First of all thank you for your previous repliesTDA....my personal view is that no one is being rude to anyone on here, we have very legitimate concerns relating to this transfare, and as we have originally signed up to this company with all our trust, I feel that we are more than entitled to an explanation!

People are really concerned that they may possibly lose their home or have to take another year of torment on via another extension to this process, hard working folk in most cases probably who have been taken in by the dream of actually being debt free, but now are possibly on the verge of this being extended...what's next we fear? Another extension to an extension!!...when, do I wonder,when this will actually stop!!!...TDA I have a young family and have worked all my life never claiming benefits of any kind, I made a mistake with debt to which I choose to address via a trust deed, now this process could be on the verge of abuse and exploitation meaning that my family will have to go without again for another year or how many years this new lot decide...now you have an insight into how the mind of at least one of PGs clients feel I would hope that you would take a more concerning approach to helping us deal with this fearsome situation witch looks a possibility of happening...

This forum is a great opportunity for us as TD clients to share our views and opinions and help other members during situations like this one, I'm sure that you understand this and that the entire ethos of a forum is to assist in this way....

Under the circumstances I think everyone has been very restrained and certainly not rude. PJG might have decided to ignore our request with regards to the documents we signed.

This is NOTHING to do with creditfix, we simply want to know if the documents we signed were fantasy or have some legal standing. PJG set up the trust deed and sold us into this trust deed under certain conditions that equity would be protected and that when we signed these documents that was a done deal.

AT NO POINT were we told that these documents were fantasy and held absolutely no legal rights. These documents were presented to all intents purpose to the layman as a legal binding document.

Now if i knew that these documents were worthless there is no way in hell I would have signed that TD. Now take from that what you want, I think we at least deserve PJG to clear this up.

Interesting that the two denials of rudeness come from the two people that have been the rudest to me and others!

PJG cannot tell you if those documents have legal standing.

If they were brought into question, a professional body, a supervisory authority or a court would make the decision.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trust Deed Assistant
[br]

PJG cannot tell you if those documents have legal standing.

---

You cannot be serious!

....."PJG cannot tell you if these documents have a legal standing"!!!!

Now I'm hoping this is just a faux pas...and note it doesn't come from direct from PJG themselves....but if this is the case then we open the door here to some serious miss selling of these trust deeds...

Thank you for your earlier reply TDA about the new rules...please find below the rules governing dwelling house (middle paragraph)...(old rules from 2008 to 2nd sept 2013 for everyones info the same rules appear to apply...thanks

.8. Debtor's Discharge
?á
8.1 Discharge is Conditional
?á
Discharge of the debtor is not automatic. ?áRegulation 19 of the 2008 Regulations allows the trustee to issue a letter of discharge to the debtor if they are satisfied that, to the best of their knowledge, the debtor has met their obligations under the PTD. ?á
?á
A PTD is a voluntary arrangement and a debtor is expected to comply with the terms of that arrangement, to provide information about assets and liabilities, income and expenditure, to cooperate in the realisation of their estate and to pay contributions. ?áA debtor who unreasonably fails to comply has not kept to the agreement and should not have the benefit of imposing that agreement on creditors. ?á

A debtor is not considered to have failed to meet their obligations if they refuse to consent to the sale of the dwellinghouse which is excluded from a trust deed in accordance with section 5(4A)(b) of the 1985 Act or refuse to give a relevant consent in terms of section 40(1)(a) of the 1985 Act.
?á
It would not be appropriate to refuse to discharge a debtor because of circumstances beyond their control, such as a change of circumstances which prevents them from continuing to pay contributions, or if an asset realises an ?áamount less than originally estimated by the trustee on Form
?á

Sold down the river.

You're looking for the right information, in the wrong place, before anyone can give it to you.

If (which hasn't happened) your new trustee decided to override what was agreed at the start, you'd be able to challenge that decision with the firm itself, their professional body, the AIB or in court.

The chosen arbiter would then determine whether your trustee's decision was reasonable and would stand up. Or not.

Nothing anyone else says now changes that. So the information you're requesting is of no value or use to you.

TDA, I fully understand that this whole situation puts you in an awkward position. And i honestly do take on all your points and you do make many valid points.

I am just not the type of person to sit about and wait for things to happen I prefer to meet them head on. I will use this period to gather as much info as possible and be ready for any eventuality. You could be 100% right and this all passes without incident.

But if it does not I would be foolish to sit back and react under pressure. I know I made a mistake getting into debt but we made an agreement and we have kept to our side of the bargain so we rightly expect the other side to do so as well.

This will come down to three possible outcome, nothing happens and all goes well. Creditfix try to change the terms and this has already happened so this is rightly the front runner. Thirdly if creditfix are within their rights to change the terms regarding equity then PJG will have some questions to answer.

So your right for the time being I will crawl back under my rock and watch events carefully.

I'm not saying everything will pass without incident. I'm saying there's every chance that this could be the case. I have no influence whatsoever over what happens, just views based upon what we're reading here.

I don't feel in an awkward position either. Questions on this subject are fine by me.

Like you, I'd want to know where I stand in the same circumstances. Your challenge is trying to find out where you stand in connection to an unspecified problem based upon unknown reasons at an unspecified point in the future. To put it another way, you're being a bit hard on yourself.

If more specific issues were to arise in the future people here would try to help, and more importantly there are a number of places you can go to challenge decisions you believe to be unfair.

If Companies are asking you to sign documents, then they should be able to advise you of their validity.

p.s. TDA - am I a cheeky boy !

You mean, that they believe them to be valid?

Then if another organisation disagrees, who decides on their validity?

It's looking for the right information in the wrong place.

Sorry I had retired from this debate but I can't read this.....

So what you're saying TDA is anyone can set up trust deeds, tell the person any old nonsense they like just to get them to sign. Then later on sell it to their pals company down the road who can then change all the conditions with no one taking any responsibility for the original agreement?

What other sort of thing in the world could get away with that?

I know who decides on their validity.

But if we they are part of the Documentation issued by the IP, then surely the IP has some kind of 'Duty of Care' to ensure said Documentation is valid/legally Binding.

The assumption I made was that it was, not that the the IP believed it was.
The legal standing of the document should be known when it is presented to the Client.

We certainly should not all be potentially having to contact the aib.

Good summary Steve, pretty much sums it up I just hear the adverts on the radio in the future "missold a TD phone 7888888".

I will also retire from this conversation but please do not lose hope, we have many avenues to explore. If creditfix do sting me for any equity gained over the 3 years of mortgage payments I know who my lawyers will be talking to !

In theory, Steve, that could happen with any agreement. It's just that in 1500 years since the Justinian Code we've evolved to a state where that is rare.

Ultimately, but unlikely, a transaction for a pack of gum could end up before a Sheriff.

Whilst there's statue and common law surrounding the application of agreements like Scottish Trust Deeds, either side could renege.

Absolutely not saying that is the case here and I do not think anyone in the industry operates in that manner.

That's not what I'm saying steve1984.

Bert Rudge has hit the nail on the head.