Good morning,

I'd support what Kevin said earlier about other experts not responding which I take as being aimed at him and I as aside from Mark, we are the other experts. My weekends are full on with two young boys along with other commitments and as a result from time to time it's difficult for me to find the time to review all of the comments/questions & concerns and then find the time to sit down and write a response to try and answer these. If there is something quick that I can jump on and answer I normally will but at the moment the way that anything someone writes is being scrutinised and questioned over and over again I just didn't have the time to write a post as I then knew more questions would probably follow and if I didn't respond then people may decide to criticise.

From what I gather over the two topics and 235 replies the main issue is that people are concerned that as a result of the transfer of their case from PJG to CF any agreement made in respect of equity/negative equity could be changed and their Trust Deed extended. An understandable concern.

Prior to the 2013 legislation changes and going back a good number of years, Trust Deeds were set up at the outset with a valuation and asking the client what they thought was outstanding on their mortgage. Sometimes firms didn't even do a valuation but asked the client what the felt the property was worth and proceed on this basis. With the answer from the client this was then proposed to creditors on the ÔÇ£Estimated Statement of AffairsÔÇØ and an equity figure was proposed on this basis. A client was always advised that should the redemption figure/equity be different from what they have provided then they could be asked to pay in more of the equity. As I understand it, this way of doing things was common practice amongst all firms. A redemption figure would eventually be obtained and the equity calculated on this basis. If the redemption figure was lower it resulted in more equity and in turn the client was asked to pay over more money. This way of doing things goes back a good number of years and our firm certainty hasn't set up Trust Deed's like this for a long long time. Kevin has also confirmed that this is how it used to work.

With the 2013 legislation changes it greatly improved this process and meant that up front people knew where they stood with regards to their property and the equity. A valuation and redemption figure is obtained and then this is confirmed in a formal agreement and this is what is stuck to unless the clients doesn't co-operate etc. With most things Trust Deeds have evolved and improved over the years.

Now the question about can an agreement continue and continue. If a valuation has been obtained along with a redemption figure and the client sticks to this agreement then in my experience and opinion the Trust Deed should not be extended time after time to continue to ingather equity as a result of the mortgage payments reducing the balance. If a client has failed to co-operate, maintain contributions, keep PPI money, not disclose assets etc then I can see a new valuation and redemption figure being obtained as the client has failed to meet their obligations.

With older cases going back a number of years and not being aware of how PJG set up a Trust Deed in terms of a valuation & redemption figure then it's hard for me to say that nothing will change now cases have transferred to Creditfix. Previously my view was that I couldn't understand how Creditfix could change things and extend a Trust Deed for equity. If a valuation and redemption figure was not obtained up front at the start of a Trust Deed with PJG then Creditfix I think are within their rights to question this as they need to establish the equity position with a valuation and redemption figure. This is how the equity is calculated, valuation and redemption figure in writing = equity. I'm sure on one case a redemption figure was not obtained and as a result this is why Creditfix have extended a Trust Deed to account for this.

On the point about an organisation and the validity of any agreement they have you sign. An Insolvency Practitioner has a regulatory body and complies with the relevant legislation in terms of administering Trust Deeds and Sequestrations. If something comes up and it needs to be clarified then an Insolvency Practitioner will speak with a Solicitor who has extensive experience of Insolvency legislation for their legal opinion. They will probably have court experience of similar situations and the outcome of this so can advise. In terms of all of our paperwork (for example) we believe this to be correct, legal and valid as a Solicitor has drafted all of this for us but if a case of ours went to court it would then be up to a sheriff to decide this ÔÇô a previous post on chewing gum covered this kind of thing. There are standard forms in Trust Deeds under legislation but not everything is standard and therefore needs drafted by a Solicitor so this can vary from Solicitor to Solicitor. Our Trust Deed document for example is only valid when the Trustee signs it and after we provide the client with a 7 day cooling off period. As a far as I'm aware with all other firms once the client signs the Trust Deed it is legally binding. So actually with our Trust Deed thee is quite a difference and it took the AIB by surprise when they first started receiving it. We do it this way to protect both the client but also our IP.

If people are looking at legislation or for answers then you need to be careful you are looking at the correct information. There is legislation and then notes for guidance. The legislation is really the relevant information and then you need to be careful about when the legislation came into force etc.

If PJG have carried out a valuation and obtained a redemption figure and this is documented and on file and Creditfix have this then I can't understand how Creditfix can then change the goalposts. If PJG had a valuation but not a redemption figure or vice versa then I can understand Creditfix looking at the equity and considering changing the goalposts. If they do then they need to be confident that they can and they may have consulted a Solicitor for their opinion on the matter. Every decision that a Trustee makes needs to stand up to scrutiny. As we have all learned by being involved in this forum, a lot of things are down to the Trustees discretion and view of things and therefore can vary from firm to firm.

Like people have already advised if the goalposts are being changed in your Trust Deed then you have options to consider i.e. a formal complaint, the regulatory body of the IP, the AIB etc.

I only know as much as what TDA and Kevin know by following the forum and given the amount of replies it has been hard to follow this over the weekend given my other commitments. Trying to follow two topics and all of the comments has been a little confusing with similar questions being asked and answered on both.

I do sympathise with people and how they must be feeling about all of this. I would be the same but again I think we need to wait and see how things play out. It may be a couple of cases in isolation or it may be all of the cases involved in the transfer. At the moment it looks like it's a very small number and with 1 case it was because a redemption figure was not on file. Time will tell.

TDA, Kevin and I along with others will try to do our best to answer questions as and when they come up but people also need to take a step back from the keyboard, read what they have written, think about it and then hit post if they are still happy.

David, I don't think you've addressed the issues fully to be honest. ...

Joking.......

Thank you for the detailed reply it is appreciated as are all the replies. We will await anyone else coming forward to let us know how theirs pans out then.

Thanks

Hi again Steve and everyone else.

What if there aren't any issues at all?

Ann910 and Diamond Chap have reported actual concerns about equity. Nobody else.

We now know that ann910's situation (while serious to her) is entirely unconnected to a change of trustee.

It looks pretty likely to me that Diamond Chap's also will not be. Based on what we've learned so far, the most likely explanation seems also to be some sort of misunderstanding towards the start of the process. I might be wrong. Hopefully Diamond Chap will let us know if they choose to dig into this a little further and we'll then know.

So shall we wait and see? Because at the moment I'm not sure that Creditfix has changed a single agreement about equity, and the man who is responsible went out of his way to tell us that he'd honour arrangements made between transferred clients and PJG.

Which would make all of this entirely redundant wouldn't it?

Sorry I was only joking the first time tda, you must have been too quick with your 7 second replying skills before I managed to type the next thing!

Hi steve1984.

I did figure it out.

I admit it took me a couple of minutes though!

Steve you rascal! I seen your first comment and thought you cannot be serious (In a John McEnroe voice)

I can appreciate people wanting to try and plan for the worst case scenario. So far as TDA has pointed out it appears to be 2 cases which are affected but it sounds like even if there wasn't a transfer, the same issues would have applied with the Trustee at PJG.

Let's see what happens and then we can deal with any issues. It's not like if there is a change to the equity position that it will be immediate and no one will have a chance to review this and take further advice on the matter. At the moment people are planning for something which may not actually happen but I guess everyone has a different way of thinking.

I will update when something happens.

Thanks for your input David.

I am still hoping that when the right person gets involved that it gets sorted.

My agreed payments have been completed.

I am avoiding spending the extra money I have now until I know what is happening.

Still skint !

Panic over then. No trips to Kilwinning needed. 🙂

What a weekend.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bert Rudge
[br]Panic over then. No trips to Kilwinning needed. 🙂

What a weekend.

---

Well said.

"Well said" also to David.

And "Well said" and "Well done" to TDA for all the time and patience spent on the forum over the weekend (and always!)

Be vigilant though. ... the panic can return at any time.

The clock is ticking until the next forum guy who has been transferred reaches the end of their TD. Then the mayhem could be back!

quote:

---

Originally posted by steve1984
[br]Be vigilant though. ... the panic can return at any time.

The clock is ticking until the next forum guy who has been transferred reaches the end of their TD. Then the mayhem could be back!

---

I don't know about you, but I don't ever want to see anyone panic - especially unnecessarily - and I dislike 'mayhem'.

Maybe the forum should 'bookmark' the answers given by TDA, David and Kevin about the general principles - plus the specific information provided by Creditfix and PJG representatives on the transfer?

That way, anyone who comes here with a concern about this particular transfer of trustees - or another transfer of trustees - can be given a link to a bank of information, rather than join in threads full of unsettling and worrying speculation and 'mayhem'.

They can still ask further questions, obviously, but at least they don't have the stress of wading through hundreds of posts - some very speculative - trying to find some answers.

It might not be possible to do - apart from anything else, there are a lot of posts to go through to pull the information together!

But, if it is possible, it would probably be a great help to people who find themselves with a new trustee.

That's a very good idea candlewick.

I think we might wait on Diamond Chap getting to the bottom of what has happened with his/her trust deed before putting something together.

Update from me.

I had contact from PJG last week stating that there was Equity and that they had informed me March 2012.

I had neither a copy of the letter nor any recollection of said letter.
Nothing to be gained debating the topic.

Given how methodical I have been, I suspect it may have been lost in the post.
Not pointing any fingers, I genuinely believe that.

I have supplied Creditfix with the Letter and one regarding my Endowment, with my view on what is required to close the TD.

What correspondence I have had from CF, gives the impression that they do not have all the info or are not properly reviewing it.
If they had the Equity letter then they should have surprised me with it a few weeks ago.

My advice is to ensure you have things in black and white.
Do not assume that because you have heard nothing, that everything is OK.

CF very slow to respond.

I am still awaiting a response re them honouring Equity and Endowment Valuations being agreed at start of TD. Hope no-one has been holding their breath.

Hi Diamond Chap.

While it will probably be of no particular comfort to you, I'm pleased to hear that the equity you're being asked to address appears to have no connection to the transfer of your case to a new trustee. I'm sure that this will be of great reassurance to the many people reading that recently also had their cases transferred. Thank you for sharing this information.

I do hope that for you and anyone else seeking clarification on various matters that the response times improve soon.