People all over the England and United Kingdom are currently facing the same debt problems. Remember you don’t have to face financial problem alone. We are here to offer some specialist debt advice. After all, debt is a common problem but it needs an individual solution and the debt help and advisory.
Showing posts with label protection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label protection. Show all posts

Government plans offer protection from bankruptcy threats

Debt Example

Here's how a debt management plan can help you repay debt. Benefit of a Debt Management Plan

Current monthly payment: Term: 10 years (for credit card) New monthly repayment:
Term: 3 years 8 months*

Many thanks for all your help in setting up our IVA you’ve been very patient with us, been a long haul but we’re there at last

We aim to reduce debt in the shortest possible time. We are members of DEMSA - (The Debt Managers Standards Association). We adhere to the code of conduct as set out by DEMSA which aims to protect the interests of both consumers and lenders. The DEMSA code of practice is approved under the OFT (Office of Fair Trading) Consumer Codes Approval Scheme (CCAS).


View the original article here

Banks regularly break data protection rules says Which?

Which? has published the results of an FoI request to the ICO regarding the number of complaints made to them which allege breaches of the Data Protection Act.


Between August 2009 and August 2010 1,163  there were complaints about alleged data protection breaches by financial institutions - 515 of them against eight of Britain’s biggest banks and building societies - where the ICO thought it was likely they had broken the rules set out by the Data Protection Act 1998.


Over half of all  complaints arose from firms failing to provide customers with copies of the data held about them properly. Other potential breaches included banks holding inaccurate data about customers, failing to follow security measures and the disclosure of data to third parties. Barclays, Lloyds and Santander were the worst offenders with 116, 114 and 103 respectively.


Which? said that their research showing that just 13 per cent of people  have heard of the ICO to complain to - from which they conclude that these breaches are likely to be just be the tip of the iceberg. That, of course, begs the question of whether the population of those who have heard of the ICO is representative of the the population of those who have had problems with the banks. Which?’s 13% is also in stark contrast with the ICO’s research which shows that “… nearly 90% of individuals surveyed were aware that they have a right to see the information that a company or an organisation holds about them…”  - so what question did Which? actually ask?


Which? points out that there is also no legal obligation for organisations to report data protection breaches to their customers or the ICO.


What do you think: 
are the figures “shocking” in the context of the number of accounts and interactions between individuals and financial institutions?


Is there any evidence of systemic failure or are each of these incidences  a one-off?


do you think the figure is the tip of an iceberg?


do you think all data protection breaches should have to be reported to the ICO?


do you think the ICO should use its fining powers more vigorously?


do you think compensation should be paid automatically - if so how should it be calculated?


have you been affected?... Send your comments to katie@medianett.co.uk.


Manchester debt firm is liquidated owing creditors over £2.2m
Wednesday 11th August 2010

Bankrupt football legend probed by police over loan fraud
Monday 2nd August 2010


Mortgage broker ordered to repay £1.5m of client money used to pay off debts
Wednesday 14th July 2010


Barclays lifts lid on banking write-offs
Wednesday 20th February 2008


Send To Friend      Print      RSS Feed      News Archive
If you have any queries about this news story or our news section, please contact us

View the original article here

Demand for more protection against phoenix companies

A recent survey of SMEs has highlighted the controversy surrounding insolvency law, with 96 per cent of those questioned saying they thought insolvent firms should not be allowed to launch similar companies. 

Carried out by the debt collection agency, Daniels Silverman, the survey demonstrates the concern felt by SMEs over the practice of pre-pack administrations – often dubbed as ‘phoenixing’ and seen as a method whereby insolvent firms ‘dump their debt’.

Commenting on the findings, Carole Hughes, managing director at Daniels Silverman, said: “Our survey results indicate that many SMEs would like a rethink in insolvency law to protect companies from unscrupulous directors that take advantage of pre-pack administration.

“They have told us they are becoming more and more frustrated by directors avoiding their debts by going through a pre-pack administration to form a new company from the remains of a failed company.”

Beverley Budsworth, Managing Director of The Business Debt Advisor, commented:”Buying back or restarting a failed business is a tough decision, and all too often new companies, set up out of the ashes of failed companies themselves, fail as they have been underfunded from day one.

“However, there are many success stories and I don’t think we should have an insolvency regime which makes it impossible for owners to buy back the business.”

Paralleled by rising insolvency levels in general, the number of phoenix companies has also increased, frequently generating a ‘business as normal’ impression and hiding the extent of insolvent companies.

Critics of pre-pack administrations claim that customers are misled by new ‘phoenix’ companies, as they operate under a similar name to their predecessor which could lead the customer to believe it was the older, more established company.

According to Daniels Silverman, many of the SMEs surveyed said they believed that creditors lending to these insolvent companies need further protection under the insolvency law. Although the insolvency law does provide some degree of protection, using a completely different name is not outlawed.

Highlighting the plight of the creditors, Hughes said: “It is very hard for a creditor to see an insolvent company trading ‘as usual’ often from the same premises, under the same director and with the same offering, while they are left significantly out of pocket because the money owing to them has been written off.”

Tony Costigan, Managing Director of Pheonix Company Consultants, specialises in company recoveries through pre-pack deals. He said: “In most cases the directors have personally lost substantial sums of money as they have continued to support the failing company way beyond their own financial means.”

In addition, he explained that allowing a company to re-start under a new name means that countless jobs, which would otherwise have been lost, are saved.

So whilst many SMEs voice their resounding dissatisfaction at phoenixing companies and insufficient insolvency laws, in fact, most are just calling for the smaller number of companies who exploit the system to be monitored.

Carole Hughes added: “While there are legitimate reasons for many pre-pack administrations we would call for a look at the number of unscrupulous directors who are exploiting the process to avoid paying their debts and profit from pre-pack administrations.”


View the original article here

Demand for more protection against phoenix companies

A recent survey of SMEs has highlighted the controversy surrounding insolvency law, with 96 per cent of those questioned saying they thought insolvent firms should not be allowed to launch similar companies. 

Carried out by the debt collection agency, Daniels Silverman, the survey demonstrates the concern felt by SMEs over the practice of pre-pack administrations – often dubbed as ‘phoenixing’ and seen as a method whereby insolvent firms ‘dump their debt’.

Commenting on the findings, Carole Hughes, managing director at Daniels Silverman, said: “Our survey results indicate that many SMEs would like a rethink in insolvency law to protect companies from unscrupulous directors that take advantage of pre-pack administration.

“They have told us they are becoming more and more frustrated by directors avoiding their debts by going through a pre-pack administration to form a new company from the remains of a failed company.”

Beverley Budsworth, Managing Director of The Business Debt Advisor, commented:”Buying back or restarting a failed business is a tough decision, and all too often new companies, set up out of the ashes of failed companies themselves, fail as they have been underfunded from day one.

“However, there are many success stories and I don’t think we should have an insolvency regime which makes it impossible for owners to buy back the business.”

Paralleled by rising insolvency levels in general, the number of phoenix companies has also increased, frequently generating a ‘business as normal’ impression and hiding the extent of insolvent companies.

Critics of pre-pack administrations claim that customers are misled by new ‘phoenix’ companies, as they operate under a similar name to their predecessor which could lead the customer to believe it was the older, more established company.

According to Daniels Silverman, many of the SMEs surveyed said they believed that creditors lending to these insolvent companies need further protection under the insolvency law. Although the insolvency law does provide some degree of protection, using a completely different name is not outlawed.

Highlighting the plight of the creditors, Hughes said: “It is very hard for a creditor to see an insolvent company trading ‘as usual’ often from the same premises, under the same director and with the same offering, while they are left significantly out of pocket because the money owing to them has been written off.”

Tony Costigan, Managing Director of Pheonix Company Consultants, specialises in company recoveries through pre-pack deals. He said: “In most cases the directors have personally lost substantial sums of money as they have continued to support the failing company way beyond their own financial means.”

In addition, he explained that allowing a company to re-start under a new name means that countless jobs, which would otherwise have been lost, are saved.

So whilst many SMEs voice their resounding dissatisfaction at phoenixing companies and insufficient insolvency laws, in fact, most are just calling for the smaller number of companies who exploit the system to be monitored.

Carole Hughes added: “While there are legitimate reasons for many pre-pack administrations we would call for a look at the number of unscrupulous directors who are exploiting the process to avoid paying their debts and profit from pre-pack administrations.”


View the original article here

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More

 
Design by Free WordPress Themes | Bloggerized by Lasantha - Premium Blogger Themes | JCpenney Printable Coupons