Written on: 07/06/2013
I have had an IVA with Payplan since 2009. I have NEVER FAILED to make monthly payments and I have been pleased with their services until towards the year 2012. During my annual review in November 2012, I was advised to provide receipts to evidence an increased expenditure, which I did for the receipts that I had. As I did not have the receipts for grocery shopping for the year I was unable to evidence how much I spent on food shopping. I explained this to my supervisor and clearly advised that my monthly expenditure varies from month to month and the amount given is only an estimation.I thought this was an acceptable explanation as I later received had a confirmation that they used my last year's expenditure which did not bother me as my priority is to prioritise my IVA monthly payments.
However, today 7 June 13, I received a telephone call message from my supervisor to advise that my IVA has failed due to non-compliance!! I was unable to speak directly to my allocated supervisor, her colleague, however was able to access my file. She advised that I have failed to provide supporting evidence to justify increased expenditure. She told me that they have been waiting for this information since January this year-and it's my food shopping and hair monthly expenditure. I found her very abrupt and impatient. Of course I was upset about this decision as I do not believe it warrants a failure especially because I'm on my forth year without a single late/failure of monthly payment? The lady advised that I should have provided my shopping receipts and I am sure if I was advised from the onset that I send my monthly shopping to Payplan I would have done so.
I find their decision harsh and unjust and I strongly believe the change of supervisors does not help
there was no clear communication and I honestly don't even think there was a proper hand over as many my communication with my previous supervisor was via email. I am very upset and if my IVA was failing because I was not paying my monthly repayments then that would be a very different case. I really believe that on this occasion they have got it wrong.