Steve1984.

If, for whatever reason, the first redemption certificate wasn't on file you could relatively easily work the figures backwards from a current one.

come on TDA that's crazy talk. If you bought a car at 10,000 that you later find 2.5 years later was worth £11,000, would you be happy to pay the car shop £1000? So you're not out of pocket as that was the value of the car but it's not what you signed up to. Does it matter if you would have signed up to the car at £11,000 or not in theory it's still not right! Ann is saying she gave them paperwork.

Also Candlestick if you still reading, that's 2 folk now who's TDs haven't followed the path they had agreed originally since it's transferred. None who have come on to say it has. So that removes the relevance of that point away that you made earlier.

That is true TDA

I imagine what you are describing is what PJG tried to explain at the time.

Yes with that figure made aware to me at the beginning I would have still
gone ahead with the TD.

However it was not made clear.

Steve you have a point

Hi steve.

I think ann910 has confirmed that she provided an estimate. Also, a trustee has an obligation to realise assets.

This is totally different to the broader concerns being expressed here by you and others, and has nothing in common with the car example you have provided.

Hi ann910.

I can understand your frustration, nobody would want to be in a trust deed any longer than they have to be.

I guess the consolation is that you will not have been, because had the redemption certificate been present at the start the situation would be the same as it is now.

How much extra time will it add on for you?

CF asked me to confirm how I would pay this by lump sum or extension.
I have proposed to pay by extension 6 months.

I was in a 4 year trust deed already so it is becoming a long time.
I chose 4 years as I wanted to reduce the monthly cost.
That was a mistake.

Post deleted by admin.

Ok we are getting somewhere, we just need diamond to confirm if he received a letter or phone call. Fair enough if PJG confirmed and firmed up the equity situation before the transfer. A simple statement to confirm this would be all that was needed to stop all this happening.

Again in PJG defense if this sale was genuinely out of the blue they would have been busy sorting out the equity. They would normally have sorted this out at the end i guess based on the original figures. So this sale made them look closer and some people are slightly out again no big deal this is a far cry from a complete new valuation and redemtion figure after 3 years.

Again one simple statement would clear this up, but i would say its looking better for now.

A very positive review of creditfix.

Link removed by admin.

I agree, what happened to me was I think ( wrong but explained).
It is a far cry from a whole new valuation.

I am still hopeful that we can complete our TD s without any major problems
Diamond has to find out what is actually happening with him.

Though I agree with Candlewick . The focus should really be

- how many people have been told, explicitly, by Creditfix that the agreements made with PJG are not valid

- the reasons given by Creditfix for believing that the agreements are not valid

- the difference between the equity amount calculated by PJG, and the equity amount calculated by Creditfix

- the information used by Creditfix in calculating the equity

Edited by - candlewick on 23 November 2014 13:52:25

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sold down the river
[br]A very positive review of creditfix.

Link removed by admin.

---

The "not obligated to agree with new terms and conditions" is certainly interesting and hopefully we receive such a pack with this option, although I suspect it won't be as simple as that somehow.

Steve an IVA is completely different from a trust deed.

Sadly I've had no other option than to suspend Scrappy318's ability to post here.

My earlier concern was repeated rudeness, but in the end this has primarily been for her/his own protection after accusing identifiable firms of a serious criminal offence. I've removed the post. I've also got a responsibility to protect the site itself, which is why we operate an internal editorial policy covering this type of thing.

Please don't be concerned that this is something that's likely to happen to you if you have a grievance, are upset, disagree with me or whatever. The number of genuine people suspended from being able to post here can be counted on the fingers of one hand over the course of many years. Just please be respectful and polite, even if you totally disagree with someone, and don't write anything that you're not prepared to take responsibility for.

Hi Sold down the river.

You may well be unaware, but we ask posters not to add links to the forum for a number of reasons. I've removed the one you added.

One of those reasons is not censorship, so please feel free to point people towards the content you highlighted via the search engine and search terms you used if you feel that would be helpful to other readers.