reasonable housekeeping figures DRO

Depth_Charge

Very interesting 'take' and case story

The figure is currently £322 I understand, the NEDCAB system gets updated so to speak.

The NEDCAB system is different to the Stepchange Debt Remedy Tool in a number of ways, the main one is that it does not recommend a course of action or debt solution based on expenditure figures put in by the user. I personally along with many others feel it would be unsafe to do so based on someone just putting in figures, look at the example SC case input example on this thread and maybe comment (Stepchange have been more than invited to comment on this and other issues but for reasons unknown appear to have so far declined)

Here is another invite to Stepchange if they are looking in.

Interesting story on the case of benefit income / DLA

DLA has long been a point of debate and continues as such. I could write a book and include IVA examples that I would describe as horror stories.

I am not sure what the full points you are making or alluding to on the priority debts / arrears as far as info on websites are concerned. Also as I am quite sure you aware it is not always that simple where B/R & DRO's are concerned regarding certain priority debt situations an example being where suspended possession orders are in place with payments towards rent arrears.

Really interesting post however on what I agree is a very interesting thread / debate with more to come over the weeks and months ahead.

The Common Financial Statement (CFS) is recognised and used by many advisers, changing the rules or should that be adjusting the goal posts to suite a particular debt solution (if this happens) needs to shouted off the roof tops as I thought the idea of independent, impartial advice was supposed to be in the best interests of those in debt - having an allowance for clothing and footwear fits into that opinion too

Of course as always just my opinions & take

DC

wba31

From my experience for Step Change DMP clients, surplus = DMP payment, so unsure how £300 disposable income is a £50 per month DMP .

If the advice is all that wrong, complain. Call and speak to their management. I have helped many people use their debt remedy tool, and when having issues the best thing to do is to call in and rectify issues that way. There are some awkward advisors sometimes (doesnt every place have them) but only once have i asked to speak to someone senior, did so with no issues.

If Step Change were all that bad a debt charity, why would so many people support and promote them, Martin Lewis included? If there were all that many complaints about their practices, would they not be investigated? Ive heard horror stories about clients going to all 4 of the major free debt advice organisations (CAB, NDL, PayPlan (who im wary of as profit makers!) and Step Change)

Ive said before, and will say it again, the providers of free debt advice should all stick together and support each other, especially in public forums like this. If that involves providing feedback to Step Change on your clients Jouster, then do it, im sure they'd appreciate it. If we want we can all pick faults in each other and actually let the Gregory Penningtons, Harrington Brookes and other fee chargers of this world take over instead.

Im sorry ladies/gents, but i feel these conversations should be kept for private, or local discussion forums, and not in the public domain where people receiving debt advice are looking for answers. I dont know where you work Jouster, and it's none of my business, but have you ever spoken to the relationships team from Step Change? well worth contacting, gives you a direct contact should you have any issues or questions

If CAB, Step Change, NDL, or even Payplan could deal with the whole UK's debt advice, the other 2 would go under. They all excel in different services, and are all as important as one another, especially in supporting smaller, local services.

just my take of course...

longtermplanner

I don't think it is odd. They are priority debts because of the potential problems if they are not treated as a priority: eviction, prison etc. This means they need to be handled separately in a DMP, not just pro-rata'd along with consumer debts. It has nothing to do with whether they will be wiped out by insolvency options.

DorisTrousers

What has happened here? This doesn't make sense anymore.

longtermplanner

It looks as though The Forum Mods have deleted a post that a few people including me replied to, so our replies don't make much sense. Probably best to think of this thread as being closed.

wba31

either that or the poster decided to withdraw comments. it got to a point of opinion vs opinion anyway so we were all just banging heads...

Depth_Charge

Hi

Interesting & relevant

I understand that the CFS trigger figures have very recently been reviewed and increased accordingly

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

Not got any news on the Stepchange figures yet

DC

DorisTrousers

Taking the scenario of a family of four, with a car, 1 child over 14 and 1 child under 14, also assuming that maximum trigger figures were used on a financial statement for a DRO were employed, then these new figures represent an increase across the board for these allowances which works out at 5.9%.


I have no idea when to expect the new StepChange guidelines, and it would be totally wrong to speculate what may be in them, save to say that the last lot did allow a lot more room for REDUCTION in expenditure allowances when compared to the previous edition.


What is certain here is that at least the CFS from MAT categorically puts the needs of the most vulnerable first, whilst having its roots in common sense by increasing these guidelines.

Depth_Charge

Hi

The last Stepchange figures do not seem to be available to the public for some reason.

The clothing & footwear allowances in the Stepchange figures & section make astonishing reading and are ridiculous in my opinion and open to controversy to say the least

The CFS figures are much more generous in certain areas and with this latest review they are now even more so.

There is a great deal of controversy and debate among advisers as to why the CFS figures are much more generous and on the reviews compared to the Stepchange ones (you only have to read through this thread to see evidence of this)

Stepchange have a number of advisers on here and no doubt their superiors (if that is the correct term) keep an eye on forums and yet no comments seem forthcoming.

I and others would love to hear from Stepchange on the expenditure issue especially on clothing and footwear, it is an open forum so here again is an invite.

I and others believe that not having a universal set of figures can only undermine independent impartial debt advice and cannot be in the genuine interest of those seeking debt advice.

I cannot see how an online debt remedy tool by just using a set of expenditure figures (their own) can accurately and safely give detailed advice on a course of action that often appears to be suggested by Stepchange and their advisers on here (all this in 20 minutes too I think they sometimes suggest) You only have to look at the example case in this thread.

The MAS have been talking about unifying the expenditure allowance figures for some time now and in the interests of those in debt this surely has to happen in the meantime the debate and confusion will go on and on.

It needs sorting

Strong stuff some might say but these are genuine opinions from a very experienced adviser on an open forum where Stepchange or indeed anyone else are very welcome to comment on.

DC

National_Debtline

Depth_Charge wrote: »

The CFS figures are much more generous in certain areas and with this latest review they are now even more so.

Good morning,

I was going to drop you a line to see if you had sight of the new figures, but I knew you would be ahead of the game.

Have a great day,

David.