Have I had the wrong advice with IVA

GD2_2

I couldn't defend this practice even if I wanted to, which I don't. Perfectly fair question as well re DEMSA, I suspect the answer is sod all if you want my honest opinion.

DEMSA itself isn't a governing body, it is a trade association founded by one or two DMP companies just so they could say that they were members of DEMSA on the basis that anyone that isn't is somehow inferior. There are more members now, but the premise is the same. Pretty useless is my own opinion, but I guess you will find some who disagree. The intended protocol is more designed, I think, to get everyone working to the same standards, and whilst it will be voluntary, the free sector aren't signing up at all I understand, then any commercial operation that doesn't adhere to it is going to have some awkward questions from the powers that be.

Anondebtadvisor

Opps indeed in should, sorry :-)

Anondebtadvisor

There are many instances of flipping going on with CCCS and payplan and understand there is also legal action pending against Payplan for this practice. Maybe just one of the reasons they will not be part of the debt management protocol?

Anondebtadvisor

My understanding is that the Debt management protocol is designed to establish the best practices ensuring they can be encouraged and spread throughout the industry.

The knock-on effect of a debt management plan protocol is likely to be increased consistency for those dealing with and using debt management plans.
A further aim will be to improve acceptance rates. Debt management plan acceptance rates are currently variable due to the wide range of attitudes adopted by differing creditor companies and groups. Should creditors buy into the debt management plan protocol idea, and be offered benefits by the DMP industry, it’s hoped they will reciprocate by providing concessions of benefit to indebted consumers.

Not compulsory and if the free sector are not included it makes you wonder why would other DMCs - I might be proved wrong but seems a bit pointless

debtinfo

I would say that just because someone was in a dmp plan first doesn't mean it was wrong people often need to time to think of the options or wait and see if a short term change in circumstances will become long term. Of course dmps are rarely the correct Kong term solution but I see no problem with putting people on a dmp first for a while do they can assess their long term plans. I don't know whether you class that as flipping. I think the point is that it is not suitable to do that if the company charges large front loaded fees for putting them on the dmp

GD2_2

Makes sense that.

I only know of one commercial outfit that will transfer the initial fee, in the circumstances you describe, to kick start the IVA. That way seems fair, but most companies would not do that it seems, which does indeed seem unfair.

debtinfo

Of course not a problem if they don't charge a front loaded fee

Depth_Charge

Hi

debtinfo nails a good point about the up front fees and to add the maybe 'keeping up to a few months payments little earner, some of them do that dont they? but then again thats what its all about isnt it, profit?

The protocol, well, thats an interesting one, I am keen on seeing what any expenditure allowance guideline figures might be, should not be hard really of course as we already have the Common Financial Statement (CFS) but then again we also have the CCCS figures (or the new name) which of course anybody who knows a thing or two about DMPs will tell you look a little lower where housekeeping & travel are concerned, funny really as I have never quite understood how that works - the new debt management plan protocol people may find themselves with a similar problem and people are watching & waiting:)

GD2_2

So, what you are saying is that because CCCS will not be a part of the new protocol then their financial statements are not really much use to anyone as they are a little low?

If that is the case, where on earth do people go if they want DMP's that are actually affordable?

Or, as is probable, have I got the wrong end of the stick?

To quote Homer (Simpson), "Lord help me, I'm just not that bright"

Depth_Charge

GD2 wrote: »

So, what you are saying is that because CCCS will not be a part of the new protocol then their financial statements are not really much use to anyone as they are a little low?

If that is the case, where on earth do people go if they want DMP's that are actually affordable?

Or, as is probable, have I got the wrong end of the stick?

To quote Homer (Simpson), "Lord help me, I'm just not that bright"

Hi

CCCS wont be part of the protocol thats for sure but I dont know if 'StepChange Debt Charity' will be, who really knows at this stage?

The point is how can there be such a difference in quideline figures between the CFS & CCCS (StepChange Debt Charity) guideline figures - can you answer that?

Attending a recent meeting I was told the CAB are looking at a universal standardised approach to debt advice including using the Common Financial Statement CFS version where DMPs are concerned (strange really as I thought that was what they were supposed to be already doing anyway, but there you go)

It all can seem a contradiction at times and I suppose open to the drive through coach and horses depending who the driver is.

Affordability, sustainability & flexibility are the key words for me, its the hot potato at the moment as the revenue to the fee chargers and the free providers (these also depend on their cut from the creditors to survive) come under the cosh.

I wonder what has spooked (if that is the word) the CCCS into such an upheaval - I spoke to someone at CCCS approx 6 months ago who suggested to me that this was going to happen - she alluded to me that amongst other things it was the new Mymoneynedcab online self help site (that had just won the IMA award around that time) that had them nervously looking over their shoulder.

Having looked through the new StepChange Debt Charity site I think I can see what she meant, but will it be enough in the long run, not sure on that one as there are further developments to come by the sound of it. Will the NEDCAB system go National CAB is the chatter on the grapevine? Think about it, CCCS & all the others are probably doing just that:)

Things are certainly hotting up and who knows what will happen next especially with this new protocol potentially being thrown into the mix

The one thing that usually happens with new ideas and change is that the standards do tend to rise and if anything then this has to be a plus - getting rid of the 'flipping' would also be another.

My take again, of course