Hi Jools68 and welcome.

I think there's a clear difference between assets owned pre and post insolvency.

Hi, and thanks,[:)] what I meant was what, is the difference of the loans that had ppi on them, taken out well before 2005, paid off in full, and totally forgotten about, and all paper work binned, never claimed on, but someone in their infinite wisdom,deemed that 6 or 7 years down the line and just because they really were not worth the paper they were written on, suddenly become an asset,yet if I take out a loan now,with yes I know what I'm buying ppi....pay the whole lot off, then that policy I bought will never pay out coz it's not really like a life insurance policy, it's still another worthless piece of paper.

In the late 90's I took out a loan with the alliance and Leicester for 5000, and ppi, 3 years down the line, I lost my job, the CAB kindly helped me to put together a payment plan, and I claimed on my ppi, it made 2 months instalments and a letter to say that, it would not pay out anymore. Not much of an asset that one.

Can I also add, that the debts I was made bankrupt from, were nothing to do with the loans with the mis sold ppi claims. If at the time in 2008 ppi claims were all the rage, so to speak, then surely it would have been better use at the time during my bankruptcy, than trying to take it now, at the end of the day I was made bankrupt, and 7 years have passed my record is clear and this year my bank finally gave me a chip and pin card and a 100 pound overdraft....

As to what will happen with ppi cheque, will be up to the AIB on what move to make next and to who's EXPENSE....

Hi Jools68.

Let's set fairness to one side again - because I think there's grounds for more than one party to find some unfairness here.

The principle at work here seems to be what assets did you own at the point of insolvency?

The potential to make a PPI claim, then or now, is being seen as an asset.

From the perspective of the powers that be, this seems to be the baseline?

As a creditor, would you consider that this money should come to you?

I'm not setting out what's fair and what isn't. You'll make your own judgment. But there are arguments on both sides as to where this money ends up.

Hi TDA, I can see where this goes from all points of view. At the point of my insolvency,I had no known assets,surely it was a choice you made if you wanted to go down the ppi road and claim.
Maybe, it would have been a better strategy if at the time of the ppi frenzy, if the banks were told to pay out redress automatically to all its customers, who were due it, instead of inviting them to make a claim, and asking them on a daft questionnaire how it was sold to them. How many people out there, just won't bother trying to claim ...?
I never,.
If ex- hubby hadn't been so greedy, the policies in joint names would never have come to light, he's now opened up a can of worms for me, and laughing all the way to the bank,
The loan I mentioned before, was taken out in 1994, so even back then ppi was just a scam.
I'm still not convinced these should be classed as assets especially as it was not a debt included in my insolvency, it was history....and the whole ppi saga came about because the banks etc.. were caught out.
There's nothing in the The (BANKRUPTCY) SCOTLAND ACT 1985 mentioning ppi as assets, maybe that's because , it was never heard of.........

Having read the messages posted, it seems all anybody is asking for, including myself, is for proper and lawful regulations to be set up, so any confusion can be avoided, for trustees to think this is something that has just sprung up,is at best a nonsense and at worst a dereliction of duty of care to both creditors and trust deed holders. Could it be trustees are seeing this as another opportunity to charge fees on the management of these transactions? It appears that instead of being pro-active most trust deed providers are being re-active., I hope something is in place ASAP to address this situation. I honestly don't mind if the PPI payment received is to be paid to creditors, but at least let us have the dignity of it being done right?

What if the bank made a wrongful decision Bert? Rejected a claim they should have paid out for?

Some of them did that and the regulatory authorities are now on to them to review their decisions.

That's not really down to a trustee?

if a bank made an incorrect decision about PPI payments, then it is right they should be made to review their decision, my main point is, this is not suddenly a problem that has just appeared, do the trustee receive any payment for dealing with PPI payments after a trust deed has been previously successfully concluded? Do the trustee have to apply to the court for permission once a trust deed has been closed? Does the debtor have the right to challenge the decision in court? Information about this action is varied, again I must stress, if the PPI payment HAS to be paid to creditors as directed by law/ court, that is fine. But please do it in the right way to avoid confusion. Or is it trust deed firm a don't want to go through the expense of formally putting in a legal framework to ensure this to be the case?

I don't think it's completely clear how this works, but there have been a couple of posts which talk about the trustee going to court to get the trust deed reopened.

So people probably do have the chance to go and challenge the trustee in court.

The forum has seen lots of good arguments against reopening trust deeds. Have any of those arguments been taken to a sheriff? Nobody on this forum has said that they've done that.

Maybe that's a missed opportunity?

On the other side of the argument, why would this be 'fair'?

- debtor owes creditors £40,000
- debtor enters trust deed, agrees to pay £200 per month for 48 months. The debtor has no assets.
- at the end of the TD, creditors get a percentage of the £9,600 paid into the TD. Let's say they get 10p in the pound towards the debt.
- they(and their customers?)bear the cost of the rest of the debt
- after discharge, the debtor gets a PPI refund of £10,000 and keeps it
- the debtor is in profit

Hi Bert.

I totally understand the desire for fairness, certainty, and clarity.

I don't think anyone has that - not least trustees and their former clients.

Sometimes, when new scenarios develop, we watch "normal" forming slowly before us in this forum.

A few years ago we were all a bit surprised when the first couple of trustees went after PPI at all...

To say this is a new scenario TDA, is somewhat confusing. The PPI scandal was decided in the high court in May 2011, so again, may I ask for clarification on the following points- 1. If a debtor has successfully completed and discharged at the end of the trust deed, does the trustee need to apply to the court for the trust deed to be re- opened? 2- does the debtor have the right/ opportunity to challenge this, during the court hearing? If you don't know or in the position, of being unable to comment on these points, please say this, as I'm sure you will agree this argument can go back and forth about the rights and wrongs of this situation.

Hi Bert.

I believe yes and yes in answer to your questions - but I may be wrong and it may change.

That's because the precise situation we're discussing is new.

To get clarity you might have to obtain a legal opinion, but we've seen here before that these can vary according to the source.

if,I read right, i'm sure the new amendment, says that the trustee more or less has to justify that the ppi redress will be enough to benefit the creditors or in bankruptcy to pay the creditors and the AIB fees.

It's a general principle to act in the interests of creditors Jools68.

That would apply to pretty much any asset.

I was curious why the court sisted the action. Would the 5 year prescription period apply in this case? I wonder if this was the view the Sheriff was taking.

Mark