TDA,
Hardly speculation.
I have received correspondence stating they will be following their policy not what PJG had quite clearly stated on the Meeting Notes.
I provided Creditfix with the documentation prior to them telling me they were not guaranteeing they would honour PJG's policies, which, I think, conflicts with Chris Parry's statement posted in your link.

Hi Diamond Chap.

It's all speculation isn't it?

You're placing a negative interpretation of the wording of the message that you've received, and you are choosing to believe that this supersedes the assurance that Chris Parry previously gave.

I'm placing more importance on the assurance that Chris Parry gave, am not interpreting the wording of that message in the same way as you, and still think that the documentation you hold counts for something.

So we're both speculating on the same set of information but in different ways and from different perspectives.

You might turn out to be right and I might turn out to be wrong. If I were in your position I'd absolutely be concerned. But my perception is different to yours and I have a concern that others reading this thread understand that this might well not turn out to be the cause for concern that you currently fear.

The only thing of importance here to you and other people who find themselves in a similar position will be the outcome I think. Frustrating and worrying as this time is, that's not going to be apparent for a while.

Because of that I also think that we all need to be a little cautious about how we write about this. You're very welcome to write about it, your concerns are understandable and legitimate, but let's remember for example that on the previous thread on this subject someone talked about suicidal thoughts amidst some quite bizarre, ignorant and unnecessarily rude posts from a couple of people.

You've in no way fallen into any of those categories (as you already know without me saying that) and you've dug into the subject with smart and fair questions that will have been helpful to other readers. I guess I'm just talking about the careful use of language. What can be perceived as a fair statement of concern to make can easily be read by another person as a statement of fact, as we've perhaps already seen earlier on this thread.

I hope you can see where I'm coming from. It's not an attack or a criticism. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. We're seeing things in different ways and I respect your views which you're welcome to keep sharing of course.

This subject has aroused much emotion here in a way that doesn't happen often and it just worries me a little how readers who might be feeling especially low or vulnerable might interpret some what gets written. That's probably the main reason why I'm writing this at nearly 1am after a long week at work and with an early start tomorrow. There are several ways to interpret what you've heard today and the wider events. I'm still pretty hopeful that, in time, the outcomes will be fair and reasonable.

To be honest, I will still come out of this in a much better position than I was prior to my TD. We all make choices and have to deal with the outcomes.

Entering the TD was easily the most sensible and useful financial decision I have ever made and I am 100% confident of that.

Whatever happens, I will bear that in mind and I hope others do too.

Sorry but I think this is a joke. I wasn't going to write anything about this because I do not know all the facts etc. However, there should be no speculation about equity, it is either yes or no. I cannot bring myself to phone them as if I get some sort of answer like this I think I would explode.

I (and probably many others) choose PJG because of the equity issue. We repeatedly saw on here "don't choose a company that asks for £500 fee to remove interest in equity, we just deal with it up front " etc etc.

Now it is back to square 1 uncertainty over equity. I for one wish I had went with a company who took the £500 at least now there would be no issue as it would be documented I had paid this and not up for debate.

If I didn't only a few more payments to go I would be cancelling the standing order until I got a proper written guarantee from this new company that everything would be as was agreed at the start.

There should be no interpreting some guys statement one way or the other etc, can someone not just contact him back and ask him outright what the policy is on equity that has already been agreed at the start?

I mean from what I have read on here they don't even have records of folks cash payment for the first instalment!! What faith can we have in them having records about what was agreed about equity etc??

I was hoping one of the experts representing their Company would comment.

The Equity position is stated on the Meeting Minutes and is reflected in the Projected Dividend to Creditors but it looks as though there is no obligation to honour that position.
Logically the Creditors have no issue with the original position, given they have already agreed, but it is, most likely, a justification for Fees for the 'new' Trustee.

Experts - what is your view ?

Hi steve1984.

I agree that it's very unfortunate that equity is being speculated upon. What we do know if that the new trustee at CreditFix provided us with a statement saying that agreements would be honoured.

The next thing we know if that the wording on a message has created some concern. My opinion is that this message can be read in very different ways.

We also know that the initial cash payment issue has been resolved for at least one member who has written here as the data migration proceeds.

Hi Diamond Chap.

I'm not sure that you're going to get a useful comment from any firm other than CreditFix. They'll be making the decisions and the trustee provided us with an assurance that we published that agreements would be honoured.

As I understand it they choose not to participate in online forums, so those who have concerns will want to make their own enquiries of them.

I didn't expect a response.

The correspondence I received was fairly definitive and unless CF change their mind, my expectation, is that I have no option but to comply with CF's policy which differs from what was agreed with PJG.

These are exactly the types of problem we need answers to.

I appreciate PJG do a lot of work supporting this Forum, but it almost seems a taboo subject for the Experts to usefully address.

I have posted numerous questions not just on this specific post and have had no real answers.

Over and out.

There's no taboo Diamond Chap, but questions for which you and others want definitive answers that cannot be given.

A trustee will make a decision and, if challenged, have to be able to defend that decision. If a supervisory body or regulator or the law deems that decision to be wrong then the decision won't stand up.

You are concerned about the decision that might be made (or might well not be made). Only one person can make that decision and will then be responsible for their actions.

It's hard to explain, but you cannot answer a "what can and can't they do" question on this subject. They'll make a decision and then the experts here will be able to offer advice and suggestions, if of course there's any need to.

It seems fairly clear from the reply that Diamond Chap has received what CF stance on this will be. Not sure any interpretation is needed. They are fairly clear on the stance they will take. In a way I dont blame CF. Whoever is responsible for the decision to transfer at PJG has a lot to answer for though, in my opinion. If they were so concerned about their clients then it should have been part of the contract that the original agreements were kept in place. It seems to me that as we were pre-november 2014 regs then we were fair game for exploitation and I'm convinced PJG were aware of this.

Hi,

It's difficult for me to really comment or give any guidance as in 11 years I have not been involved in a transfer of cases from one firm to another and therefore have no practical hands on experience.

The Trustee at Creditfix said in a pervious statement that any agreement with PJG will be honoured.

Diamond Chap has now advised that CF are saying they will honour things as best they can but can't guarantee it.

I think it's only natural to be concerned and worried when you read this. I think I would be too.

My thinking is I don't think CF will have been able to revivew every single case that they have taken over from PJG yet. What they have said accordingly to Diamond Chap in a way kind of makes sense to me. They will want to fully review all the cases and can then start to give guarantees I think on things being honoured. They will want to confirm the valuation, redemption figure and what agreement was made regarding the equity. I guess checking everything that PJG have done as CF are now fully responsible for the case. If everything checks out fine and I have no reason to think it won't then I can't see there being a problem.

It's the same situation with the cash payments. They said there was a balance, it was reviewed and then confirmed that all payments were paid.

If a proper valuation has been done and a redemption figure obtained and this has been confirmed in writing, proposed to creditors and they have accepted this and a client had maintained their part then I can't see how things could be changed.

There is a lot of speculation on what may or may not happen with regards to the administration of the TD and whatever agreement was made with PJG regaring exactly how someones Trust Deed will work.

For me im going to need to wait and see what will happen and how it plays out before i can then give specific advice on a matter that someone had. I'm just trying to see both sides and give my thoughts on this. Unfortunately though i think it will take a little time for the team at CF to fully review cases and then confirm specific points and address answers that someone has regarding their Trust Deed.

Yes I get what you are saying, need tp wait and see and review things etc etc. However, equity in my mind is not up for review. I was told there was no equity and that was that no further valuation at the end. End of story regarding equity.

Can any of the experts simply tell me is this possible yes or no..............

At the end of my 3 years they carry out valuations on my property find ten grand of equity, then tell me I now owe them that.

Yes or no answer is this a possibility now with this new company?

Thanks

Steve it sounds like I'm in a similar position to yourself. From what we've heard so far it looks like the new trustee can basically change the terms as they see fit and we can challenge them if we feel we have grounds for complaint. The regulations re Trust Deed companies need tightening up and it may be something like this which speeds this up. I gather from reading the forum for the last year or so that the regulations have been changed post nov 2013. Looks like we're the ones who they beleiv e they can screw a bit more out. I've no problem with this in princapal, however we signed up to these deeds in good faith and as you said, we would have been better off going with one of the £500 companies who we wera advised to stay clear from. I wont be lying down to it if this is how it pans out.

Just to add, I have been checking my paperwork and have it down that there will be no re-valuation on my Td proposal. I dont have a copy of the minutes from the initial meeting, Could Mark or anyone from PJG confirm that these could be supplied. Note that this is is a genuine request and not interpretation or speculation?

Hi steve1984.

I think David and I have already provided our thoughts on your question in each of our last posts. I'm not sure that you're going to get beyond what we've already written I'm afraid.