reasonable housekeeping figures DRO

DorisTrousers

debt_doctor wrote: »

Yes 7.5 covers the financial statement, and indeed accepts both step change or CFS figures - our bureau only refer to those using CFS figures - interestingly, we occasionally refer to step change - providing they accept our figures using the CFS!
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329133/IVA_Protocol_January_2013_version.doc

Good luck with that is all I can say, I repeat that creditor representatives will not accept the CFS as basis for an IVA, although perhaps re-reading the thread I should point out that that would only apply where CFS gives higher allowances than the StepChange guidelines, which, again to be fair and transparent, is in pretty much every area, and where those higher guidelines are used, meaning a lower payment, and therefore less return for said creditors. Just because an IVA proposal adheres to the protocol doesn't mean it will be accepted, and using the CFS as a basis for higher allowances will lead to rejection, or, more likely, an invitation to the debtor to consider the StepChange guidelines as the basis for expenditure. Back to Square One time.....

Hope that makes sense.

wba31

DorisTrousers wrote: »

Good luck with that is all I can say, I repeat that creditor representatives will not accept the CFS as basis for an IVA, although perhaps re-reading the thread I should point out that that would only apply where CFS gives higher allowances than the StepChange guidelines, which, again to be fair and transparent, is in pretty much every area, and where those higher guidelines are used, meaning a lower payment, and therefore less return for said creditors. Just because an IVA proposal adheres to the protocol doesn't mean it will be accepted, and using the CFS as a basis for higher allowances will lead to rejection, or, more likely, an invitation to the debtor to consider the StepChange guidelines as the basis for expenditure. Back to Square One time.....

Hope that makes sense.

What doesnt make sense to me is the comment that the CFS are more generous than Step Change guidelines in every area. Step Change allow more on phone/internet usage. they seem to allow more on car usage.
Its difficult to judge housekeeping and "other" because step change have lots of different areas that all amount into those figures. Im sure there are swings and roundabouts each way when comparing, but I also think its harder to compare when there are 4 areas on the CFS, and on the step change guidelines i have been given there are about 20 fields...
If we were to have a unified system, I would prefer a more broken down version rather than 4 simple fields. some clients i speak to have a real issue understanding where their clothing or hairdressing budget comes on CFS figures.

Depth_Charge

wba31 wrote: »

What doesnt make sense to me is the comment that the CFS are more generous than Step Change guidelines in every area. Step Change allow more on phone/internet usage. they seem to allow more on car usage.
Its difficult to judge housekeeping and "other" because step change have lots of different areas that all amount into those figures. Im sure there are swings and roundabouts each way when comparing, but I also think its harder to compare when there are 4 areas on the CFS, and on the step change guidelines i have been given there are about 20 fields...
If we were to have a unified system, I would prefer a more broken down version rather than 4 simple fields. some clients i speak to have a real issue understanding where their clothing or hairdressing budget comes on CFS figures.

Hi WBA

Sorry I don't agree with you and I have access to both sets of figures

Overall the CFS is much more generous and updated on a regular basis

The CFS is accepted for DRO's

The example case on here speaks for itself and has not at all been successfully challenged IMO

Its the same with IVAs ask yourself why is the CFS not regularly used (or if at all maybe) as per the straightforward IVA protocol

Also I have noticed that Stepchange still haven't commented on this thread

Really interesting and very important debate that is most certainly going to intensify

My take as always

DC

Depth_Charge

debt_doctor wrote: »

Yes 7.5 covers the financial statement, and indeed accepts both step change or CFS figures - our bureau only refer to those using CFS figures - interestingly, we occasionally refer to step change - providing they accept our figures using the CFS!
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329133/IVA_Protocol_January_2013_version.doc

Hi DD

Yes, Im with you here

Just out of interest, can you remember the pilot scheme between CAB & SC?

Best Regards

DC

wba31

Depth_Charge wrote: »

Hi WBA

Sorry I don't agree with you and I have access to both sets of figures

Overall the CFS is much more generous and updated on a regular basis

The CFS is accepted for DRO's

The example case on here speaks for itself and has not at all been successfully challenged IMO

Its the same with IVAs ask yourself why is the CFS not regularly used (or if at all maybe) as per the straightforward IVA protocol

Also I have noticed that Stepchange still haven't commented on this thread

Really interesting and very important debate that is most certainly going to intensify

My take as always

DC

SC probably haven't commented as they probably realise we are all individual opinionated advisors and they don't need to justify themselves to us, where they are widely accepted by Citizens Advice and NDL as a good provider for free debt advice? I would also hope that they are professional enough to recognise this isn't the right environment to have a conversation like this, Ive said to you directly before that I have had meetings with one of their people who go out and meet other advisors and are very open about all aspects of the way that they work.

I have a copy of both sets of guidelines on my desk too, because I use SC for support and referring clients on, and without quoting figures exactly, on my sheets, phone for a single person for example, £17 higher with SC. The CFS figure for a couple is the same as that for a single person with SC. but in reality, as I have said before, that is the ONLY comparable item due to there being 3 other fields with CFS and 20 others with SC.

The SC guidelines cant be as strict as we all like to believe if they are doing 20% of the UK's DRO's with 2% of the intermediaries as the recent figures advised...

All my opinion on my experiences, like yourself Depth Charge and DorisTrousers

DorisTrousers

wba31 wrote: »

SC probably haven't commented as they probably realise we are all individual opinionated advisors and they don't need to justify themselves to us, where they are widely accepted by Citizens Advice and NDL as a good provider for free debt advice? I would also hope that they are professional enough to recognise this isn't the right environment to have a conversation like this, Ive said to you directly before that I have had meetings with one of their people who go out and meet other advisors and are very open about all aspects of the way that they work.

I have a copy of both sets of guidelines on my desk too, because I use SC for support and referring clients on, and without quoting figures exactly, on my sheets, phone for a single person for example, £17 higher with SC. The CFS figure for a couple is the same as that for a single person with SC. but in reality, as I have said before, that is the ONLY comparable item due to there being 3 other fields with CFS and 20 others with SC.

The SC guidelines cant be as strict as we all like to believe if they are doing 20% of the UK's DRO's with 2% of the intermediaries as the recent figures advised...

All my opinion on my experiences, like yourself Depth Charge and DorisTrousers

StepChange don't need to justify themselves? I would disagree with that fundamentally. We all need to justify ourselves on an ongoing basis, and SC aren't above this by any means. If they, or anyone else, think that they are then a hefty dose of reality seems in order.

Phone for a single person, at maximum SC guidelines, is £15 higher than CFS trigger, but only £7 higher at guideline. Creditor reps won't accept maximum, so they will go off guideline. Phone for a couple from CFS is £2 higher than SC guidelines.

Not life changing amounts either way. Where your argument falls down, to a massive extent in my own humble opinion, is where there are couples, single parents with children and especially where there are couples with children. Let's just take housekeeping and "other" for a couple on CFS, and compare it against guideline SC.

Including all the variables quoted on SC guidelines (covered by other in CFS) such as dentist, medicine, hair, sports, contingency etc etc, and assuming every client does have satellite and pets, then CFS is £293 per month higher. Ah, I hear you say, but what about a comparison with MAXIMUM SC guidelines. Fair enough, but you are still talking about a differential of £161 per month. These are much more significant amounts than £2 or £7 I am sure you will agree. For balance, don't forget that SC, according to their own report, will present cases with zero allowances in certain categories as well, scandalously (in my view anyway) including the option to list clothing as a zero, so taking guideline figures, and zero's where SC allow zeros in all the various categories, then SC fall £454 behind CFS. These differentials get much, much greater when you factor any children in.

Very hard, therefore, not to heartily agree with Depth Charge that CFS IS far more generous than SC (this is becoming a habit, agreeing with Depth Charge...) but in the case of DRO's that you allude to, it matters little whether SC, CFS or detailing a debtors own version of expenditure without referring to any guidelines at all, is used as long as the resultant figure at the end comes up at less than £50. Where it DOES matter, and what this debate is more about, is where SC is used to calculate affordability on IVA's and CFS isn't, as, again, creditor representatives won't have CFS as a basis for IVA's. You can drag the debate across to DMP's as well if you like, but SC won't be using CFS for those either as they have their own debt remedy tool. Or guidelines, if you prefer.

malnuman

i just got approved today by the insolvency service for my DRO.. i went through sterpchange.. the housekeeping figure i used was £400 monthly based on two adults and two children...

DorisTrousers

malnuman wrote: »

i just got approved today by the insolvency service for my DRO.. i went through sterpchange.. the housekeeping figure i used was £400 monthly based on two adults and two children...

If that is what you spend then that is entirely appropriate. Interesting that, ignoring kids ages, it is £29 lower than SC guidelines would come out at, and miles lower than the CFS could go to. Don't get me wrong, this isn't about StepChange, or having a go at them in any way, but much more about the massive gulf between the different figures available.

Personally, I would prefer just one. Which one to use is a different matter of course, but having two naturally presents a very big danger of putting people into potentially inappropriate debt solutions. That is certainly a major risk in the commercial sector, as it is obvious that they have to sell their own products to exist and survive, but it is clearly a risk in the not for profit or free sector as well. I wonder how many people are on a DMP (or IVA of course) and struggling, because of a budget drawn up using one set of figures, where they could be debt free with a DRO for £90 using another set? Given the amount of people known to be on DMP's, with both the free and fee paying sectors (and IVA's of course) and I suspect the answer runs into many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. There is a real perversity here, and one set of guidelines only would go a long way towards reducing the risk of inappropriate debt solutions being entered into.

malnuman

hi again, yeah doristrousers, your correct, i used the £400 as i didnt have my details to hand, but stepchange did indeed use £428 as my all in housekeeping figure, based on my original expediture form i filled in.. i found the stepchange DRO team a great help with my application.. i moved from a fee paying DMP to a DRO in less than 2 months and now there is a load of pressure and worry off my mind..

fatbelly

malnuman wrote: »

hi again, yeah doristrousers, your correct, i used the £400 as i didnt have my details to hand, but stepchange did indeed use £428 as my all in housekeeping figure, based on my original expediture form i filled in.. i found the stepchange DRO team a great help with my application.. i moved from a fee paying DMP to a DRO in less than 2 months and now there is a load of pressure and worry off my mind..

That's very close to £100 per week. For 2 adults & 2 children I think that's perfectly acceptable and reasonable.

I'm glad you found a strategy that worked for you.