Have I had the wrong advice with IVA

GD2_2

Interesting, thanks for that.

I remember, not long ago, seeing something else somewhere re CCCS guidelines and why they were so low, and the answer from a CCCS rep was along the lines of "this is what our clients tell us they need to live on". I may not have that answer verbatim, but it is near enough.

Really does become a chicken and egg though doesn't it as in effect they are telling people to cut back because others can, whilst the CFS is decidedly more, not generous exactly, reasonable and realistic? By all accounts IP firms have to fit in with CCCS guidelines as well, not CFS, so they very much have a massive say in how people are expected to cut back for DMP's and IVA's, whilst also being funded by the credit industry, who undoubtedly benefit from such a stand.

I am also led to believe that they are very much afraid of creditors withdrawing their contributions if said creditors are forced into a levy to help fund the much maligned Money Advice Service. Whilst that would not immediately mean that they had to charge fees to direct to debtors to survive in their current form, it does mean that they would have to compete with other agencies for funding from MAS, such as CAB, National Debtline etc. As they hold considerable cash reserves, running into 10's of millions I'm told, such funding could therefore potentially not materialise at all, leaving them with only their commercial IVA income coming in.

All these things may or may not be linked, but certainly interesting, even if you are only considering why a very successful trading model felt the need to re-brand.

Depth_Charge

GD2 wrote: »

Interesting, thanks for that.

I remember, not long ago, seeing something else somewhere re CCCS guidelines and why they were so low, and the answer from a CCCS rep was along the lines of "this is what our clients tell us they need to live on". I may not have that answer verbatim, but it is near enough.

Really does become a chicken and egg though doesn't it as in effect they are telling people to cut back because others can, whilst the CFS is decidedly more, not generous exactly, reasonable and realistic? By all accounts IP firms have to fit in with CCCS guidelines as well, not CFS, so they very much have a massive say in how people are expected to cut back for DMP's and IVA's, whilst also being funded by the credit industry, who undoubtedly benefit from such a stand.

I am also led to believe that they are very much afraid of creditors withdrawing their contributions if said creditors are forced into a levy to help fund the much maligned Money Advice Service. Whilst that would not immediately mean that they had to charge fees to direct to debtors to survive in their current form, it does mean that they would have to compete with other agencies for funding from MAS, such as CAB, National Debtline etc. As they hold considerable cash reserves, running into 10's of millions I'm told, such funding could therefore potentially not materialise at all, leaving them with only their commercial IVA income coming in.

All these things may or may not be linked, but certainly interesting, even if you are only considering why a very successful trading model felt the need to re-brand.

Hi

You make some good and interesting points.

There is a clear conflict between the two sets of guideline figures that has to impact accurate and appropriate advice and often putting advisers and debtors in a ridiculous catch 22 situation.

I think some in the fee charging sector tout the CCCS figures when it suits though

Where there is a financial interest in a debt solution then there always has to a question mark over true independence and impartiality especially in times like these, that is my honest opinion.

To say 'things are getting interesting' could turn out be the understatement of the decade with all thats going on as far as debt advice is concerned and rumour has it that old allies could soon be set on genuine collision course.

PS - does anyone know what happened to the CAB / CCCS Debt Management Plan Referral Scheme Partnership that was loudly touted a couple of years ago?

debtinfo

has anyone thought of just putting down what the individual person needs to spend, or is that to simple?

Depth_Charge

debtinfo wrote: »

has anyone thought of just putting down what the individual person needs to spend, or is that to simple?

Hi

Have a look through the this for an explanation -

http://www.cfs.moneyadvicetrust.org/

Without a uniformed approach it would turn out a free for all and chaos throughout the system including the courts with many more arrangements failing in the long run.

People would likely be taken advantage of especially the most vulnerable - bread and water you can afford that, just give us the rest of the money says Mr DCA.

This is basically why guideline figures where studied and compiled in the first place.

The increasing problem now for agencies and companies with the disposable income crash is that a percentage of their current clients Financial Statements are no longer in line with the original I/E calculations and they are struggling.

As a result of whats going on (and this has to be growing really) a number of those in current DMPs will or could also go under certain agencies & companies minumum amount of disposable income criteria for entering a DMP in the first place if you get the drift.

The point being if an agency or company depends on income from DMPs then they could be in serious trouble with all this and everybody involved in the debt advice sector knows this is happening.

The guideline figures are there for a reason, the problem is they perhaps may not now suit some of the business plans of certain agencies and companies, the irony here also being that the Common Financial Statement is clearly mentioned or touted maybe in a number these business plans and on the websites.

Talk about catch 22 - it has to be a classic, but it is becoming a serious issue in the debt advice sector and then throw in the potential of the FREE CAB online DMP system that is definitely growing by the week and it is a witches brew in the true definition.

Dont be surprised if you see more re-branding or revamping of agencies, companies and websites over the coming months due to the available dollar shrinking and other alternatives coming to the forefront.

Tis all true debtinfo, and you can rest assure they will all be keeping an eye on this thread, you can trust me on that one.

Interesting times indeed

Well, its my take anyway:)

debtinfo

Is there any provision for debtors who want to pay more than the cfs works it out at or would they simply not be allowed to have a dmp with these companies

Depth_Charge

debtinfo wrote: »

Is there any provision for debtors who want to pay more than the cfs works it out at or would they simply not be allowed to have a dmp with these companies

Hi

They are guidelines, not mandatory and a DMP is an informal arrangement so that basically explains it as does the CFS link.

Also there are people with incomes both permanent and temporaey that do not even reach the levels of expenditure set out in the CFS & CCCS guidelines.

It is worth noting some of the minumum entry criteria with some DMP providers and maybe ask why this is the case especially with a charity DMP provider as some of these people need help the most so why dont they take them on? They say you can do it yourself in these circumstances dont they, by using our template letters or self help etc, the obvious question then being why cant the ones who meet the minumum eligibility criteria also do it themselves, this is partly why they fear the FREE CAB Online DMP system so much for reasons that now should be obvious.

There was something called the token offer scheme with CCCS DMPs, does anyone know what happened to that?

In my opinion it is getting harder to spot the difference between the free and fee chargers in some quarters and this ussue will increasingly come to the forefront over the coming months especially given the new DMP protocol in the pipeline (if it ever happens that is)

madison-nyc

i'm going to be doing this flipping thing , been talking with cleardebt over the past week or so, we've been just about managing minimum payments on our debts then i lost my job last week :0(

an IVA would be our best option but on just my husbands income we couldn't afford it. I need 3 months payslips in my new job (which i start on monday) before we can apply for an IVA. The fees for the dmp are 100% off the first payment and 90% off the second payment but with it being a short term DMP cleardebt is waivering the second fee. Seems appropriate for our situation?

Depth_Charge

madison-nyc wrote: »

i'm going to be doing this flipping thing , been talking with cleardebt over the past week or so, we've been just about managing minimum payments on our debts then i lost my job last week :0(

an IVA would be our best option but on just my husbands income we couldn't afford it. I need 3 months payslips in my new job (which i start on monday) before we can apply for an IVA. The fees for the dmp are 100% off the first payment and 90% off the second payment but with it being a short term DMP cleardebt is waivering the second fee. Seems appropriate for our situation?

Hi

Interesting

Depth_Charge

Hi

OFT debt management guidence compliance review dated September 2010 - amongst other things mentions flipping!

It is pretty early on in the document around Section 1.20 - 1.23...

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/credit_licences/OFT1274.pdf

I wonder if those involved in the new protocol have seen this?

Anondebtadvisor

It is interesting that Cleardebt seem to use "Flipping" as a reason to put people in a temporary DMP and charge them for the privilege!

If you are only starting work, i would have thought that they can still draw up an IVA proposal based on what you will be earning and you could provide a letter from your employer stating your salary.

Seems like an excuse to me, i suggest you seek some alternative advice from a few companoes before you proceed