Hello babyd12.

Lots of people have written here about the same concern in written months. I'm not aware that any have in the end had their original agreement amended in terms of having to contribute anything extra in lieu of equity.

If it's the firms involved that I think it is then the new trustee came on here to state that it wasn't their intention to change equity agreements, although that doesn't mean that their closure procedures might not be different to what you expected.

Presumably you've already drawn their attention to the agreement that was previously made?

Do you have a record of this agreement?

Hi, Yeah I have all the original paperwork and have read it out to the new trust deed company. Their call centre couldn't help, I am waiting on the person in charge of my trust deed calling back but he isn't back in until tomorrow. When I received the letter saying my trust deed was being taken over by a new company it said nothing else had changed and just to continue paying. I would have thought if they wanted to change the agreement they would have had to of told me and got me to sign a new agreement. If I thought my family home was in danger I wouldn't have went ahead with the trust deed as they were saying about possibly being made to sell or re mortgage.

I totally understand the worry babyd12. Many people who have written here on this precise subject have felt the exact same concern that you're now experiencing.

Fortunately that worry about the unknown hasn't translated into an actual problem that we've heard yet. Indeed, a couple of the people who were most worried about this (and similar contact from the new provider) have since been discharged from their trust deeds without this turning into a problem.

I hope that you get some more reassurance when this more senior contact becomes available to look at your case for you.

Thanks for your reply, I really hope you are correct. Just had a new baby last month and thought timing all worked out well with trust deed ending and having that extra money every month to help when on maternity leave. Just don't want to be told I need to keep paying or sell up. Hopefully find out tomorrow when the person calls me back.

Well... a massive congratulations to you!

From the evidence we've read here I doubt very much that this will result in a problem for you. I do appreciate that you'll want to hear that from the firm concerned so that you can put this to the back of your mind and give all of your attention to much more important things.

Hello again everyone took a break from the forum to keep my blood pressure down lol. I assume we are talking about creditfix and the PJG sale. I am one if the people who were very upset about the possibility of this scenario. But I have been in contact with creditfix recently and to my great surprise they were very professional and friendly.

I can pretty much back up what TDA has said as this scenario will just not happen if my experience and previous posters experience is repeated. The complete opposite in fact creditfix were very friendly and professional firm.

Yeah same here. Should be fine. With me creditfix acted as though it was crazy talk from me at first. I told them I had the paperwork to prove. Then I scanned and emailed it and also forwarded e-mails from pjg confirming no more valuations.

Tgen I emailed the same guy every day for about ten days until he eventually replied and said no more valuations it is getting closed by closure team. Few weeks later paperwork arrived.

I'm sure yours will be same

I still think the "weekend of mania" on here was the key to it all! Remember that creditfix guy that appeared as the representative and lasted 1 day and never seen again

Steve has your date been put on the aib yet ?

Yes both me and the truster guy both discharged on the website

quote:

---

Originally posted by steve1984
[br]I still think the "weekend of mania" on here was the key to it all! Remember that creditfix guy that appeared as the representative and lasted 1 day and never seen again

---

"weekend of mania"? [:D] It lasted a lot longer than one weekend - and got increasingly manic!

I doubt very much that any of the frantic posting activity on this forum - or any others - made any difference to the approach which the new trustee intended to take. An approach which they publicly put in writing at an early stage.

However, the frantic posting activity probably made a huge, negative, difference to the peace of mind of those who were affected by the change, and happened to read the forum.

Before the history gets revised too much, it's probably worth casting an honest look back at what actually happened, and wondering how helpful it was for people to spend so much time posting negative speculation.

At times it was like reading 'Chicken Licken and the Trust Deeds'! I wonder how many sleepless nights were a direct result of the speculation, rather than the facts?

It has all worked out pretty much the way some of the less 'speculative' posters predicted, and along the lines which the Creditfix representative posted early on.

Maybe next time there is a change of trustee somewhere, people will remember those boringly reassuring facts.

Maybe so candlewick, but some very glaring holes in the whole trust deed framework was questioned which was good. I know the new trust deeds are better legislated, I do not know enough about them to say if all the points raised have been corrected.

Overall the trust deed has been a great success and if you follow the advice given on this forum you are almost certain to come out the other end much better off. BUT go in with your eyes wide open and that debate did expose many areas where the trust deed needs tightened. So as for only causing worry that's a rather narrow view of the whole debate many good points were raised.

Out of all the debt solutions I do not think any are perfect as you cannot legislate for every outcome. Overall i think the trust deed is one of the better options compared to the IVA down south it's infinitely superior.

Any general Trust Deed points which came out of several weeks
worth of increasingly fevered speculation and rants were a welcome change to the general tenor of the discussion - but did look entirely accidental.

The full posting history remains on this forum for anyone to view - minus the posts which were too defamatory, and/or which were made by a user who posted under more than one name with the apparent aim of stirring up more anger and concern.

I hope that people WILL view that posting history, next time a trustee changes.

The "key to it all"?

Maybe a firm choosing to sell their cases to another firm that said it would honour existing agreements?

And that firm then doing what it said it would?