We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
ppi IVA query
Comments
-
foxy-stoat wrote: »I wouldn't be informing your partners OR - just keep quiet and they will be no redress, unless she signed forms allowing the OR to pursue PPI refunds....normally they don't, not like in IVA.
The OR has a right to the money as do the creditorsSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Ive used a ppi company and told them i didnt have an IVA, will this be tracked and looked at
You must never use a claims company if you have defaults, arrears or amounts written off as part of an agreed settlement (such as an IVA).
The claims company is allowed to bill you against the amount of the redress. Even if some or all if it is paid to/retained by the creditors.My partner had been declared bankrupt a few years ago, yet she got a PPI claim for a few thousand, this is why i decided to do mine.its very confusing lol
If your partner did not inform the official receiver then she has acted unlawfully. The banks have been going back on earlier PPI redress complaints and informing the OR. Some people have been contacted by the OR upto 5 years after receiving the redress payment.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
foxy-stoat wrote: »I wouldn't be informing your partners OR - just keep quiet and they will be no redress, unless she signed forms allowing the OR to pursue PPI refunds....normally they don't, not like in IVA.
PPI is a pre-bankruptcy asset which already belongs to the OR.
As such, the OR has no need to seek the permission of the Bankrupt in order to pursue redress of their mis-sold PPI."This means that not only do you not have the right to receive the monies from any claim but that you also do not have the right to make the claim, That right passed to the trustee and so it is the trustees right whether to take it forward or not, the claim now belongs to them.
The Insolvency service is trialling using a solicitors firm to take batches of these claims forward en masse to the banks and therefore if you have already made the claim and pocketed the cash there is a good chance that the IS will at some point try and cash in the claim and therefore realise that you already have."0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »Read the link I provided earlier
PPI is a pre-bankruptcy asset which already belongs to the OR.
As such, the OR has no need to seek the permission of the Bankrupt in order to pursue redress of their mis-sold PPI.
Well aware of that, but they will not be able to claim unless the poor sap has filled in the relevant forms at the start of the BR or during. As there is only a few months away they probably wont bother. If the OR say gets £2000 from each creditor (for example) they are duty bound to split the proceeds with all creditors, so they will just get the same amount back - pointless exercise.0 -
The OR has a right to the money as do the creditors
Agreed but by informing them that they have received money they will open up a can on worms, have to pay the OR 100% of the refunded money back. If it was a few thousand they will have to find the money - if they used a claims company that took 25/35% they will have to pay that as well.
Just as well not give them a massive headache.0 -
foxy-stoat wrote: »Agreed but by informing them that they have received money they will open up a can on worms, have to pay the OR 100% of the refunded money back. If it was a few thousand they will have to find the money - if they used a claims company that took 25/35% they will have to pay that as well.
Just as well not give them a massive headache.
And if the bank tells the OR, or the OR finds out somehow, then not only do they need to pay it back but they face criminal charges. You are suggesting the poster commit fraud and hope they get away with it with is dangerous, illegal, and against what the MSE site stands for.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
And if the bank tells the OR, or the OR finds out somehow, then not only do they need to pay it back but they face criminal charges. You are suggesting the poster commit fraud and hope they get away with it with is dangerous, illegal, and against what the MSE site stands for.
The poster hasn't committed fraud, their partner has already committed the fraud - I was suggesting that best let sleeping dogs lie.
Although I do like what MSE stands for so I will be turning myself into the nearest police station on my way home from work as I drove 45 in a 40 earlier.....0 -
foxy-stoat wrote: »I do like what MSE stands for so I will be turning myself into the nearest police station on my way home from work as I drove 45 in a 40 earlier.....
I agree that, three months before the last PPI complaint is allowed, the OR is VERY unlikely to discover that the OP's partner has received and spent PPI redress that did not belong to him or her. However, it would surely be remiss of us here on the forum not to inform the OP of the possibility?
Not sure what MSE stand for other than saving money, but there you go...
On the matter of your motoring offences, I recommend you post for advice on the relevant forum:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=700 -
foxy-stoat wrote: »The poster hasn't committed fraud, their partner has already committed the fraud - I was suggesting that best let sleeping dogs lie.
Although I do like what MSE stands for so I will be turning myself into the nearest police station on my way home from work as I drove 45 in a 40 earlier.....
Fine, the partner, not the poster. What doesn't change is the fact that person has committed a criminal offence by taking money that belongs to the OR (and thus the firms / people who were not repaid the money the person borrowed and got out of repaying via bankruptcy). The poster has now, knowingly committed a crime and you are advocating they continue to commit fraud by not declaring it. All it takes is a random check or a bank employee tidying up records to notice and notify the OR and the poster will be hauled off to court and forced to repay the money they have effectively stolen from their creditors. If they admit it now, they may just have to repay the money and no more, if they keep quiet and hope they don't get found out, they could face a rude awakeningSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards