors only and almost always shows that the proceeds are eaten up by the fees (which coincidentally grow to meet the proceeds...)
3. It's MORE than 5% of peoples lives - unless the average age of people comes in at 100 years! Life expectancys are around the 78years old mark (i think) which make an IVA 6.5% of your life and a lot more if you leave out youthful happier times. It's say 10% of your adult working life!
4. There are other things to consider too. Are you a large earner for example... you're going to incur a 3 year IPO and lose administrative control over your assets. An IP will legally go through the three main options with you (DMP, IVA and BR)- and possibly suggest others. You also receive a Government issued booklet for you to sign and return which highlights the options and their pros and cons.
5. The recent studies - released late last year and detailing EVERY IVA EVER REGISTERED apparently - showed that on average a little over 30% of IVAs failed, looked like 10% in the first year but it's hard to say after that! Definitely figures that should be looked into to find causal problems (It's too simplistic to blame one factor, although i know you're going to - it's a shame you missed the lengthy thread about this, I think we'd have actually gotten along with eachother quite nicely)
6. Or perhaps the creditors are chancing their arms for one last payment from you - it's awful the lies they'll tell in these letters and phonecalls after your IVA has been approved.
7. No this aint true. The CCCS do now offer IVAs but only after considerable pressure forced them to ackonwledge that the debt solution existed. Prior to this they only offered DMPs - which was coincidentally the solution of choice for their funders the banks. The added bonus was that the CCCSVA could then act like an authority figure, a role model for hopw other IVA companies should behave (draw up I&Es)
CCCSVA - are not a part of the "charity" and earn fees exactly like other IVA companies. These fees are then filtered back into the foundation - i love their righteousness! Also, the repayment figures would remain the same because they are based on your income minus your allowable expenses, the fees charged are not charged to the debtor but agreed with the creditors on approval of the IVA.

skintflint103

Ok this is for Sf's info . and anyone else who may have an iterest. Sorry 5% or working life was what i meant to say but half a decade can't be argued with, a goodly number of years. as I tried to say in the most kindly way, the 2 costings are laid side by side , and if you are not familiar as you and I are in reading them.It CAN look misleading to a frightened debtor who has sometimes been lead to beleive they have to shoulder those costs. We can all argue over statistics the figure relate to older ivas too that are now settled. Remembering though that the new bankruptcy laws 'The enterprise act 2002 enacted 2004 took a much less stringent and very much more truncated time in bankruptcy. Many people have opted for this route out of an iva or for nevrr going in in the first place. It kinda makes sense to the punters that I.P.s spend their advertising revenue on attacting IVAs it's common business sense. But not always the best of advice is all I ever wanted to say. Many are being lead to beleive that an IVA is rhe only option. I've read so many propsals that state' The debtor has elected to go into the IVA to avoid the stigma of bankruptcy'. They all say that this is best for the creditors, yes of course thats true. But what about the debtors? The people looking at this site?

Charco_2

Ok this is for Sf's info . and anyone else who may have an iterest. Sorry 5% or working life was what i meant to say but half a decade can't be argued with, a goodly number of years. (1) as I tried to say in the most kindly way, the 2 costings are laid side by side , and if you are not familiar as you and I are in reading them.It CAN look misleading to a frightened debtor who has sometimes been lead to beleive they have to shoulder those costs.(2) We can all argue over statistics the figure relate to older ivas too that are now settled. Remembering though that the new bankruptcy laws 'The enterprise act 2002 enacted 2004 took a much less stringent and very much more truncated time in bankruptcy. Many people have opted for this route out of an iva or for nevrr going in in the first place.(3) It kinda makes sense to the punters that I.P.s spend their advertising revenue on attacting IVAs it's common business sense. But not always the best of advice is all I ever wanted to say. Many are being lead to beleive that an IVA is rhe only option. I've read so many propsals that state' The debtor has elected to go into the IVA to avoid the stigma of bankruptcy'.(4) They all say that this is best for the creditors, yes of course thats true. But what about the debtors? The people looking at this site?

1. Yes Skint, I'm agreeing, it's a lot, it's MORE than you were saying but it's ok, i'll not accuse you of misleading people ha ha
2. Not really, i have to disagree here because the point at which a bankruptcy comparison is drawn up and seen by the debtor is LOOOONG after they've already decided that they are interested in an IVA to solve their debt problems. The company has already been asked to draw up the IVA becasue the that is the route that is being taken, the Backruptcy Comparison table is not a deciding factor for the debtor, they've already decided!
3. You can call it statistics and lies but i think the figure of 33% or so is rather high and something should be done about it. It's certainly no defence of the industry - but neither is it too damning!
4. But you're surely not accusing IPs of inventing this "stigma" that surrounds IVAs... the debtors come IN to IVA companies thinking "i'm not going bankrupt, i'm not going bankrupt, i'm not going bankrupt..." its hard enough to convince them that it is their best option. I can say with no shame that there are people in IVAs in the company i work for that BR would have been the better option, and i would KNOW that we told them the truth but they didn't want BR. I does happen! The stigma is imaginary and outdated but it's hard to convince debtors of that. And it's not better for the creditors, otherwise they'd all be in DMPs for the guts of 20 years, the creditor hate IVAs because it means they have to write off bad debt which looks bad to the shareholders and investors and so affect's their share prices... I could go on!

There's this rumour goes around that IVAs are only for people with assets to protect, or jobs to protect or an image to protect, or a birthmark shaped like four leaf clover under their left armpit. Its' not.
An IVA can simply just be a happy medium between a difficult one year Bankruptcy or 14 year DMP (with no end in sight really due to interest and charges).

skintflint103

We are starting to to emerge now into a little more clarity. My only point of being here was to alert people who have been told IVA is you best option regardless and fed old veiw of bankruptcy with no mention of admin orders DROs . the methodology (i hope that's a word) Is to mislead by ommision(got it right this time) or to frighten with tales of what USED to happen in bnankruptcy. People there is no point in me wasting my time making this up. It does happen a lot. A lot of people are happy in there IVAs ,so even if it wasn't or not the best advice,they now sleep at night. I really finally made up my mind to stir this up when a lady who only owed 3,400 was told to go into an IVA 'To help her partner' who owed more. They had no assetts were on tax credit and the IVA company took her Grandaughter's child benefit into the payment plan just because her daughter lived with her. If you don't think that's outrageous you can't have a heart. I think it only fair that when you give advice you make it very clear that you are working in the IVA business. you have now come clean with that. so I'll back away a little now . But I'll just input when I think that people are not getting the full facts. The results of my 'rant' have revealed much info so I'll feel contenet now . for the time being.

Choo_Choo_4

skintflint103 wrote: »

... a lady who only owed 3,400 was told to go into an IVA 'To help her partner' who owed more. They had no assetts were on tax credit and the IVA company took her Grandaughter's child benefit into the payment plan just because her daughter lived with her. If you don't think that's outrageous you can't have a heart.

Of course this is a blatant case of malpractice.
Companies operating in this manner SHOULD be named and shamed - it's horrible how people can be taken advantage of ...

It's not FAIR to put elderly people into long term debt solutions - God knows for what reason the debt has been run up but I'm sure that I would not want my Grandfather to commit to an IVA at the age of 72 ... but there are companies who will quite happily propose an arrangement for him.

It's highly unethical and surely there must be some other solution ...

Skint you seem to have come across your fair share of mis-selling of IVAs but at least now you can admit that not ALL IP's are to be avoided at all costs - I see that you have some admiration for Melanie Giles and her work...

Forever - I'd have to agree with SFJ - don't just take it that Ms Giles will not take on your case either ... I'm not sure what her stipulations are but everyone presents a different case and you might as well chat to a few IPs to find out what they say first and then make your decision ...

Advice is free so it will be time your spending whilst making up your mind and not money

Good Luck!

lucane

Oh here we go again!

Nice use of MSE web site to promote Insolvency Practitioners!

What do you do get your staff to post a comment just so you can blow your own trumpet?

I can only assume that Mr Lewis gets a kick back if someone gets to sign up a client in the process.

Still look on the bright side you've all managed to get you web site mentioned so there's another back link to get your business up the rankings. And some Insolvency Practitioners have got what they obviously believe is a bot of "positive feedback"

Wake up people we are not all as dime as you seem to think we are.

Mr Lewis why don't you do something about this outrageous practice of posting? Could it be money making rather than money saving?

If your site was as honest as you claim you would do something about it, you cant simply turn a blind eye and pretend it is not going on sir.