IVA Failure Rates

UpToMyNeckInIt

Hi All,

That article link to ‘Insolvency News’ looks like good news on the horizon for any IVA customers wishing to make complaints against their IP, with some sort of system being operated/mediated by the Insolvency Service.

Anything to help reduce IVA failure rates is welcomed.

Hopefully, it will give anyone who considers that their IP firm is under-performing a suitably impartial complaints procedure, and the firms in question something to think about with the threat of sanctions.

I believe that currently, short of suing them for breach of contract, if you have an issue with your IP, there is not much you can do other than go through the firms ‘internal’ procedures, and possibly complain to the relevant regulatory body. After which, I suspect the term ‘customer fob-off’ would most likely be the outcome.

Also looks like there will be more of a focus on regulating IP fees, and presumably kirbing those deemed to be too high. Hopefully that will kick some of the excessive fee-chargers into touch.

The reforms are supposed to be up and running by Spring 2013 (I’ll believe it when I see it. It will set a new speed record for a QUANGO if proposal to policy happens within 6 Months!!!). I assume therefore that this has already been mulled over for some time, but it was the first I’d heard of it.

In my view, it will be a very Happy (and reassuring) New Year in 2013 for any disgruntled IVA customers if these reforms are given serious teeth, and within the suggested timeframe.

Depth_Charge

UpToMyNeckInIt wrote: »

Hi All,

That article link to ‘Insolvency News’ looks like good news on the horizon for any IVA customers wishing to make complaints against their IP, with some sort of system being operated/mediated by the Insolvency Service.

Anything to help reduce IVA failure rates is welcomed.

Hopefully, it will give anyone who considers that their IP firm is under-performing a suitably impartial complaints procedure, and the firms in question something to think about with the threat of sanctions.

I believe that currently, short of suing them for breach of contract, if you have an issue with your IP, there is not much you can do other than go through the firms ‘internal’ procedures, and possibly complain to the relevant regulatory body. After which, I suspect the term ‘customer fob-off’ would most likely be the outcome.

Also looks like there will be more of a focus on regulating IP fees, and presumably kirbing those deemed to be too high. Hopefully that will kick some of the excessive fee-chargers into touch.

The reforms are supposed to be up and running by Spring 2013 (I’ll believe it when I see it. It will set a new speed record for a QUANGO if proposal to policy happens within 6 Months!!!). I assume therefore that this has already been mulled over for some time, but it was the first I’d heard of it.

In my view, it will be a very Happy (and reassuring) New Year in 2013 for any disgruntled IVA customers if these reforms are given serious teeth, and within the suggested timeframe.

Hi

Quango's???

So what is the point in DEMSA & DRF then?

Are they independent or not, who appoints and regulates DEMSA and DRF, they have spokes persons dont they, let them speak, I have plenty of links, oh yes:)

Why dont they put up the individual IVA provider termination figures, what are they scared of?

Good question for the other site maybe, even better, put them up on here, we keep hearing about the IVA companies & fee chargers dont get a fair say on MSE, well heres their chance to come clean, put em up:)

I was going to mention the client testimonials & reviews, but seriously, its just sales and marketing, isn't it?

PPI claims, independent advice in the interests of the person in the IVA? well, we can talk about that later can't we, 30% plus commission! ah, you are having a laugh arent you,. surely:)

My take

UpToMyNeckInIt

Depth_Charge wrote: »

Hi

Quango's???

So what is the point in DEMSA & DRF then?

Are they independent or not, who appoints and regulates DEMSA and DRF, they have spokes persons dont they, let them speak, I have plenty of links, oh yes:)

Why dont they put up the individual IVA provider termination figures, what are they scared of?

Good question for the other site maybe, even better, put them up on here, we keep hearing about the IVA companies & fee chargers dont get a fair say on MSE, well heres their chance to come clean, put em up:)

I was going to mention the client testimonials & reviews, but seriously, its just sales and marketing, isn't it?

PPI claims, independent advice in the interests of the person in the IVA? well, we can talk about that later can't we, 30% plus commission! ah, you are having a laugh arent you,. surely:)

My take

Hi DC,

Work for a QUANGO do we? I wasn't criticising them. Some are rubbish, but others do a good job (but that's a political debate, not for this forum).

Actually, I mis-read the press release, I believe the report is due Summer 2013, with implementation the following spring (2014) - a much more realistic timescale.

Totally agree: I would like to see a league table of IVA success/failure rates for every provider (ideally they should be required to publish them) - another QUANGO project, that would be beneficial. Anything to enable a potential IVA customer to make a more informed decision is a good thing.

Some IVA providers do provide 'their' failure rates (especially if they are a lot better than the norm), but knowing those figures have been independently verified would give me a little more faith.

As for the fees being charged, do I really care? To some extent, no. Why? They are agreed by the creditors when the IVA is agreed. They are what they are, and it doesn't affect my payment one jot.

However, I suspect some of the less reputable firms, who feel their fees have been unfairly capped, may be more inclined to 'fail' an IVA if the customer encounters difficulty, rather than work with the customer as they are supposed to. (Indeed that is an opinion expressed by 2 IPs on another forum). For this reason, better regulation of IP fees to avoid this contributing to failure rates is also a good thing.

Somehow though, I doubt the Insolvency Review will do all of the above. But as long as it is not another 'hot-air' policy with loopholes aplenty meaning nothing really changes, I will be slightly happier.

Just my opinion though.

Depth_Charge

UpToMyNeckInIt wrote: »

Hi DC,

Work for a QUANGO do we? I wasn't criticising them. Some are rubbish, but others do a good job (but that's a political debate, not for this forum).

Actually, I mis-read the press release, I believe the report is due Summer 2013, with implementation the following spring (2014) - a much more realistic timescale.

Totally agree: I would like to see a league table of IVA success/failure rates for every provider (ideally they should be required to publish them) - another QUANGO project, that would be beneficial. Anything to enable a potential IVA customer to make a more informed decision is a good thing.

Some IVA providers do provide 'their' failure rates (especially if they are a lot better than the norm), but knowing those figures have been independently verified would give me a little more faith.

As for the fees being charged, do I really care? To some extent, no. Why? They are agreed by the creditors when the IVA is agreed. They are what they are, and it doesn't affect my payment one jot.

However, I suspect some of the less reputable firms, who feel their fees have been unfairly capped, may be more inclined to 'fail' an IVA if the customer encounters difficulty, rather than work with the customer as they are supposed to. (Indeed that is an opinion expressed by 2 IPs on another forum). For this reason, better regulation of IP fees to avoid this contributing to failure rates is also a good thing.

Somehow though, I doubt the Insolvency Review will do all of the above. But as long as it is not another 'hot-air' policy with loopholes aplenty meaning nothing really changes, I will be slightly happier.

Just my opinion though.

Hi

I love the word Quango to be honest, a good one to drop in a debate, either forum or verbally, it comes across as a winner every time, its a thought stopper.

The review is interesting, but why is this taking place I thought we had DEMSA & DRF aren't they supposed to be policing all this, one of them has the OFT logo as well I think.

To be fair IVA companies have to charge to survive and pay the wages like any other business and IVAs are a legitimate insolvency solution with possibly hundreds of thousands currently ongoing.

IVAs do work for some people and can also be the only realistic solution, so providers have to be able to operate and survive.

Its a difficult one really, I dont think there is an easy answer to be honest, maybe change IVAs to bring them in line with bankruptcy with the 3 years payments. More full and finals if IVAs hit serious problems, thats if there is anything in the pot after fees.

The current economic downturn is unique in my opinion and many people are getting caught up in it. This has had a profound effect on people in debt payment arrangements and has to get worse as far as I can see.

The IVA companies have been caught up in all this as far as I can see and they are snookered really, so to speak anyway as the fees are basically set at the start (Im being fair to the IVA companies here).

On the other hand its been going on a long time though, its nothing new, look at the dates and figures.

The termination rates speak for themselves and there are people that know whats been going on. The tragedy here is the people who have suffered and the better IVA providers getting tarred with the same brush, a classic case of short term gain long term loss maybe.

I really dont know how this will all pan out or what the review will achieve, nothing problably, its a tricky one for IVAs though.

My take

UpToMyNeckInIt

Depth_Charge wrote: »

Hi

I love the word Quango to be honest, a good one to drop in a debate, either forum or verbally, it comes across as a winner every time, its a thought stopper.

The review is interesting, but why is this taking place I thought we had DEMSA & DRF aren't they supposed to be policing all this, one of them has the OFT logo as well I think.

To be fair IVA companies have to charge to survive and pay the wages like any other business and IVAs are a legitimate insolvency solution with possibly hundreds of thousands currently ongoing.

IVAs do work for some people and can also be the only realistic solution, so providers have to be able to operate and survive.

Its a difficult one really, I dont think there is an easy answer to be honest, maybe change IVAs to bring them in line with bankruptcy with the 3 years payments. More full and finals if IVAs hit serious problems, thats if there is anything in the pot after fees.

The current economic downturn is unique in my opinion and many people are getting caught up in it. This has had a profound effect on people in debt payment arrangements and has to get worse as far as I can see.

The IVA companies have been caught up in all this as far as I can see and they are snookered really, so to speak anyway as the fees are basically set at the start (Im being fair to the IVA companies here).

On the other hand its been going on a long time though, its nothing new, look at the dates and figures.

The termination rates speak for themselves and there are people that know whats been going on. The tragedy here is the people who have suffered and the better IVA providers getting tarred with the same brush, a classic case of short term gain long term loss maybe.

I really dont know how this will all pan out or what the review will achieve, nothing problably, its a tricky one for IVAs though.

My take

Can't disagree with this post.

I remember reading some guide to IVA providers, suggesting I seek one out that is a member of DEMSA, and OFT accredited. I assumed this provides some form of reassurance in that the firm was not a rip-off merchant, and that it provided some form of policing / auditing of the accredited organisation. But I never looked into it much more than that.

Also (correct me if I am wrong), but this also seems only to apply to 'debt management' (referral) firms, not Insolvency Practitioners.
(I only say that because the websites of some of the best regarded private IPs do not advertise this accreditation).

Also, as another poster has mentioned, this membership / accreditation does not necessarily equate to a good service.

That said, I think some people in debt wait until things are so desperate, they take the first available suggestion, from the first company that cold-calls them. That, in my opinion is where a lot of the problems start.

My opinion again.

Depth_Charge

debt_doctor wrote: »

A truly excellent post Depth Charge.

I think it is fair to say that the few, and I firmly believe that it is only a very few, of those IVA providers who operate in a fully genuine impartial manner, pay the price of being 'tarred with the same brush' as the, in my view, much larger in number, rogue operators.
DEMSA, makes me laugh out loud in a cynical way when I see failed DMPs and IVA apparently set up by those who follow the OFTs strict code of guidance.
The OFT should not allow their logo on alleged DEMSA compliant company websites because it looks like the OFT endorse these companies, when infact it is just the company claiming to follow the code and getting an advertising freebie via the OFT.

I'll continue to use our local private company who is not a DEMSA member, who does follow the straightforward IVA protocol, who adheres to the CFS and allows us to be personally present at the interview with our refered client.

DD

Hi Debt Doctor

Thanks for that

I like your posts very much

I also agree with you on the OFT logo, its so obvious really, why cant the OFT see this, irony or what.

The DEMSA people should look into putting up the individual company IVA termination rates, could make very interesting reading, think one of them sold their book earlier this year too if I am not mistaken. Then there are the job adverts, I wonder if the OFT have had a look at these, might be interesting.

Interesting one about the IVA provider you refer to, not knocking it though as it sounds like it works for your bureau and clients. We all have to think outside the box a little nowdays and there are no such things as free IVAs.

In your previous post you make some very good points on the CCCS issue as well.

The CAB / CCCS pilot debt management referral scheme says it all really, belly flopped didn't it, with the CFS issue at the forefront of debate at times there too. Nobody seems to want to talk about the pilot scheme though including the CAB, strange that, but the concerns have definitely not gone away, oh no.

You can't have such a wide variation in expenditure allowance figures and give accurate advice its as simple as that. It also undermines advice in my opinion. These figures need close scrutiny and the signs are that this is exactly what is going to happen, it simply has to, and something tells me that CCCS are now acutely aware of this.

I think people are already starting see through some of this as they are not stupid and the whole thing may backfire in the new year unless there is some change.

Comprehensive debt advice and support should be there for all especially the most vulnerable not just those who 'qualify' for debt management plans and IVAs from the end of a telephone.

The CABs have to remain totally independent and speak out on the issues after all that is the twin aim isnt it, social policy etc and you can't pick and choose or turn a blind eye.

Free independent impartial advice should do exactly what is says on the tin, anything less is a sell out in my opinion. Lose this principle and you are on the road to closure and oblivion meaning the fee chargers, collection agencies, creditors maybe and some others will have won.

Could be an interesting new year my friend

My take & opinions as always

Depth_Charge

UpToMyNeckInIt wrote: »

Can't disagree with this post.

I remember reading some guide to IVA providers, suggesting I seek one out that is a member of DEMSA, and OFT accredited. I assumed this provides some form of reassurance in that the firm was not a rip-off merchant, and that it provided some form of policing / auditing of the accredited organisation. But I never looked into it much more than that.

Also (correct me if I am wrong), but this also seems only to apply to 'debt management' (referral) firms, not Insolvency Practitioners.
(I only say that because the websites of some of the best regarded private IPs do not advertise this accreditation).

Also, as another poster has mentioned, this membership / accreditation does not necessarily equate to a good service.

That said, I think some people in debt wait until things are so desperate, they take the first available suggestion, from the first company that cold-calls them. That, in my opinion is where a lot of the problems start.

My opinion again.

Hi

Clever post, I like it:)

Depth_Charge

Hi

Relate charity survey: Money survey 'causing family strain'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20849015

"Relate estimated that the cost of family breakdowns to the economy was £44bn a year, and said politicians should take families into account when formulating policy"

Full article from the relate site

http://www.relate.org.uk/news/89/index.html

All the more reason to make sure that appropriate advice in the best interests of the people in debt is given at the outset and that any solution is affordable and sustainable long term.

Getting debt advice and believing that your problems are solved only to find that you are still struggling and ending up worse off years down the line, well doesnt exactly help does it?

Time for the experienced responsible people in debt and money advice to take the helm, lets kick the other rubbish into touch where it belongs.

This type of survey clearly highlights the importance of genuine FREE independent, impartial debt and money advice.

My take

debt_doctor

This is from a thread on the main board today...........

"I also called CCCS this afternoon and in between the tears, which I could not seem to stop , they finally sucumbed to giving me info about bankruptcy - as they have always been v. resistant to giving me this info, not recommending it."

This guy had no assets, but had a full time job, so potential of spare income.............

DD

UpToMyNeckInIt

Regarding the 'Insolvency Review'. Thought you might like the view of an IP (taken from another forum):

'This has been on the cards for years, and will take some time to implement if it ever does - on an already very stretched Insolvency Service. It is fair to say that most of us don't feel that there will be much - if any - change on the regulatory front as a result of these steps.

One thing the Insolvency Service will never do is rule on fees. They will do their best to avoid such subjects, given their fear of disturbing competition - and it is widely known that fees are - and always have been - at the hands of creditors - so why need an external regulator for that? And anyone who thinks that IP fees are too high should try running an IP practice properly!'

...no reduction in fees likely then I guess, unless creditors start refusing IVA's from IPs charging more rather than less.