Hi pinalta

I fear that regardless of whether your discharge was delayed rightly or wrongly, your credit file is likely to show the actual date of discharge rather than when you feel you should have been discharged and I don't think it will be easy to change.

It's a tricky question but I suppose that if you can prove that you were solvent after the property transfer and if the extra payment was directly as a result of this supposed alienation then I'd have thought you should be reimbursed the extra you paid in because of this. You could find yourself having to go through the courts to get to this stage though, depending on your trustee's viewpoint.

In terms of trustees fees, it is your creditors who bear the brunt of this through a reduced dividend, not yourself.

Thanks Kevin . I feel I have a very strong case and I hope it will not get to the court stage. Trying to move things along regarding discharge and I will post a follow up once things progress and the outcome might be of use to other forum members. Is there any firm/ broker who would be willing to deal with a re-mortgage once the deed is discharged ?.

Hi pinalta.

It's really just a question of speaking to a broker at the appropriate time to see whether any lenders have acceptance criteria that meet your needs. These criteria change often.

TDA thanks for the advice, having looked over my case I am unsure of a few things and thought further clarification would be prudent before advancing further. I will try to keep as brief and factual as I can . The current amount of equity sought by my Trustee is the FULL amount of equity in the property. From previous letters from my Trustee , they claim that they had the right to claim this , having accepted this as fact I made a proposal to do so , assuming that It had been proven without doubt, and I had no other choice in the matter.Does my acceptence by paying more money towards the equity mean there is no way out for me. The only reason this was accepted by me is because they stated that alienation had taken place (never proven )and when I asked further , they stated it was a comprimise against a alienation , now they are stating that a alienation had taken place so how can this be stated when no proof has been sought , feel that I acted with good faith by raising more funds and the very fact of doing so makes my case weaker.Accepted this statement by them as absolute fact , then by paying more money I am bound by the agreement even in my very basic understanding there was no proof in law. As always I open this up for comment.

Hi pinalta.

We're maybe getting into a legal area here and the forum doesn't offer legal advice.

If you intend to build a strong case on this side of things you may need to obtain direct legal advice at some point, and in particular if you want to build a case strong enough to avoid the need to go to court.

I'm sure the experts will offer any thoughts they have, but please bear in mind that nobody here is legally qualified.

I think it is certainly going to be harder to get money back that you have already paid across, pinalta, rather than refusing to pay the extra money over in the first place. It is a bit of an unusual situation so Trust deed assistant's remarks about legal advice are worth heeding I'd say.

Sorry did not mean to divert from the reason the forum offers advice / help. So I think you'r right about the legal side , in this situation there any bound to be many questions and the lines can become blurred. Not that interested in getting money back , I am trying to get advice to build my case and to establish I have met my obligations and argue it for discharge. Been 6 years now and it has taken a toll on my health and marriage. Guess I just want to move on and feel trapped by the deed rather than helped . So, once again thanks for your help and advice.