Hi S Gibson,

This tends to be standard practice by the bank when paying out a PPI claim. They will write to a Trustee/former Trustee to establish if they have an interest in the funds or not.

If you were discharged 5 years ago and providing your Trustee is discharged then I can’t see them having a claim over the funds.

Best thing to do is call your former Trustee to ask them about it and if they have received the letter from the bank. If you chase this along you should have the funds hopefully in time for Christmas.

Thank you David, I will do that.

I have tried checking the Insolvency Register to ensure they have discharged me (which I would like to think they have after 5 years), & can find nothing relating to me, does that mean they are discharged?

Hello S Gibson.

Your details should be removed from the Register of Insolvencies a year after your trustee has been discharged.

HI

Did you speak to your Trustee? I've been discharged (and so has my Trustee) for a few years now and was going to try the PPi route again for ones not successful.
THanks

If is is the case once trustee is discharged how come cleardebt are still accepting cheques for ppi from discharged cases

Because they're contending that trust deeds can be reopened for this purpose Turbobhoy, as per the Supreme Court discussions here.

I don't think they can be actually banking the funds. More ensuring that the funds don't go to their former client and get spent before this legal action has been completed.

Just a thought, if you are discharged, for whatever length of time, and a financial institution releases information about you to what is a third party who no longer has a relationship with you, could they be breaching some fort of code, for instance data protection?

I would assume that we grant permission to lenders to communicate with relevant third parties when we sign credit agreements.

Just an assumption though.

Yes, I could see it that way too. I think if I was in this position I would be trying to use data protection rules to try and discourage the financial institution From sharing personal info about me with a third party who no longer have a relationship with me. It's a tricky one and as a previous trust deeder I suppose I am biased and see it simplistically, I'm discharged its over! Any good fortune after this, it's mine! I'm fascinated to see how it all plays out next year. I suspect it won't go the way some trustees want but I get they are going to try. There must be big sums involved here for these guys to be risking the costs!

Some interesting points, my 2p worth...

It seems clear to me that a trust deed terminates on 'first and final distribution', but as that is probably what the Supreme court appeal is about, the banks would argue that they are entitled to contact (ex) trustees until this is point is clarified.
Call my cynical, but I'm also sure banks have ways of communicating info in such a way that it doesn't breach the DPA.

Incidentally, I asked my bank several times whether or not they were communicating with any third parties regarding my claim, they said they weren't... I don't for one second believe them! (is that why banks refuse to communicate by email/snail mail and insist on using phones so they can deny everything at a later date???)

Regarding the Supreme Court case, its possible there may be a few IVA companies helping bankroll the case - look at the ROI and the same names keep cropping up on hundreds of old cases. If they share the costs, then it becomes a very worthwhile gamble!

Let's look at this a different way.

A bank considers that data protection regulation prevents them from contacting a former trustee about an individual's PPI claim.

They therefore cannot reassure themselves that the funds connected to the claim shouldn't rightfully be paid over to the trustee for the benefit of creditors.

Without this reassurance, they don't feel able to make payment to the individual because they're at risk of having to pay it all out again if they've got it wrong.

Would this be an improvement?

Can we expect banks to take this commercial risk?

Is the personal information being transferred in any way significant or does it pose any kind of risk to individuals? Just a name/address and the fact that a PPI claim has been successful?

I don't have a "position" or any strong views on this by the way.

Just thinking/writing out loud.