0191 232 0283
0191 261 6956
info@srflegal.co.uk
Follow us
    • About
      • SRF TODAY
      • OUR TEAM
      • CAREERS
      • CONTACT & LOCATIONS
    • Commercial
      • CORPORATE AND COMMERCIAL
      • COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
      • DISPUTE RESOLUTION
      • DEBT RECOVERY
      • EMPLOYMENT LAW
      • INSOLVENCY
      • REGULATORY LAW
      • FINANCIAL CRIME
    • Private Client
      • FAMILY LAW
      • WILLS, TRUSTS AND PROBATE
      • MOTORING OFFENCES
      • BUYING AND SELLING PROPERTY
    • News & Events
      • FIRM NEWS
      • EVENTS & SEMINARS
      • SRF NEST
    1. Home
    2. Legal Bulletin
    3. PPI Compensation: the IVA or the individual

    PPI Compensation: the IVA or the individual


    Published on: 31st August 2017

    In the recent case of Green (Supervisor of the IVA of James Patrick Wright) v Wright, the Court of Appeal considered the impact of a completion certificate and the payment of PPI compensation post the issue of the certificate.

    Facts

    On 31 August 2007, Mr Wright proposed an IVA incorporating the R3 Standard Conditions.

    On 9 October 2007, the proposal was approved subject to modifications.

    Mr Wright complied with all of his obligations under the IVA including the recovery of three PPI claims which were brought into the IVA. A further two PPI claims had been made, however these were refused.

    On 17 January 2013, the IVA supervisor issued a completion certificate which stated:

    “the arrangement is now completed and the debtor is released from all liabilities to creditors bound by the arrangement.”

    Subsequent to this completion certificate, Mr Wright's two additional PPI claims were accepted towards the end of 2013, and the IVA supervisor received payments from Barclays and RBS for £17,556.74 and £6,950.12 respectively. The IVA supervisor therefore issued an application for directions.

    First instance

    The DDJ ordered that the sums should be paid to Mr Wright. The DDJ relied upon (1) the completion certificate, (2) that under paragraphs 9(2) and 27(3) of the Standard Conditions all debts owed by Mr Wright had been extinguished and there was no subsisting trust, and (3) that the holders of the debts could no longer be treated as creditors.

    The IVA supervisor appealed to the Court of Appeal.

    Appeal

    The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reversed the DDJ's decision. The Court of Appeal held that:

    • Paragraph 28 of the Standard Conditions provided that upon “termination” of the IVA the trusts would cease, and that in this case there had not been a termination but the IVA had merely been completed
    • The release of the debt is not necessarily the same as extinction or discharge of a debts.
    • The debts and the IVA trust continues to exist but cease to be part of the debtor's personal obligations.
    • It would undermine the purpose and spirit of voluntary arrangements if the trusts created by then came to an end on completion in the absence of an express provision.

    The court relied upon Re NT Gallagher + Sons (2002) in which it was held that without an express termination of the IVA the monies were subject to the IVA trust which continued despite the issuing of a completion certificate.

    Summary

    This case highlights that the completion of obligations under an IVA and the issuing of an IVA completion certificate will not terminate the IVA trust, and as such PPI monies and the like remain payable into the IVA trust for the benefit of the creditors. The debtor’s assets will not be free of the IVA’s reach post-completion.

    Practically, each case will depend on its facts (in particular they will depend on the set of Standard Conditions used).

    IVA supervisors should be aware of this issue, especially given the deadline for PPI claims.

    For more information please contact Alexandra Withers.


    TAGS: Regulatory

    MORE

    • High Court grants relief to defendant for non-attendance
    • High Court punishes oil prospectors for breach of injunction
    • How much is it actually worth?
    • Modifying restrictive covenants – a potential life-line for developers?
    • The court cannot extend time to pay agreed settlements
    • The court criticises inconsistent arguments and excessive costs.
    • Lease assignments and requests for landlord’s consent – administrators and assignees beware
    • Business Purchasers Beware – to Due Diligence and Beyond
    • Disclaimer – what happens to the lease when one of the tenants is made bankrupt?
    • Modifying restrictive covenants – a potential life-line for developers?
    • Cosmetic Warriors’ war on valuing of shares
    • Directors’ liability: how far does it go?
    • Administrators: are you settled in the knowledge of the powers available to you?
    • Information Commissioner’s Annual Report and Financial Statements 2016/17
    • Bombarding the court with applications to vary
    • Judicial reviews – the importance of playing by the rules
    • The perils of property with Japanese knotweed
    • Is that in the best interest of beneficiaries?
    • Are you going to be left high and dry? – Asset stripping to avoid paying
    • PPI Compensation: the IVA or the individual
    • Failure to mediate? Be prepared to pay for it!
    • Understanding adjudication and arbitration: Clarity leads to confusion in enforcement
    • Understanding adjudication and arbitration: Fast paced decision making
    • Understanding adjudication and arbitration: Ensuring jurisdiction
    • Understanding adjudication and arbitration: Has there been serious irregularity?
    • Understanding adjudication and arbitration: Removal of an arbitrator
    • Operation LINDEN: Unsolicited Marketing Communications
    • Lease assignments and requests for landlord’s consent – administrators and assignees beware 
    • Worker fined for stealing vulnerable people’s personal information
    • BREAKING NEWS: Uber has lost their appeal

    AUTHOR

    Alexandra Withers

    ASSOCIATE

    Specialist in Dispute Resolution & Insolvency

    Tel: 0191 232 0283

    Email: Send Message

    CONTACT US

  • 4 Mosley Street
    Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 1DE
    Tel: 0191 232 0283 Fax: 0191 261 6956
    Email: info@srflegal.co.uk
    DX: 61037 Newcastle

    Short Richardson and Forth Solicitors Limited is a private limited company registered in England and Wales under company No. 10572065, authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority No. 637150.

    Short Richardson and Forth Solicitors Limited is a private limited company constituted and run in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act 2006. The term “partner” has been used to denote individual senior solicitors employed by Short Richardson and Forth Solicitors Limited.

    Website Privacy Policy

    Complaints Procedure

    • ABOUT
    • SRF Today
    • Our Team
    • Careers
    • Contacts & Location
    • COMMERCIAL
    • Corporate and Commercial
    • Commercial Property
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Debt Recovery
    • Employment Law
    • Insolvency
    • Regulatory Law
    • Financial Crime
    • PRIVATE CLIENTS
    • Family Law
    • Wills, Trusts and Probate
    • Motoring offences
    • Buying and Selling Property
    • NEWS & EVENTS
    • Firm News
    • Events & Seminars
    • SRF Nest