Maybe so, but not for the reasons you think

Glad your amused Wintry, but not as amused as me,i shall leave it there;)

With all due respect (and as we seem to have a mutual acquaintance, I do mean that) no you missed where I was coming from entirely. The only line in my post that was important was the last one. I can post anything I like, and it can not be verified, the same can be said of anyone posting on any forum. So whether your question is valid, or not, is academic, as the answer is irrelevant without any form of confirmation. I trust you see the logic in that statement? But that said, I do agree with you concerns to a point, but I have the luxury of seeing this from a desperate stressed out debtor, and to be honest, the 'no contact' part of all this is the bit I am interested in, that bit James HAS got right, whether you, or any other debt advice company or organisation likes it, is irrelevant, it does not change the fact that is the biggest problem when a debtor is seeking advice. I doubt you will agree, but you will just have to take my word for it, because it IS correct, that is the bit all those that offer help, free or not, don’t understand, because most have not been there. The one exception is CCCS who are the only one that ‘seem’ to have identified the problem and addressed it, with the online debt remedy, the result from which, I have been reliably informed, is enough to reply honestly and truly, ‘yes’ when presenting a BR petition in court, when you are asked ‘have you sought professional advice?’ without speaking to anyone. So legaly, it must be good enough. But as I said in a previous post, I am not sure it’s a barrier that can be got round safely myself, I can also rip the CCCS calc apart if I wanted too, its far from perfect, but it’s the closest I have seen to a solution for the problem to date. I also disagree the answers to your questions are not in that ‘blog’, the specific answers to your questions regarding figures are not, but may I ask would you post how much you charged for a service on an open forum if asked? And if you did, would the answer be true, or answer what you thought they wanted to hear? The answers to his intentions are there, its a question if you belive them or not that is an issue which brings me to the point, even if you or james did answer truthfully, there would always be a poster, like me or you that questioned the truthfulness of that reply. Such is the beast that we are posting on.

Dam, I know I should leave this be, but can not break the (bad:p) habit of a lifetime. I won’t use the obvious puns. From your posts you seem very knowledgeable of matters regarding the intermediaries ‘handbook’, not conclusive, but could indicate you are in the debt advice sector. But I can not ignore the possibility you are an authorised intermediary, or connected too a company that is an authorised competent authoritie, this causes me a slight problem, as that sector has both free and profit making firms in it. There is also something else i can not ignore. As you know I know there is also another piece of software that costs the likes of CAB to use http://www.pgcomputing.co.uk/ I can not ignore the similarities, even if James is no where near that stage yet, it could be seen as a threat. So there are several avenues for a conflict of interest here, my concern is some of them are financial and nothing to to with the app or concern for debtors welfare So while our concerns are the same Wintry, are our motives the same? I hope you understand it’s a question i have to ask, even though the answer can in no way be verified, so is some what academic.

............ but in some IVA agreemants if you cannot free up the equity expected, the IVA may last longer. Depends if the IP needs to make the 'if' 'or' offer to get the creditors agreemant. If you have no equity, after all secured debts, then the property in nearly all cases, or to be more accurate any future equity in the property, can be bought back from the official reciever for £1 plus legal fees (£250-460). So Bankruptcy may be an option, without loseing your home, but they may take into consideration the cost of the mortgage against cost of local rentals, so it is not just equity to worry about, but it is rare that comes into play. As Wintry says, more info needed to give you any meaningfull help, but hope that helps a little

and if they did, the debtors would be asking why they have, whats the catch? Fun this game;) Just a shame thats what it has ended up as, a sick game

Ok, after swapping a few PM's with James, and as a sign of good faith, I will retract part of the above post. The app is not ready to do what it claims, I still maintain that fact, but I see the potential, and I can see this ‘idea’ filling a ‘void’, but to present it as it is now still makes it dangerous. I Suggest it is, for now, presented as a ‘work in progress’ which to be fair is what James has hinted at from the start, but it is not a solution yet, it still has a long way to go. I am sorry this post is a bit vague, but what has been discussed is not for me to disclose, I hope you all respect my view here, what is said by PM needs both parties consent before it can be repeated on the open forum, but in the interest of openness and transparency, I have been working on a similar project, which is why I see this apps potential, but I also share the reservations of some of the other posts in this thread, which is one reason mine is still a project, and may stay that way. There are still a lot of unanswered questions besides the usefulness of the app, I just hope they can be addressed too.

Have you included some measures to make sure the user does not exceed the CFS? if not, your wasting your time, it will never be recognised by creditors, but more to the point, you wasting the time, and creating more stress for those that use it. But also, have you built in some safeguards to protect the user from under estimating there realistic financial needs? I already know the answer, and you know I do James This app IS dangerous, and pointless, as it does not contain the safeguards needed to give it credibility nor protect the user. Bank fodder, if this is of no benefit to the site financially, pull it now, even if it is, I would strongly urge you to pull it anyway, before it undermines the sites reputation. I expect this post to disappear, but don’t say you where not warned.

Sort of loses its menace the second time round, not that it had any the first time

Oh, and yes, i know where this is going, after the ruling at the end of last year, already figured that one out ;-)

Finaly got a reason to dust this of and update, and trust me, this is the iceing on the cake:rolleyes: Well, Brian must not have fancied it, but it looks like Moorcroft have lost the plot, after sending this in March last year I got another one of these yesterday. Just when you thought they could not make themselves look any dafter, they do

Or in HTML on my site, a link has been posted on another thread on CAG somewhere;) Have sent you a PM, im up to my neck in it too, so was a bit rushed, hope it makes some sense

first question - Why does it link to third parties, and who do you link too? To prepare an offer to creditors, you must first prepare a budget that allows for your reasonable domestic needs, then deivide whats left between your creditors fairly, the question is, as it is a fact people in debt lose focus on the true cost of living, how does your software make sure the user is being realistic? And what are those figures based on?

The Common financial statement (CFS) trigger figures are a totally different set of figures, and are used for the preparation of offers of reduced payment or DMP’s by the likes of CAB, CCCS etc. The figures are agreed to be the amount required to live on by most major banks and creditors, and should be accepted without question when a SOA or I&E is prepared using them. The trigger figures are not available to the general public, and are somewhat of a guarded secret, three guesses why that is. In reality, they mean very little, and don’t get accepted, nor stop the harassment as much as they should from what I have heard.

Must admit the thought crossed my mind more than once babybear while converting that spread sheet to html, but you can not realy look at it like that. The trouble with those figures are they are just a national average of what people spend for a given household unit, and include the use of credit, so are not that good a guide. Every OR's office will adjust them, up or down, for regional variations, but most importantly, what your allowed is not set in stone. Just a shame some OR examiners and potential BR's don’t realise that and treat that chart as the Holy Grail. The bottom line is the OR must allow a BR whatever his or her REASONABLE living expenses ARE for there given situation, if the BR can prove it costs more, then the OR must allow more, but equally if the OR can show the BR can live reasonably for less, they can allow less. It’s all how you, or they, define ‘Reasonable’ Of course, if the BR and OR can not agree on that point, it is referred back to the court for a judge to decide, and as we all know, that is a lottery to the personal view of the judge you get.