No problem TDA.

Hello Steve.

Sold down the river is correct.

Processes surrounding IVA modifications aren't usefully comparable.

By the way... did you have anything to say about accusing me of "crazy talk" a little while ago?

I do hope that time passes quickly ann910.

I'd imagine that it will feel quite the opposite at the moment, but a lot of people writing here do write that it has done once they reach the end point.

My Redemption figures were supplied to PJG (not estimates) and PJG carried out a Valuation to confirm no Equity at the start.
I have provided evidence of this to CF.

I did not receive any phone calls or comms of any kind from PJG related to Equity at any time after the TD was set up and certainly nothing in the last few months.
CF, in my case are using the current redemption values.

I am now of the view that I have no option but to comply.
Hopefully I will get word of the outcome of the alleged discussion between PJG and CF.
But I suspect I will just be told to continue paying into the TD.

Diamond chap, that would appear to be the difference. Looking like some people got a second letter or phone call and this is being honored.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trust Deed Assistant
[br]Hello Steve.

Sold down the river is correct.

Processes surrounding IVA modifications aren't usefully comparable.

By the way... did you have anything to say about accusing me of "crazy talk" a little while ago?

---

It still sounds crazy talk to me. You're not any worse off so although its not what you were told or agreed to at the start then never mind about it?

If you mean using the term "crazy talk" was offensive then I deeply apologise was just a turn of phrase not to imply you are crazy in any way.

No worries steve1984.

I did write that "tongue in cheek"!

It's different here because the equity is the equity. Actual valuation minus actual mortgage redemption figure.

It's not a scenario where a willing seller and a willing buyer can agree a figure that they're both happy with.

Hi Diamond Chap.

Can I check, do you have all of the paperwork still from the start of your trust deed?

I kept all Letters and emails from PJG.

I didn't keep copies of the Redemption Figures, but that can be easily accessed.
They were provided up front to PJG.

The Valuation carried out by PJG, I do not have, but I have an email from PJG which I received along with my Meeting Notes confirming that PJG had carried out a Valuation and confirming there was indeed no Equity.
This has also been provided to CF.

OK, this might not turn out to be worthwhile Diamond Chap, but I just want to eliminate that this isn't all a great big misunderstanding.

Do you have a document marked statement of affairs in there? It will have gone to your creditors at the start and I'd have thought a copy might well have gone to you.

I have an Estimated Statement of Affairs and Estimated Statement of Realisations.
They state zero equity.

These have not been provided by me to CF.

Can I suggest you request a copy of the original statement of affairs from your new trustee Diamond Chap? This is the one that would have been sent to your creditors when your proposals were put to them.

I'd imagine this will be the starting point that your new trustee is using when looking at your case.

This should determine whether what they're suggesting now results from a change to the plan by them, or a misunderstanding about what the plan was formally set out to be right back at the start.

I received the aforementioned documents along with my copy of the Trust Deed.
Do you think a different one was provided later by PJG ?

Diamond can I ask is it both house valuation and redemption figure which has been changed. I would think that in this climate it would be very difficult to justify an increase in the house value.

I've no idea really Diamond Chap.

It could be that a piece of confirmed information came in after the estimated statement of affairs was produced; the property valuation or mortgage redemption statement for example. We might then be looking at a scenario similar to the one ann910 has described.

Or there could be a straightforward admin error at the start of some type. Getting the version that went to creditors might bring that to light.

I think it's quite important to know though, as based upon everything real I have read so far something doesn't seem to stack up