quote:

---

Originally posted by steve1984
[br]For there to be no issue the conversation should go....

Client "ok so is that me finished my trust deed now?"

Creditfix " not yet we need to assess the equity and possibly carry out valuations etc"

Client " but I have it writing there is no equity and that was to be the end of that aspect of it, never to be mentioned again"

Creditfix " ah I see ok no problem thats how it will be dealt with. Rest easy my friend"

Not hard is it.

---

Does the wording on your agreement actually say "there is no equity and that is to be the end of that aspect of it, never to be mentioned again"?

Verbatim - no

In other words - yes

I dont have it front of me at this minute. However I recall it something along the lines of..... there is no equity in this property and no further valuation will be carried out

Yes my agreement states CLEARLY that there is no equity and NO further valuation will be carried out. That's my whole point these documents were passed off to us as legal binding documents. Time will tell if they have any legal standing, from the lack of any information from PJG I will assume they are as valuable as bog roll. But time will tell.

As I've said before, more or less, not verbatim, any company which is dealing with an influx of new cases will need time to examine those cases. They'll need to know exactly what was agreed in each case - and they'll need to know if those agreements were based on sound evidence.

In the meantime, they will need to deal with enquiries about the cases. So, a selection of stock phrases is the way forward.

"looking into the equity" could mean "we're checking that the previous company had an agreement with you on equity; if they did, we'll honour that".

I know that it's human nature to fear the worst. But, unless you have reason to believe that your agreement on equity was based on lies and subterfuge - to hide a substantial sum of equity - why not tuck away the public assurances which have already been made, and wait to see what happens?

Personally, I think it was a mistake for creditfix to send a representative onto a public forum, because their hands are so tied in what they can and can't say.

They can only post platitudes - which feeds the fears of those who are genuine, and gives ammunition to those who are deliberately trying to cause upset.

I'm not in their shoes, yet even I've written a very bland post - when compared to what I'm actually thinking.

If I were in their shoes, I think I'd probably explode if I had to be as circumspect as they have to be! [:0]

quote:

---

Originally posted by candlewick
[br]As I've said before, more or less, not verbatim, any company which is dealing with an influx of new cases will need time to examine those cases. They'll need to know exactly what was agreed in each case - and they'll need to know if those agreements were based on sound evidence.

In the meantime, they will need to deal with enquiries about the cases. So, a selection of stock phrases is the way forward.

"looking into the equity" could mean "we're checking that the previous company had an agreement with you on equity; if they did, we'll honour that".

I know that it's human nature to fear the worst. But, unless you have reason to believe that your agreement on equity was based on lies and subterfuge - to hide a substantial sum of equity - why not tuck away the public assurances which have already been made, and wait to see what happens?

Personally, I think it was a mistake for creditfix to send a representative onto a public forum, because their hands are so tied in what they can and can't say.

They can only post platitudes - which feeds the fears of those who are genuine, and gives ammunition to those who are deliberately trying to cause upset.

I'm not in their shoes, yet even I've written a very bland post - when compared to what I'm actually thinking.

If I were in their shoes, I think I'd probably explode if I had to be as circumspect as they have to be! [:0]

---

Thanks mr candlestick, its so nice of you to have remained bland and not given us a row or your real thoughts. We are touched......

You see what you fail to understand is that I shopped around various companies prior to signing the trust deed. I could have paid less per month than I do now. However, I made my choice SOLELY on the basis that equity was dealt with and there would be no surprises at the end. Others obviously did the same. An answer of " we are looking into it" is of no relevance to me. It has been looked in to and dealt with.

So, you have an agreement on the equity. No attempt has been made, as yet, to change that agreement.

It may well be that the agreement is honoured in full.

It that doesn't happen, then if you are confident that the agreement on equity was based on facts, you can use those facts to defend your position.

As things stand, your agreement hasn't been challenged.

Best regards
Candlewick
(no gender specified)

(Edited for typo)

quote:

---

Originally posted by candlewick
[br]So, you have an agreement on the equity. No attempt has been made, as yet, to change that agreement.

It may well be that the agreement is honoured in full.

It that doesn't happen, then if you are confident that the agreement on equity was based on facts, you can use those facts to defend your position.

As things stand, your agreement hasn't been challenged.

Best regards
Candlewick
(no gender specified)

(Edited for typo)

---

"It may well be that the agreement is honoured in full"

Woo hoo. Wouldn't that be amazing! Imagine if my original agreement was honoured! !! How exciting.

What would be more exciting is if they simply told the people on here who have already made the ageeed payments that equity is not being "looked into".

Anyway this is the same conversation over and over again. Pointless. Old gregg or whatever his name was had the right idea..... just post a message saying phone customer services then disappear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by steve1984
[br]Anyway this is the same conversation over and over again. Pointless. Old gregg or whatever his name was had the right idea..... just post a message saying phone customer services then disappear.

---

It is the same conversation over and over again - and there still hasn't been a confirmed case of CreditFix overturning agreements.

As for names: I'm candlewick (not candlestick)
The CreditFix representative was Greg (not gregg)

quote:

---

It is the same conversation over and over again - and there still hasn't been a confirmed case of CreditFix overturning agreements.

---

That's a very important point, creditfix are over on the other forum moaning about the misinformation. So what is their soloution ,Gregg runs away and answers nothing. It has became clear they do not want to put any definite answer on the forum. The only natural conclusion that can be drawn from this is they do not want to set a standard. In other words for every person who fights back 10 chumps will just pay up.

Now onto the more important point, even if they do not revalue the house the equity would still increase as you have made 3 years payments. The whole reason of going with PJG was they assured us in fact more than assured us they presented the appearance of legal binding documents that the equity was sorted out at the beginning and that was the end of the matter.

Now hands up who would still have signed a trust deed knowing that these documents were nothing more than worthless pieces of paper and that the equity was still up for grabs after the 3 years. Now as pointed out creditfix might not change anything but that is neither here nor there, we were under the illusion at the point of signing this was written into the contract. Until PJG come onto this forum and clarify the legal standing of these documents speculation will continue.

That's not "the only natural conclusion that can be drawn from this" Sold down the river. It's a statement of your opinion. Others will quite legitimately draw very different conclusions to you.

And if the trustee at Creditfix has committed to honour these agreements, what part of them is worthless? Surely that makes them worth quite a lot?

It's been explained here any number of times that if you're expecting PJG to tell you the legal status of a document that is now under the supervision of an unconnected party you are totally and utterly barking up the wrong tree.

Presumably you do remember the excellent chewing gum analogy presented by another member when this issue of legal status was discussed some time ago? I believe that you were involved in the same thread.

Maybe, it is a standard letter they send out to clients that have entered Creditfix's closing proceedure? I hope that this is the case but the astonishing length of time people are waiting for answers must be horrendous.

I hope that the previous legal documents that were signed with PRG are honoured.