As Bill and Gareth embark on Compliance On Call’s busiest couple of months to date, the opportunities for regular Blog updates will be restricted. We couldn’t go off on our travels without our annual report on the SPG forum (latterly known as SPIC before the name had to be changed because the old acronym was upsetting the profanity blocker on some message scanning software).
In a very busy and informative couple of days, a wide range of subjects were covered by some entertaining speakers in a way that largely made up for the cramped accommodation. The conference now includes some three hundred delegates and is close to the limits of the available lecture space, but a move up to a larger auditorium would need a significant increase in subscribers next year, which the organisers are unlikely to feel free to gamble on. Overall, however, the quality of the conference made up for the cramped conditions.
Highlights of the first day for us included an excellent legal update from Robert Smailes of Rothman Pantall and Tony Sampson of Devonshires. The balance of Tony’s formal presentation of the legal facts and Roberts typically pragmatic approach to the practical application of the decisions was a welcome change from the endless barrage of case detail that some presentations rely on.
Gavin Bates gave a refreshing view of MVL’s, which are often seen as onerous, low margin work. He pointed out some significant benefits to be obtained from handling such appointments, not least in generating valuable referral and networking opportunities.
The afternoon debate included some mature (!) discussion of topical issues, in particular the tendency for ORs to keep more work in house at present. Although we recognise the reality behind their stance, we couldn’t help feeling that R3’s approach to this subject was less than the robust defence of their smaller practitioner members than we would have liked. Even if we are presented with a politically motivated fait accompli, we think that a trade body could do more to point out the unfair advantage that OR regional units, with their shared accommodation costs and access to a ready-trained pool of staff, have over an IP who has to fund his accommodation, staff and other overheads entirely from his case work. Maybe it is equally unfair of us to expect R3 to help tilt at windmills.
Day two was remarkably well attended after the dinner and liquid networking session the night before, possibly because the hotel chose to close the bar at 2.30am. Many delegates stayed to the bitter end and were well rewarded for doing so. Stephen Law stepped up to the Chairman’s rostrum and presented a fluent and professional discourse on making more efficient use of practice resources. His performance was remarkable given that it lingered in the memory despite Nick O’ Reilly’s habitually polished performance as he entertained and informed while dealing with the issues that arise in realising property in bankruptcy.
Possibly the best session on the course, if a little specialised for some, however, was Andrew Barardi’s insight into the world of distressed debt and IVA processing. As one of the top voices for Max Recovery in the UK, Andrew gave a sometimes amusing and very different insight into how creditors see our profession. To see why we were impressed, see the press release we sent out earlier this month about the IVA debate. Many of Andrew’s points mirrored our thinking and suggested that the creditors are as concerned as we are to find a workable approach to dealing with the massive rise in consumer debt IVAs that is expected to continue next year.
Returning home more than satisfied again with our support of this unique combination of CPD and networking event, we look forward to next year’s forum with renewed vigour. The final word, however, has to be one of thanks to Rosalind Hilton who steps down this year after three years as a course director. Continuing director Gary Pettit and whoever picks up Rosalind’s baton will have a challenging time living up to the standard she has helped to set.
