Creditman are reporting the launch of a new bankruptcy advice site and bankruptcy forum by the organisers of IVA.co.uk, the UK’s biggest online community for information and advice about Individual Voluntary Arrangements.
BankruptcyHelp.org will be operating alongside the seemingly well subscribed bankruptcy board on Martin Lewis' Money Expert site and the bankruptcy forum on the Myvesta site but any new initiative that might do something to counterbalance the aggressive sales activity on the IVA front has to be welcomed. It certainly provides some antidote to our report on adviser recruitment in Manchester.
As the new site develops and the forum attracts members it will be interesting to see how the independence of the new site is maintained. The forums on IVA.co.uk are well supported by practising experts - including a very experienced independent IP - who volunteer their own time to provide advice but commercial providers can also post on the site.
Both Thomas Charles and their parent company Accuma are, for example, contributors to the site and although their online advice seems to be objective there is at least an enlightened self interest in their regular association with the site. It will be interesting to see if the less lucrative field of bankruptcy advice attracts similar expertise.
Showing posts with label Accuma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Accuma. Show all posts
Saturday, 3 March 2007
Sunday, 25 February 2007
Insolvency Service boosted IVA advertising
The Insolvency Service stakeholders working group which aimed to improve IVAs and their availability to debtors included in its membership major IVA providers Debt Free Direct and Accuma. Their initial report was published for consultation back in July 2005 and one section of the report dealt with the 'problem' of increasing debtor awareness.
The problem was identified following research - quoted in the report - and carried out by Debt Free Direct (not the most independent of sources) in 2004.
They concluded that:
The response to the proposals for Improving IVAs were published in January 2006.
By then, they were able to report that the majority of respondents thought that "there is already adequate awareness among consumers of the IVA process, especially with the recent rapid rise in numbers".
The Insolvency Service report therefore drily noted that:
It is perhaps less surprising that the IVA providers did not really need that much more encouragement from the government to boost its advertising and marketing spend to increase consumer awareness of IVAs and the take up of the arrangements.
Not surprising - to quote Jack London - "for they alone knew how to reap the whirlwind and make a profit out of it".
The problem was identified following research - quoted in the report - and carried out by Debt Free Direct (not the most independent of sources) in 2004.
They concluded that:
The Working Group agrees that the existence and usefulness of the IVA needs to have a higher profile, possibly through advertising. However, both the funding of such advertising and where those responding to the advertisements would be directed are issues to be addressed, particularly as some nominees and supervisors are not members of R3 and have a variety of regulatory bodies.They nonetheless asked respondents in Q.12 of their consultation to come up with practical suggestions to increase awareness of IVAs.
The response to the proposals for Improving IVAs were published in January 2006.
By then, they were able to report that the majority of respondents thought that "there is already adequate awareness among consumers of the IVA process, especially with the recent rapid rise in numbers".
The Insolvency Service report therefore drily noted that:
In the year ending 31 December 2005 there were 20,293 IVAs, this shows an 88.7% increase on the 2004 figures. We do not propose to take action to increase awareness of IVAs at this time.It seems surprising that some of the stakeholders on the Working Group did not already know from their own sales figures that IVAs were being taken up at significantly inreasing rates when the original proposals were published.
It is perhaps less surprising that the IVA providers did not really need that much more encouragement from the government to boost its advertising and marketing spend to increase consumer awareness of IVAs and the take up of the arrangements.
Not surprising - to quote Jack London - "for they alone knew how to reap the whirlwind and make a profit out of it".
Sunday, 18 February 2007
Accuma Group Insolvency Practitioners Ltd.
IVA.com list Accuma Group Insolvency Practitioners Ltd on their database of companies providing IVAs but, according to IVA.com, they do not employ any insolvency practitioners (IPs).
IVA.com provide a link to the Accuma Group plc web site and, in their FAQs, they refer to the limited company as being part of the Accuma group and say: " Accuma Insolvency Practitioners Ltd ........ is one of the largest personal insolvency practices in the UK and we are highly skilled in helping to resolve debt problems for people just like you."
It seem unlikely that a company could claim to be insolvency practitioners in their trading title if they were not licensed and it is certainly also true that only individuals - not companies - can be licensed to serve as IPs. It would be difficult to license a 'corporate officer of the court' as this would probably generate one almighty legal mess - and fortunes for starving barristers.
Maybe IVA.com have made a mistake on this one.
But why don't Accuma list the IPs who head up the limited company on their web site ? Surely a public notice giving the names of their IPs alongside a public declaration of the recognised professional bodies licensing them would help reassure debtors that they are dealing with qualified professionals ?
IVA.com provide a link to the Accuma Group plc web site and, in their FAQs, they refer to the limited company as being part of the Accuma group and say: " Accuma Insolvency Practitioners Ltd ........ is one of the largest personal insolvency practices in the UK and we are highly skilled in helping to resolve debt problems for people just like you."
It seem unlikely that a company could claim to be insolvency practitioners in their trading title if they were not licensed and it is certainly also true that only individuals - not companies - can be licensed to serve as IPs. It would be difficult to license a 'corporate officer of the court' as this would probably generate one almighty legal mess - and fortunes for starving barristers.
Maybe IVA.com have made a mistake on this one.
But why don't Accuma list the IPs who head up the limited company on their web site ? Surely a public notice giving the names of their IPs alongside a public declaration of the recognised professional bodies licensing them would help reassure debtors that they are dealing with qualified professionals ?
Sunday, 4 February 2007
Accumagroup.com - Misleading Punters On Fees ?
Why do IVA providers like Accuma insist on making misleading statements about the fees they charge for IVAs ?
Check out the IVA FAQs on the Accuma website and you'll find that - just like Debt Free Direct - they play the same kind of word games when they talk about their fees.
Accuma claim that : "Unlike a Debt Management Plan, the IVA is funded by your creditors. In this regard, Accuma will never charge you a fee." and they then go on to say that.... "An Accuma IVA is free of charge because your creditors cover the costs. The proposal, implementation and management of an IVA is time consuming and expensive. As these costs are covered by your creditors, they reduce the amount that is eventually repaid to them."
Well, not quite. I've said it before but it bears repeating. Creditors agree a minimum percentage that they are prepared to accept. This sum is worked out and the IP's fees are added to the total due to creditors to work out the monthly instalments. Those instalments are paid by the debtor.
Thomas Charles spell this out on their site. They say how much an IVA will cost and it is worthwhile quoting what they have to say in full.
Thomas Charles quite clearly say: "The IVA agreement is not undertaken for free. You will need to use a specially licensed person called an Insolvency Practitioner to undertake an IVA. Thomas Charles & Co Ltd can arrange this for you. The Insolvency Practitioner will normally charge two fees: A Nominee Fee and a Supervisor’s Fee. These fees vary but as a guide, most Insolvency Practitioners charge a Nominee Fee of £2,500 and annual Supervisors fees of £1000.
This is a straightforward and honest explanation. There is no such thing as a free lunch. So why do companies like Accuma insist on mis-selling IVAs as if they were free ?
Check out the IVA FAQs on the Accuma website and you'll find that - just like Debt Free Direct - they play the same kind of word games when they talk about their fees.
Accuma claim that : "Unlike a Debt Management Plan, the IVA is funded by your creditors. In this regard, Accuma will never charge you a fee." and they then go on to say that.... "An Accuma IVA is free of charge because your creditors cover the costs. The proposal, implementation and management of an IVA is time consuming and expensive. As these costs are covered by your creditors, they reduce the amount that is eventually repaid to them."
Well, not quite. I've said it before but it bears repeating. Creditors agree a minimum percentage that they are prepared to accept. This sum is worked out and the IP's fees are added to the total due to creditors to work out the monthly instalments. Those instalments are paid by the debtor.
Thomas Charles spell this out on their site. They say how much an IVA will cost and it is worthwhile quoting what they have to say in full.
Thomas Charles quite clearly say: "The IVA agreement is not undertaken for free. You will need to use a specially licensed person called an Insolvency Practitioner to undertake an IVA. Thomas Charles & Co Ltd can arrange this for you. The Insolvency Practitioner will normally charge two fees: A Nominee Fee and a Supervisor’s Fee. These fees vary but as a guide, most Insolvency Practitioners charge a Nominee Fee of £2,500 and annual Supervisors fees of £1000.
This is a straightforward and honest explanation. There is no such thing as a free lunch. So why do companies like Accuma insist on mis-selling IVAs as if they were free ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
