Call to trustee set things straight. They are happy to receive doubled up payments to catch up.

What would 'doing it by the rules' imply?

Hi RBSB.

It sounds a bit strange... one of those vague statements that actually means very little at all perhaps?

Hi RBSB

The Trustee can't 'drop the case' as he's in it for the long haul. However in sequestration it is easier & cleaner to obtain a court order to enforce payment, property sale etc.

Mark

Like Mark says, the trustee can't simply 'drop the case'. And he/she should already be dealing with the case 'by the rules'.

It sounds like the third party is either a chancer or has no idea what they're talking about (sorry, I'm too tipsy to try to be diplomatic!).

Now that you've cleared things up with the trustee, why not entertain yourself by firing a few questions at the third party.

Like "Why do you think that the trustee isn't already doing it by the rules?"

Thanks folks

TDA - I think 3rd party has a tendency for stick rather than carrot advice and had the result of forcing the client to call the trustee.

Mark - My impression is the income/expense was done hurriedly to fit a previously stated figure of contribution and never was realistic or based on actual expenses. As a result, the income is not sufficient. Would a court order re.payment be achieved without these factors being reviewed?
The person involved rents privately and has several rental properties which have no equity.

I think it needs to be acknowledged that payments are not being made because the income is not there as otherwise this can only be a matter of time before it's unworkable-what then?

Candlewick - Diplomacy is over rated in this regard-it suits 3rd party to imply there is an awful outcome around the corner if he is not obeyed.

Thanks all for clarifying it is a two-way binding contract?

Well, since we're not doing diplomacy here.

Why is the third party still involved?

As I understand it, once sequestration is awarded, the trustee does the work and takes the decisions. So, why the third party involvement?

Has your friend given the trustee a clear, accurate and honest account of income and expenditure? Or is the trustee getting information from/drawn up by the third party?

There seem to be too many people in this bankruptcy. Why does the third party feel that he should be obeyed?

Candlewick-Thereby hangs a tail (?tale)

Theories?

Maybe wants a good rate of compliant referrals to ensure further association.
Maybe 'packaging' likely to be unpicked if obvious difficulties arise early on.

Income / expenses were agreed with 3rd party prior to passing to trustee.

Sequestration has been awarded.

The trustee is in charge. He/she should be dealing with things 'by the rules' anyway.

The third party is history. He/she should be told that. And never spoken to again. Ever. He/she has no role to play anymore.

Your friend should give the trustee his/her actual income and expenditure right now. That will let the trustee see if there is a feasible Income Payment Agreement. Or not.

Once you know the outcome on that you can think about 'what to do next'.

Thanks all.
I can only pass on your advice/info.

Trustee was happy to see a commitment to start payments.

Income/expenses IMHO still not done to reflect actual figures but at least the 'threat' of the case being dropped has gone.

I get the impression the 3rd party is no longer in touch with any regularity.

Bottom line is, they should be doing it by the rules anyway- that is what the legislation is the legislation is there for!!

That's what seemed odd!