We have been to a few practices recently that have attempted protocol compliant IVAs (now to be known as PCIVAs, which may be more difficult to enunciate, but sounds less damaging than SCIVAs). Uptake has been slow, partly because of the need to update IT systems, documents and procedures to accommodate it and partly because many of the major players have been waiting for someone else to make the first move.
From those we have seen, the protocol generally seems to result in fewer modifications, but we think that there are a few things that you can do to help it work more effectively for you.
First, the small yes/no box on the protocol front sheet is not enough to flag it up as a PCIVA case for the agents acting for the main creditors. Try using an additional cover sheet with a bright coloured or large font message highlighting it as a protocol case. It may help to remind creditors at this point that they are supposed to provide proxies 7 days before the meeting and reduce modifications to a minimum!
Our second suggestion is that you issue a reminder 7 days before the meeting, pointing out that the creditor has not complied with the protocol and asking them to provide a proxy without further delay. I would not recommend going to war with any one agent, but if they are consistently failing to comply with the protocol, R3 may be prepared to co-ordinate action to rectify the situation.
Our third is to reconcile modifications very carefully (see related article below). If a creditor is proposing non-PCIVA modifications on a PCIVA case, write back and ask them to remove them. The sort of modifications that cause problems here are ones that require you to issue the chairman’s report to a particular creditor within a set deadline, or those that change minor terms of the proposals (whether to provide for petition funds or not). Again, don’t go to war with any one creditor, but use R3 to help get some changes.
