The latest release from TIX just reaffirms that they don’t get it. They don’t understand that the disgust from Insolvency Practitioners, debtors, the Insolvency Service and others has nothing to do with their “TIX Compliant IVA”. It’s about treating people poorly, not even pretending to uphold the  Banking Code and intentionally removing debt solutions from consumers, just because TIX and their clients feel like it works better that way.

Besides TIX, you’ve made it clear that you’re just the stooges for your clients HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, Marks & Spencer Money, First Direct, and HBOS. In Credit Today Kevin Fuller, director of strategy at TDX, which owns TIX, threw all of his client’s under the bus when he was quoted as saying “We don’t control any pricing. We take individual instruction from each of our creditors on a unilateral basis.” Nice one. It’s just so ironic they basically all came up with the TIX Compliant IVA on a unilateral basis. What are the odds?

Maybe the TIX folks failed to read the online petition at 10 Downing Street about this mess (Thanks to Mike Reeves, hip, hip, and all that). If you did, you’d see that this situation is not about how you did or did not collude or form a cartel with or between your clients, it is just about fairness and access to reasonable solutions. In case you missed the petition text, here it is, “We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to bring about a fair balance between the rights and responsibilities of consumer debtors and their bank and financial institution creditors, and enable as many people in debt as reasonably possible to have fair access to the full benefits of insolvency legislation by bringing in a) legislation to enforce the Banking Code and b) at least until that is in place, relaxed best practice requirements in relation to the IVA personal insolvency procedure to take account of the bank's present actions.” If you agree, cast your vote for this petition online.

So the latest public release from TIX “An Open Letter to Insolvency Practitioners” is full of just more and more laughable and intelligence insulting statements. I didn’t have a problem with the release until I got past the second word. You see, it begins “I’m aware”, really, you can’t be aware if you’ve just sent this even higher octane release out to Insolvency Practitioners. I wonder who thought this was going to be a good idea?

So let’s breakdown the release into its salient points.

“I am writing to you to highlight the key points and clarify areas that I feel may be of most interest to IP’s.” - Oh good, maybe we’re finally going to get to the heart of the issue and talk about restraint of the licensed and regulated Insolvency Practitioner, restriction of debt help to consumers, regulating the professional income of IPs, control of access to legal debt solutions by the unilateral actions of TIX clients, not treating customers fairly and poor corporate responsibility.

“I remain confident that these changes are a good solution for the industry, the creditors and the consumer.” - Quick, someone get a bottle to get a urine sample from that guy. He might be confident these changes are good for the consumer but that just makes me confident he’s doing bong hits. How in the world can you be even in the least bit confident that your marching orders to IP’s help consumers jump over hurdle rates, deal with a lack of access to IVAs, and how does putting Insolvency Practitioners out of business help anyone other than TIX and your clients?

How do these changes do anything to address our deep rooted UK culture of credit that has been nutured by your clients to create a dependency and desire for credit. Why are you trying so hard to punish the 5% or less of card holders that are in financial trouble?

How does the exclusion of many from an IVA do anything to help those that are buried in debt from a creditor lending culture of putting profits before people or that encourages people to borrow more than they can afford. According to the BBC show Panorama, lenders like the Royal Bank of Scotland, a TIX client that wants to force these IVA changes through, have and are focusing on making a profit from those in financial difficulty.

If that is the case then maybe lenders simply desire is to keep debtors away from the IVA, which when IPs are allowed to operate without marching orders from creditors and TIX, can create a binding, reasonable and fair solution to help people to get out of debt. What's next, a no ambulance policy for poor people?

Many elderly are in deep debt and the younger members of our country are feeling ashamed and embarassed about their money troubles and all need access to fair and reasonable binding debt solutions, like an IVA.

Why do creditors so desperately want to punish those customers that are easy prey on Britain's mean streets of debt, that are most in pain and suffering with stress, depression, and hopelessness from money troubles but who could get help and solutions they need from Insolvency Practitioners? Would banks prefer for more people to kill themselves over their debt?

Section: Where will the modified acceptance criteria be applied?

“Any IVA that does not meet the “TIX Compliant IVA” definition may continue to be proposed under your existing fee structure.” - Of course everyone can figure out that there is going to be a snowballs chance in hell of it getting accepted. Buy hey, you can propose it at your expense. You don’t think that TIX will keep a list of non-compliant IVAs that waste their time, do you?

“Each case will continue to be reviewed individually.” - I’m struggling on how that changes the meaning of this sentence from the last release, “Therefore, with effect from the 1st September 2007 Clients of TIX will expect Insolvency Practitioners to apply the following fee structure(s) to all TIX Compliant IVAs being submitted.” And then we have the sentence, “HSBC have asked TIX to assess the support and adherence to the TIX Compliant IVA by each individual IP firm.” So you see where I’m stuck in this one? TIX proudly tells us that each IVA will be reviewed individually but they’ve already made it clear what the boundaries are. What does “reviewed individually” actually mean? No, no, no, no, yes, no, no, no, no.

“As stated in both the original documents, the fee structure and fee quantum changes, therefore, only apply to IVAs that qualify as a “TIX Compliant IVA”.  - Yes, you’ve made it very clear. We all understand what the intention is and unless I’m missing something here it is to review each IVA proposal individually to make sure that the IPs have complied to your client’s wishes and demands or they don’t get paid what you dictate. The reason the working groups came to some consensus was because people hoped that if they threw you a bone you’d back off, not because they thought it was fair or proper.

“TIX Compliant IVAs are defined in the communication we sent you on 18 July and incorporate the majority of the generally accepted standards emerging from the BBA / IS working groups.” - Standards from the BBA / IS working groups, ah yes. But wouldn't that be the same document that you sent out that says “TIX’s creditor clients have defined a set of detailed criteria...” and you go on to say “TIX will be implementing these changes where its creditor clients represent the majority of the debts in an IVA proposal and therefore able to influence the vote. TIX currently processes over 70% of all IVA proposals made in the UK and will be gradually implementing these changes over the next two months.” So while we can all be proud that IVA proposals are made in the UK, we can’t lose site of the fact that TIX and its few clients are imposing their will, hurdle rates and restrictions to the IVA to at least 70% of the UK population that could use access to an IVA as a fair, reasonable and sustainable solution to resolve their debt problems.

Anyway, I digress. Let’s get back to the 10 August 2007 communication from TIX that I like to call the TPS Report memo. This latest communication is an almost “didn’t you read our last release you idiot” communication. TIX behaves as if all we needed was a fresh memo to comply. If you’ve seen the movie “Office Space” you’ll understand what I’m talking about. If not, you’ll enjoy the short clip below that demonstrates this corporate insanity.

“Improved clarity around creditor acceptance criteria should allow IPs to provide appropriate advice to consumers with confidence.” - I can see it now, “Yes Mr. Consumer, it’s official, you are screwed and I’m confident about that.” Did I miss something here? I thought a licensed and regulated Insolvency Practitioner was extensively educated, trained and tested to pass an extensive body of knowledge in order to evaluate a debtor’s situation and create a fair and balanced repayment solution for consumers facing problem debt. Every IVA proposal demonstrates how the repayment plan suggested is a better solution for the debtor and creditor than bankruptcy or other options. IPs are already providing advice based on the IVA solution as it was created in the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Enterprise Act 2002 and these laws are monitored under the watchful eye of the Insolvency Service and IP regulators and compliance parties. So how does a better understanding of “creditor acceptance” or really lack of acceptance, help any IP to provide better clarity to any consumer?

“Lower fees on TIX Compliant IVAs make them more acceptable to creditors and streamlined processes should allow IPs to deal with these proposals efficiently.” - You’re kidding me? So a lower IVA fee makes it a better or more appropriate solution for the debtor, or the creditor? It is interesting that the focus here is on lower fees, rather than better advice or more help for the debtor. That’s like saying “Mr. IP we don’t care if you give horrible advice, just do it quickly, send it in like we told you to and don’t charge more than we said you could.”

“Appropriate advice and support to the consumers should be provided throughout the term of the IVA because IP remuneration is linked to realisations.” - What a load of manure. All that says is that IPs won’t get paid unless they do an effective job as debt collectors for TIX and its clients rather than acting as proper insolvency professionals that balance the needs of both the creditor and debtor. And how does the quality of advice and support directly relate to the monthly payment collected unless you are saying that prompt payment means that is the appropriate advice?

Section: Will IPs benefit from these changes?

“It is expected that TIX Compliant IVA proposals will have a lower rejection and modification rate. This saves the IP time and administrative costs associated with dealing with these cases.” - So if I’m an IP and I turn away all the consumers that can’t make a TIX Compliant IVA proposal even though an IVA would be their best solution and I have an ethical duty to do the right thing, the way I really benefit from these changes is by not putting these proposals forward since I already know they will be rejected. Am I missing something here?

“Where clients have imposed hurdle rates we are actively working with them to clarify the criteria and timetable for hurdle removal.” - How about, um, now! I can’t believe that TIX yet again reaffirms that they have clients which have hurdle rates as a matter of corporate collection policy in complete disregard for the FSA and Banking Code requirements of treating customers fairly. Did you read the online petition yet?

“As we have with the BBA / IS working groups, TIX and its clients will continue to work with the industry to ensure that these changes are understood and smoothly implemented.” - This statement does not even leave a bit of doubt about their intentions. They demand that their wishes will be implemented, and smoothly. “Look at the swinging watch, you are getting sleepy, you will comply, you will smoothly comply when I snap my fingers you will awake and thank me for imposing my wishes ahead of the debtors and slashing your income.”

“I hope this note has been helpful in drawing your attention to the key points which are relevant to the IP industry.” - Yeah, this note has been almost as helpful as a stick in the eye. You've made it painfully clear, yet again, that consumers are still screwed and IPs are still getting their fees cut by a few creditors that want to flex overwhelming control over the fate of consumers, the desire of the Insolvency Service, and Insolvency Practitioners that have undergone years and years of training and education to best represent debtors. This statement reminds me of a sign I keep looking for at the airport security, “Good news. You will be body cavity searched for your protection.”

This most recent communication is signed by Mark Hover – Head of the Insolvency Exchange. Of course I think they are drawing straws at TIX to see who is going to sign the next memo. The first was signed by Lianne Soong (no job title), the second by Martin Prigent, Head of Insolvency Relations (at least you had the courtesy to actually sign your letter) and now Mark Hover.

I wonder who will be the next to sign the message to IPs that says:

Attention Non-Compliant Insolvency Practitioners,

(AKA: ACHTUNG KAMERAD)

Recently we sent you yet another communication and made it clear, yet again, that you are to do what we say, Dammit.

As you know, our clients have accidently and unilaterally agreed that it will make their profits so much better. If anybody asks, Kevin said we should say that we had nothing to do with that.

And don’t try to speak up to defend the customers of our clients, we don’t want debtors informed or treated fairly. Dammit. Dammit. Dammit.

Thank you for your compliant obedience to our demands, which is the only path we will accept. Resistance is futile dumbass.

Sincerely,
Your bosses at TIX and at the creditors

P.S. Have a nice day and take it like a man.

Of course the possibility always exists that I’m being far too cynical here. But then again I’m familiar with the work of Andrew Kahr and the intentional efforts by creditors to string out debt over years and years to maximize profits. Enough is enough.

Want to know more about Andrew Kahr, watch the disturbing Public Broadcasting documentary Secret History of the Credit Card online.

And just in case all of this is making you feel suicidal, here's a little video to give you some energy to fight back.