IVA support and discussion thread

Depth_Charge

UpToMyNeckInIt wrote: »

Hi DC,

Had a better chance to look at those figure.

http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov..../Annex%20D.htm

OK, so in a family like mine: 2 adults, 1 child, the IPA clothing allowance is £128.50, vs the £75 I currently allow - fair enough.

Many other areas seem comparable though.

But IVA customers can claim for a raft of other expenditure (unless I am misreading the above link), which BR customers cannot:

Eg: Mobile phone: £25
laundry/dry cleaning £40
newspapers/magazines £25
satellite subs. £26
pet-care - £40
car breakdown cover £15.

...to name but a few. Plus my 'travel' allowance exceeds the IS quoted figures by a good £100.

...and that's using the 2012 SC guidelines.

Unless I have misunderstood something, I reckon you are better off with the SC guidelines.

Hi

It is a good response UTMNII and nothing less than I expected:)

You have my respect by the way, you always have had:)

I don't quite see things the same and will come back to you.

Just on the subject of SC, have you seen the latest news
today on the NEDCAB online Debt Option/ Remedy / Information
and Online Debt Management Plan Resource?

It looks like NEDCAB have been granted / given a licence and the support of Citizens Advice to market their system around the other CAB branches in England and Wales (there are approx 300 branches I understand)

If this system goes round the individual CAB branches tailored to their individual areas and needs say (and I understand there is already much interest) it could be a game changing development.

The MAS will probably like it also!

It has been a long time coming against some heavy odds, but maybe, just maybe something 'changed' in the debt advice sector today, and as always only time will tell.

My take & catch you later all being well.

Find_The_Real

Excellent news that NECAB can roll their system out to there rest of the CAB network as I really think there is a major need for this. The problem with CAB is they have lagged behind a bit with technology and whilst the website for advice is excellent there is very little interaction and most of it has to be done via the local office.

This should hopefully free up valuable resources if they can get the online side of things up and running as I think more people will turn to them for DMP's, which as we know are increasing in popularity here. I only hope there may be the resource to follow it up with telephone or face to face advice so people are making the right decision.

On a more lighter note I really need to stop being at a loose end by not speaking to my creditors anymore. I always have way too much credit on my mobile so I decided to reduce it down today by answering a really helpful call to write off over 70% of my debts over £10,000. I spoke to a really nice lady who seemed shocked to speak to someone and was very patient in explaining all my options to me. Sensing she was probably high-fiving in anticipation of actually making the lead generation and therefore bonus, I politely informed her I was already in an IVA and could she please remove my number and she didn't even have the decency to wish me goodbye before she cut the call.

UpToMyNeckInIt

Hi DC,

Thanks for you response.

Those of you working in the debt management industry know best what figures to use, dependent upon whether a customer is contemplating DMP, IVA, BR or whatever. (I accept that I must have mis-interpreted something somewhere, or assumed too much based on the I/S table in that link). So assume a degree of ignorance on my part.

However, if as it appears to me, that BR customers are not given the same allowances as IVA customers, it is only fair that the professionals advising them, provide the best possible allowances, in other areas to enable a fair, comparable standard of living to IVA customers - and indeed vice-versa where applicable.

Whether you use SC, I/S, or CFS figures (or indeed a combination), as long as you advise fairly, nobody can argue with that.

Bottom line is that at some point the customer with debt problems has to 'trust' the CAB, the debt charities, and/or a private-sector company, with advice on allowances and that's the problem:

I am sure the majority of the industry works fairly, but there are clearly issues whether it be with each organisation's own political and/or profit-making agenda, and/or having to advise, at the behest of creditors that fund them, and/or with the occasional unscrupulous individual as well.

Factor in the different 'budget guideline' models out there, and this inevitably this leads to inconsistent customer advice. Allow as well for the fact that some customers' ability to separate the genuine advice from the sales-patter, or do proper research, and you sadly get customers 'caught-out' and saddled with the wrong solution.

Case in point with FTR's IVA 'cold-call': This strategy must work, otherwise IVA companies would not use it. Are they always advising in the customer's best interests? Are they heck.

Plenty of customers with IVA's it seems, who signed up after a cold call though, without even looking at other solutions. I'm sure many more still do not correctly amend their expenditure at review-time either.

Depth_Charge

UpToMyNeckInIt wrote: »

Hi DC,

Thanks for you response.

Those of you working in the debt management industry know best what figures to use, dependent upon whether a customer is contemplating DMP, IVA, BR or whatever. (I accept that I must have mis-interpreted something somewhere, or assumed too much based on the I/S table in that link). So assume a degree of ignorance on my part.

However, if as it appears to me, that BR customers are not given the same allowances as IVA customers, it is only fair that the professionals advising them, provide the best possible allowances, in other areas to enable a fair, comparable standard of living to IVA customers - and indeed vice-versa where applicable.

Whether you use SC, I/S, or CFS figures (or indeed a combination), as long as you advise fairly, nobody can argue with that.

Bottom line is that at some point the customer with debt problems has to 'trust' the CAB, the debt charities, and/or a private-sector company, with advice on allowances and that's the problem:

I am sure the majority of the industry works fairly, but there are clearly issues whether it be with each organisation's own political and/or profit-making agenda, and/or having to advise, at the behest of creditors that fund them, and/or with the occasional unscrupulous individual as well.

Factor in the different 'budget guideline' models out there, and this inevitably this leads to inconsistent customer advice. Allow as well for the fact that some customers' ability to separate the genuine advice from the sales-patter, or do proper research, and you sadly get customers 'caught-out' and saddled with the wrong solution.

Case in point with FTR's IVA 'cold-call': This strategy must work, otherwise IVA companies would not use it. Are they always advising in the customer's best interests? Are they heck.

Plenty of customers with IVA's it seems, who signed up after a cold call though, without even looking at other solutions. I'm sure many more still do not correctly amend their expenditure at review-time either.

Hi

Thank you for the response.

Excellent and very interesting post UTMNII

You hit and 'cover' all the right points here

It also looks like you have given further thought on the overall situation?

I would think there are others who will be:)

I am quite sure that you and many others know exactly what I mean.

Very interesting times indeed

DC

Depth_Charge

Find_The_Real wrote: »

Excellent news that NECAB can roll their system out to there rest of the CAB network as I really think there is a major need for this. The problem with CAB is they have lagged behind a bit with technology and whilst the website for advice is excellent there is very little interaction and most of it has to be done via the local office.

This should hopefully free up valuable resources if they can get the online side of things up and running as I think more people will turn to them for DMP's, which as we know are increasing in popularity here. I only hope there may be the resource to follow it up with telephone or face to face advice so people are making the right decision.

On a more lighter note I really need to stop being at a loose end by not speaking to my creditors anymore. I always have way too much credit on my mobile so I decided to reduce it down today by answering a really helpful call to write off over 70% of my debts over £10,000. I spoke to a really nice lady who seemed shocked to speak to someone and was very patient in explaining all my options to me. Sensing she was probably high-fiving in anticipation of actually making the lead generation and therefore bonus, I politely informed her I was already in an IVA and could she please remove my number and she didn't even have the decency to wish me goodbye before she cut the call.

Hi

Very fair and good points as always

DC

Depth_Charge

Interesting post

Really good points

I think there will be something happening on the standardisation, not sure what, but it will be a top discussion point and wont go away.

The point you make on the CFS & DROs and B/R is as valid as it gets and has been tested at a B/R IPO hearing, the result was interesting.

PS - welcome to the action by the way:)

DC

Find_The_Real

UpToMyNeckInIt wrote: »

Case in point with FTR's IVA 'cold-call': This strategy must work, otherwise IVA companies would not use it. Are they always advising in the customer's best interests? Are they heck.

Plenty of customers with IVA's it seems, who signed up after a cold call though, without even looking at other solutions. I'm sure many more still do not correctly amend their expenditure at review-time either.

Well I think this may be a bit of an over simplification but I think those in debt generally fall into 3 types, those that will take the first option that is handed to them, those who take the first option and then realise perhaps it needs a bit more research and those that research first and then choose.

I can fully understand option one as there is an element on panic when you realise you cannot afford your debts, I certainly don't think that companies should be allowed to cold call about it like my phone call, as although it amused me, for some people in debt they will look at this as a way to get out of debt and take that option, only for us to see a few years down the line the help thread.

Debt advice is big business and I think it would be helpful if those in debt saw it as that and took time to decide which business they want to use. Yes allowances should be standard as should the wider protocols of dealing with debt but I just do not think that is going to happen.

Find_The_Real

I see I now have a new thing to entertain myself with, letters about my PPI claim. It's obviously they have trawled the register to get the details as it includes my IVA company a few times and in the first paragraph it does get you thinking this is the claim part to do with my IVA. However they seriously then let themselves down by saying they can get a lump sum to end my IVA (hmm already done that) or ensure there is a lump sum left for me at the end (it's pretty clear in my proposal all PPI is captured in the IVA) and that they are usually able to get up 50% back as this is interest apparently (which we all know is 8%). The funds could also reduce my overall liability and the term of the IVA.

Fortunately I know 99% of the letter is not true (my name is correct!) but it is rather worrying that these companies can send out their claim rubbish in a totally misleading way, as I am sure some people will read that it is to do with their IVA company and will be tempted by the prospect of getting PPI when it is not the case.

I am very much aware that the registry means you are marketing fodder once in an IVA but I really do think there should be more regulation over these types of companies.

Mini rant over!

Depth_Charge

Find_The_Real wrote: »

I see I now have a new thing to entertain myself with, letters about my PPI claim. It's obviously they have trawled the register to get the details as it includes my IVA company a few times and in the first paragraph it does get you thinking this is the claim part to do with my IVA. However they seriously then let themselves down by saying they can get a lump sum to end my IVA (hmm already done that) or ensure there is a lump sum left for me at the end (it's pretty clear in my proposal all PPI is captured in the IVA) and that they are usually able to get up 50% back as this is interest apparently (which we all know is 8%). The funds could also reduce my overall liability and the term of the IVA.

Fortunately I know 99% of the letter is not true (my name is correct!) but it is rather worrying that these companies can send out their claim rubbish in a totally misleading way, as I am sure some people will read that it is to do with their IVA company and will be tempted by the prospect of getting PPI when it is not the case.

I am very much aware that the registry means you are marketing fodder once in an IVA but I really do think there should be more regulation over these types of companies.

Mini rant over!

Hi

Much debated subject is the I/S Register, leads galore and no prizes for guessing on that one!

Recent media release from Citizens Advice on claims companies with info links

Our Gillian once again tells it like it is -

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/pressoffice/press_index/press_20131112-3.htm

My take

Find_The_Real

A very good link DC however I think I am far too cynical that the MoJ will actually do what it says and fine people, after all OFCOM also has rules in place and there has been very little action on CLID, dialler drops and checking against the TPS before calling.

If the MoJ really want to back up their PR of getting tough on firms, they need to make it much more clearer about who to contact to complain, with a very quick easy process. However I don't think they would have the manpower to be able to follow up the deluge of complaints. Plus going back the issues especially where telephone calls are concerned, quite often it is not always clear who is actually calling.