iva con

Depth_Charge

Gimpsdad wrote: »

Fair point well made.

The figures are indeed skewed a little with a massive rise in numbers in recent years. The reasons for the massive increase may be for another debate.

You could, with that logic, argue that 10's of 1,000's of IVA's fail, but to quote that as a bald figure without saying that very many more 10's of 1,000's of IVA's are successful, and not including the caveat that those that do fail are generally for reasons that are beyond anyones control is unrepresentative of the bigger picture. That something unexpected CAN happen in an IVA is not to say that something unexpected WILL happen, and the point also needs to be made that the same thing would have happened whatever course they had chosen.

Hi Gimpsdad

Not quite right again, in some cases they might not have, endured unecessary stress and worry, lost assets, wasted time and thousands in fees only to find themselves back at square one or worse. Then having to go somewhere else to sort out their problems (I see them on a regular basis and have been doing so for years now including another one today)

As I have said before IVAs can be the right and indeed a sensible solution but people need to be genuinely fully aware and understand all their options & the risks involved.

I will definitely leave this now as far as this thread is concerned and let people make their own minds up as what has been put here.

PS - no offence meant / taken or complaints from me as I dont mind a good solid debate or discussion, never have, no problem at all.

Maybe catch you later somewhere

Gimpsdad

Never minded a healthy debate myself, however you have failed all along to say what your alternative solution is. One can only assume it is DMP, probably through a preferred organisation on here.

I have no problem with that, as long as all the pitfalls that you point out on IVA are equally pointed out for DMP's. Charging orders, BR, CCJ's, AOE's, statutory interest, refusing to freeze interest at all and having no right to insist that it happens, extraordinarily long time scales, living on nothing, continual hassle, forced sale etc etc etc.

I did post before that there is no ideal debt solution, but to expand, the only debt solution that exists that has no guarantees at all and therefore completely trusts to luck is a DMP.

It has its place, and is right for some, no denying that, but I see thousands of posts on here along the lines of "just taken the online remedy and am going on a DMP" (???????? at least speak to someone) and also " just spoken to CCCS and am going on a DMP". Fine, if you have had all the pitfalls explained. One thing I would point out though, is that to enter an IVA takes usually between 6 to 8 weeks, a significant timescale in which to consider all your options.

debtinfo

I completely agree Gimpsdad, i think that bankruptcy, IVA's, DMP's DRO's and administration orders should all be clearly set out where they are technicaly a possibility. I think all the facts of each should be set out and that it should not be left to the person/organisation proposing the solution. I have always thought that there should be a government document that spells out the facts of each one and that it should be mandatory that a copy is given to every person that approaches any organisation for help with debts.

Depth_Charge

Gimpsdad wrote: »

Never minded a healthy debate myself, however you have failed all along to say what your alternative solution is. One can only assume it is DMP, probably through a preferred organisation on here.

I have no problem with that, as long as all the pitfalls that you point out on IVA are equally pointed out for DMP's. Charging orders, BR, CCJ's, AOE's, statutory interest, refusing to freeze interest at all and having no right to insist that it happens, extraordinarily long time scales, living on nothing, continual hassle, forced sale etc etc etc.

I did post before that there is no ideal debt solution, but to expand, the only debt solution that exists that has no guarantees at all and therefore completely trusts to luck is a DMP.

It has its place, and is right for some, no denying that, but I see thousands of posts on here along the lines of "just taken the online remedy and am going on a DMP" (???????? at least speak to someone) and also " just spoken to CCCS and am going on a DMP". Fine, if you have had all the pitfalls explained. One thing I would point out though, is that to enter an IVA takes usually between 6 to 8 weeks, a significant timescale in which to consider all your options.

Hi

Start a new thread on this and lead with you post above if you like.

No problem at all with me.

Could be very interesting though Gimpsdad given some of your answers too date, so get ready.

Depth_Charge

debtinfo wrote: »

I completely agree Gimpsdad, i think that bankruptcy, IVA's, DMP's DRO's and administration orders should all be clearly set out where they are technicaly a possibility. I think all the facts of each should be set out and that it should not be left to the person/organisation proposing the solution. I have always thought that there should be a government document that spells out the facts of each one and that it should be mandatory that a copy is given to every person that approaches any organisation for help with debts.

Hi

This sounds good written when you put it like that but there is plenty of information about already and the logistics of a major change just wont happen as I suspect you agree.

The problem comes where selling, commission, profit, independence and impartiality is concerned instead of what is best for the person in debt, it has been going on for years and still is, you only have to look at some of the posts on here.

Nearly every failed or failing IVA I have seen, bankruptcy should have been the option at the outset and it was blatently obvious that the IVA was 'sold' not properly explained and advised.

I see some people that dont even know that they are in an IVA, all you hear is, well they have signed it, they should have read what they were signing, thats what you used to hear with double glazing salesmen isnt it, jesus what a pathetic response.

The problem is getting worse for all debt solutions not just IVAs mainly due to the economic climate to be fair, falling incomes and rising living costs etc, people trapped really.

One of the issues / problems being where companies and agencies have a vested financial interest in the outcome of a case or keeping their client in a payment arrangement, simple economics as far as they are concerned, not so for the people struggling in debt though and that is what we are seeing across the board now and it can only get worse.

The PPI debate in IVAs? well you have to laugh at some of the things you read I suppose.

Like I say start another thread on this and I will happily oblige, time permitting of course.

The above is my take on things, but a little based on experience too.

Gimpsdad

I'm sorry, what you say just doesn't stack up at all.

If the problem comes where information is not given at the outset, then that is a failing of DMP's rather than IVA's. Not that I am anti DMP, they have a place. Nor am I pro IVA, it is a fair comment to say that most people in an IVA would be better off going bankrupt.

Think through the logic of that and then tell me why, when there is a choice between IVA, BR or DMP why anyone ever would pick a DMP? Yes, I am aware that there are instances where one solution is a no brainer when compared to the others, but they are actually reasonably rare. It usually boils down to a choice. 2 are legally binding, 1 isn't.

You can arrange a DMP in minutes, with no paperwork yet or without talking to someone. Is that a reasoned argument to do it? No, of course not, but thousands on here do. With an IVA it is a requirement under the protocol that all possible solutions are discussed. Do you get that from an online analyser which gives you a reference number to quote to creditors before you have spoken to anyone about any option at all? For an IVA, information has to be sent out in writing, returned in writing, with wage slips, proof of debts, proof of assets, photo ID, council tax statement, bank statements etc.

That is then validated, to get an absolutely accurate picture and an interview takes place, albeit usually over the phone. All options are gone through again. A draft proposal is sent. If a debtor is happy then a creditors meeting can take place, if they are not then it can't. Timescale? 6 to 8 weeks or longer. Plenty of thinking time and cooling off period. I am afraid I don't buy your argument that some people do not know they are on IVA's.

PPI in IVA's? What is your stance? They don't get it in BR, they won't get it in IVA's by all accounts and in DMP's it is usually offset. What is your point exactly?

The argument of impartiality is a separate one, nobody is truly impartial, it is impossible, bar maybe the OR, which beggars the question why most people point posters away from the only impartial person(s) in the whole equation?

Depth_Charge

Gimpsdad wrote: »

I'm sorry, what you say just doesn't stack up at all.

If the problem comes where information is not given at the outset, then that is a failing of DMP's rather than IVA's. Not that I am anti DMP, they have a place. Nor am I pro IVA, it is a fair comment to say that most people in an IVA would be better off going bankrupt.

Think through the logic of that and then tell me why, when there is a choice between IVA, BR or DMP why anyone ever would pick a DMP? Yes, I am aware that there are instances where one solution is a no brainer when compared to the others, but they are actually reasonably rare. It usually boils down to a choice. 2 are legally binding, 1 isn't.

You can arrange a DMP in minutes, with no paperwork yet or without talking to someone. Is that a reasoned argument to do it? No, of course not, but thousands on here do. With an IVA it is a requirement under the protocol that all possible solutions are discussed. Do you get that from an online analyser which gives you a reference number to quote to creditors before you have spoken to anyone about any option at all? For an IVA, information has to be sent out in writing, returned in writing, with wage slips, proof of debts, proof of assets, photo ID, council tax statement, bank statements etc.

That is then validated, to get an absolutely accurate picture and an interview takes place, albeit usually over the phone. All options are gone through again. A draft proposal is sent. If a debtor is happy then a creditors meeting can take place, if they are not then it can't. Timescale? 6 to 8 weeks or longer. Plenty of thinking time and cooling off period. I am afraid I don't buy your argument that some people do not know they are on IVA's.

PPI in IVA's? What is your stance? They don't get it in BR, they won't get it in IVA's by all accounts and in DMP's it is usually offset. What is your point exactly?

The argument of impartiality is a separate one, nobody is truly impartial, it is impossible, bar maybe the OR, which beggars the question why most people point posters away from the only impartial person(s) in the whole equation?

Hi

You did not know about the tens of thousands of IVAs that fail (a one sided statistic according to you), when shown the figures as requested you still could not work out how they read (the link to the stats may not still be available on the I/S site but the figures are available elsewhere:)

You made fun of the OFT guidelines stating that they were just for DMPs and not for IVAs & DROs then you were proved 'rabbit in the headlights style' wrong again.

Shocking stuff really Gimpsdad isnt it when you think about it?

Again you talk about legally binding as though that means everything will be OK. Also when someone is bankrupt thats it really debts gone unlike an IVA where the debtor can be thousands of pounds down the drain in fees and end up in a worse position than when they started sometimes years later.

PPI in IVAs, dont make me laugh, how much are some of the IVA companies and their allied claims companies taking in percentage fees from something people can do themselves which would mean a bigger return to the IVA. I keep seeing where it is said that they have a duty to raise as much money as possible for the creditors, you have to laugh dont you, nearly as much as were you have put that you are not pro IVA.

I see on another forum that is regulary alluded to on here by some that when searching questions are asked about PPI certain posts, posters and whole threads would appear to be removed and people dont seem to want to talk about the issue anymore.

What is the legal position on PPI and IVAs, do people have to claim / follow it up or not, could their IVA be at risk of failing if they do not, how come so much of the claims can be taken in fees?

Gimpsdad, some of the other stuff you have put is amusing I will give you that, I might tell it to the next dozen or so failing / failed IVA clients I see, the ones being threatened with bankruptcy and facing the loss of their homes will probably find it less amusing than the ones who have only lost thousands of pounds for nothing.

I am not sure you are doing the IVA industry too much good carrying this thread on Gimpsdad, but you are free to pose questions, vioce your opinions and views just like everybody else (well, that would appear to be the case on some forums)

As I suggested in a previous post, may be best if you throw the towel in.

PS - are you going to start another thread?

Gimpsdad

Unlikely, you still haven't the good grace to admit that you are pro DMP above all else.

BR is an end to the debts. It is isn't it? Erm, no. What about IPA's/IPO's? What about forced sales, BRO's and BRU's? What about jail sentences? Couple of those recently.

Very easy to make generalisations without explaining the full facts.

Why don't you tell posters that in a DMP it is a fair bet that interest and charges will continue to be charged and where that will leave them? Why not tell them that there are many creditors that will force charging orders? Tell them, it won't hurt you. As you seem keen to point out erroneous posts, I will remind you that on post 27 you admitted that you accept that PPI claims are an asset of the IVA estate. What has made you change your mind?