Hi pinalta.

As always (and you'll be sick of me writing this) I just need to note for readers that there is clearly a serious dispute here and we only hear one side of the dispute in the forum.

As always I wish you well and hope that your fighting spirit eventually brings you the outcome that you're looking for.

Pinata. I completely agree with you that there needs to be reform in the way trustees operate. Time and time again you read on this forum that each firm works to different guidelines - its wrong!

As I understand it, the changes to statutes happening at the end of November seem to be a step towards the monitoring of trustees fee earnings, chargings and submissions of PTDs, and were driven by the Scottish parliament in conjunction with AIB, and on the back of stats that appeared to show excessive and increasing fees being charged by some trustees. This has been discussed in other postings and I think there is a note in the news section regarding this also. There are less than honest people in all walks of life I guess [:(]

Keep plugging away...[B)]

Hi sparky1.

They all work to the same laws, rules and guidelines.

I think the point is that these things cannot possibly cover every possible scenario in black and white terms. As such there are many occasions upon which a trustee will inevitably have to apply their interpretation and judgment.

Reading this forum I can appreciate that it's confusing when you see similar scenarios being approached in different ways by different trustees.

Hi TDA, I agree and disagree with you. My trustee isn't following guidelines which is backed up with the AIB who is on my side.

For instance I now know for that If I had taken my trusteed out with a IP who is listed on this website I would have had form 5 weeks ago, but my IP is holding it back and the AIB are saying they shouldn't, that's not following guidelines there should be guidelines in place to protect me from this unfair situation.

A fair point.

On your previous thread nobody disagreed that the Form 5 should be sent to you given that the AIB has been notified of your discharge.

Then again you do not top the AIB lists for failed or a nil return to creditors constantly , there are many factors why deeds fail , but constantly high amounts of no divident's due to the increase in fee's must be a no brainer , you know who you are !! .[:o)]

In general I think the problem lies with interpretation on how matters should be dealt with. There are parts in the legislation which could be argued and agreement never reached, however there are also parts which are not open to interpretation.

Normally the confusion arises when the administration of a case is being run on a comparative basis to sequestration and they attempt to apply sequestration rules which may or may not apply in whole or part. For instance,the £500 payment for having no equity guidance advises it should be for a 'nominal sum' in sequestration. In cases where there are 2 people, I don't consider some firms charging 2 x £500 to be a nominal sum.

On the point itself re Form 5. This is quite clear. Reg 19 states:

a debtor will be discharged from all his or her trust deed debts and obligations..... if the following conditions are metÔÇô

(a)the trustee under the protected trust deed makes a statement that to the best of the trustee's knowledge the debtor has met the debtor's obligations under the trust deed; and

(b)any notice of inhibition under paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to the Act has been recalled or expired.

(3) If the conditions in paragraph (1) above are met, the trustee MUST SENDÔÇô

(a)to the debtor a written letter of discharge in form of Form 5 set out in Schedule 1 to these Regulations from the trust deed;

(b)to the Accountant A COPY of the letter referred to in paragraph (a) above for recording in the register of insolvencies.

Mark