If your friend hasn't already written to the trustee asking for a detailed explanation of all those points, he/she should do that first.

If he is still not satisfied, he can make a formal complaint to the trustee, and then a formal complaint to the trustee's authorising body.

PPI refunds wouldn't be put towards arrears of payments to the TD. They'd go into the TD 'pot' for making payments. Same with equity; same with windfalls.

If your friend wants to sell the house, then he should tell the trustee about that.

What your reply seems to confirm is that under a trust deed the debtor has no control nor right of appeal against any decisions being made by the trustee even though there is a conflict in that it is also in the trustees interest to extend the period of the trust (they earn additional fees).

Actually, my reply was intended to point out the importance of getting all the facts, in writing, from the trustee before doing anything else.

If it turns out that there has been a misundertsanding on the trustee's part, then your friend has the opportunity to sort that out.

If it turns out that there has been a misunderstanding on your friend's part (like the idea that the PPI refund could go towards arrears of TD payments), there may not be any grounds for disputing the trustee's decisions.

If it turns out that the trustee has done something which breaches legislation, or the IP Code of Ethics etc, then people can advise you where to go next.

It all starts with getting the full facts, in writing, from the trustee.

If it were me, I'd certainly be wanting a detailed breakdown of how arrears had occurred if all payments had been met as agreed. If the IP was wanting increased payments during the trust deed because of the result of a review then they have to notify you of any required increase.

These arrears seem to have been calculated based on a retrospective review - why this occurs at the end of the trust deed and how they can apply retrospectively is again one of the many mysteries of how the trust deed works. Can this be challenged?

Another issue that was raised was the value of my friends car. The valuation model used was what was the trade-in value of the car. Surely this can't be valid - I thought that accounting rules meant that 'mark to market' would be applied i.e. what is it worth now, not what is it worth if you take on a load more debt. I can hardly imagine creditors would be happy to find out they car is valued at £5K but they now owe Arnold Clark £10K and they've got a small share of a Mercedes.

I can't emphasise this strongly enough - your friend has to put these questions to the trustee in the first instance, and see what the answers are.

As things stand, your questions are too broad and vague to allow for definitive answers. 'Restrospective review'? Maybe, depends on the circumstances - what are the circumstances?

Value of the car? If you think that the method of valuation is incorrect, ask the trustee why he's valued it in that way, and put forward your own point of view as to how it should be valued.

Your final sentence is entertaining. [:)]

As candlewick says - your friend needs to get the trustee to evidence their stance re equity/arrears etc and then can complain if it doesn't stack up.

The "trade-in valuation" doesn't mean that the car would be traded in for a new one, just what value the car would be given by a trader if it was forming part of a trade-in. This is always a fair bit lower than an open market valuation, so works in your friend's favour.

Trade-in value is always higher that the open market value (since they're loading the customer up with debt they can always give the impression of being generous knowing they're making money on the increase). The question is can this method of valuation be challenged since it's not 'mark to market'.

Please let us know which garage you go to so I can avoid it in the future.

As others have said, your friend needs to approach the trustee directly with their questions - only they will know what has transpired during the course of the trust deed that may (or may not) legitimately mean additional monies are due. You've only heard one side of this and may be judging the trustee harshly while not having the full facts.

Hi Indentured Servant and welcome.

As already stated by others, windfalls are a separate issue from arrears and/or equity in assets.

I'd want to know what the arrears relate to. If its because your friend didn't tell the trustee about an increase of income, or a reduction in expenditure, then an extension doesn't seem unfair. The trustee will only be recovering funds that your friend has had the benefit of already. If there is no good reason then a challenge should be straightforward.

I agree with Kevin that trade-in value will have worked to the favour of your friend normally.

Regarding equity in the house, your friend could push back if they can get a reduced valuation from a reputable source. It will give them something to negotiate with.

I may well be judging them harshly as you have said however given the lack of transparency that's been evident so far from the trustee I'm less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. My real concern however is that the trustee is the final arbiter of any dispute in which they have a financial interest (the extension of the trust deed will benefit the trustee directly and in fact they've stated they are increasing their fees). This surely cannot be correct that the arbiter of any complaint also stands to benefit from their decision?

It is all very well to state that an alternative valuation can be used as a negotiating position but again does it actually give any leverage. If the trustee decides that they reject that valuation where does the plaintiff stand? It seems as if the debtor is always going to first deal with a person who has a financial interest in any outcome of the dispute and their interest is inimicable to the debtor.

They are regulated and inspected in terms of the decisions that they make. The fees can also be challenged if considered to be unfair.

The question is perhaps therefore whether their decisions and fees are justified or not. That can only be judged by the relevant facts.

Sorry but that's another obfuscation, regulated and inspect by whom, the AIB?, their advice is to contact the trustee so back to square one.

Yet again it is mentioned that the decisions can be challenged but I still don't know where they can be challenged or who to contact. I do respect that trust deeds may well have a place in insolvency law, however it still doesn't seem to me that the regulations in place do anything to help the debtor and instead place their entire trust in the actions of the trustee who has a financial interest in extending the trust deed for as long as possible.