Hmmm sorry I disagree. I was TOLD by creditfix that they would be carrying out a revaluation of property as is their policy. Then again at the end of the td I was greeted with confusion when I said I had paperwork and e-mails from pjg to confirm no more valuations.

Without the weekend of mania I may well just have thought "oh well this must just be the way it works".

So I think your view is ludicrous candlestick, as it is easy to now sit and say we told you it would be fine. It wouldn't have been fine if we hadn't argued our point. Without knowing that others were in the same boat would have made it more difficult.

Ok Tda if not key to it all, why did a creditfix guy mysteriously appear on here following the weekend of mania? He disappeared immediately as realised he had no answer to the mania.

In my small mind he went back to creditfix and said these folk are wild, give them their original agreements after all!

Nobody said it would be fine steve1984.

What was repeated (and repeated and repeated and repeated) was that there was no evidenced reason to expect that it wouldn't all work out fine. A rational approach. Which appears to have turned out to be correct thankfully.

Perhaps the difference between yours and my experience was that you didn't have to take calls from people who had become suicidal reading the feverish ill-founded speculation and utter nonsense posted by some here during one of those "weekends of mania".

I've no idea why a representative of that firm briefly joined the forum steve1984. So I won't speculate about it.

I can see why they left though. Couldn't win in an atmosphere where 2 plus 2 = 222222222.

Those were a crazy couple of weeks when I think back to it all.

I can see it from both points of view, the side of the people involved who were naturally worried about things and also from the side of an experienced advisor who didn't think anything negative would happen as a result or how CF could move the goalposts.

I'm glad to read that things did work out as we suggested but like I said, I can understand the fear that many people had regarding this.

Babyd12 I don't think you have anything to worry about from the change in companies.

Again we will have to disagree. How is being told another valuation would take place not " evidence"? I fail to see the purpose in mentioning suicidal people. They clearly have severe mental health issues if suicudal about guys on a forum discussing folk doing valuations on their property.....

It's evidence of process, not outcome.

As for your comments about mental health, they're appalling.

If you're self-aware enough to want to find out why that's the case please read the following:

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/debtandmentalhealth.aspx

"One in two adults with debts has a mental health problem".

"One in four people with a mental health problem is also in debt".

Debt is very often a cause or a consequence of mental health issues.

What are you talking about?? I am saying the people must have had severe mental health issues originally. It is ludicrous to suggest this was due to a discussion on a forum about revaluation of property.

The process was the problem. We shouldn't have had the stress of being told property would be revalued. Simple as that. I have no doubts my property would have been revalued had I not kept specific e-mails and paperwork.

Thanks for the mental health link, I'll give it a miss though. I have enough mental health issues without reading about other folks

That suggestion has been made by nobody.

Quote......

Perhaps the difference between yours and my experience was that you didn't have to take calls from people who had become suicidal reading the feverish ill-founded speculation and utter nonsense posted by some here during one of those "weekends of mania".

Yes - we know that some people reading this forum are in a vulnerable place. Being sympathetic to that fact when writing didn't (and still doesn't) seem like a big ask.

Some were mindful, some weren't. Some understood, others didn't understand or didn't care.

quote:

---

Originally posted by steve1984
[br]...So I think your view is ludicrous candlestick, as it is easy to now sit and say we told you it would be fine. It wouldn't have been fine if we hadn't argued our point. Without knowing that others were in the same boat would have made it more difficult.

---

You still can't get my name right - even when it's written down for you on the forum. Doesn't bode well for the accuracy of your recollections of other events or conversations!

While it's good to see that you are now offering a reassuring point of view to people nearing the end of their trust deed, you may still have to do a bit more work on self-awareness and empathy.

Hi babyd12 hope you get sorted and are spared the excess phone calls and emails it took myself and many other members to stop our homes being revalued,please stick to your guns and keep every bit of evidence from PJG as you can...Stevie i have followed your progress on getting sorted with your trust deed when you/we were transfared over and congratulations to you on getting your form 5...we got ours but like you we had to email and phone lost count of how many to get creditfix to not revalue our home as per our original agreement so i know where your coming from and thank you for all your updates...and thank you TDA...youve kept a level head when all around we were not...but i must say candlestick, in my opinion,and its only my opinion, your attempts to dilute the importance of of this issue to people by consistantly undermining members genuine concerns and referring to petty mistakes such as spelling and grammer clearly indicate to me a person of no or little empathy to fellow members and as such i am very surprised at the lack of censure by the forum to your continual attempts to undermine members concerns with what seems like a lack of basic understanding of human nature, in my opinion if you cant say something helpfull to a member then why comment...only my opinion but you seem to enjoy attempting to upset people...but you dont upset me:)

The definition of 'help'. Now there's a topic! With reams of research and self-help books to back up the many definitions.

I don't, personally, think that it 'helps' anyone to create the type of unanswerable speculation which we saw a few months ago.

It didn't seem to be 'helping' the people creating the speculation.

It didn't seem to be 'helping' the people who read that speculation, and ended up worrying more than they had already been worrying - and more than they needed to worry.

Pointing those things out bluntly - along with suggestions about alternative ways of dealing with the issue - may 'help' some people. It may not 'help' others.

Being blunt, the minute that Chris Parry posted on this forum to say that Creditfix would honour the agreements made with the previous trustee, the speculation game should have ended. There was a public declaration of intent.

Not a private agreement - whether that was made over the phone with someone in a call centre, or face to face with someone from the trustee organisation. A public declaration.

The people who had been transferred to Creditfix were actually in a stronger position than many others in trust deeds. How many of the others have been given a public declaration of the trustee's intent?

That was a very positive message. It was a message which could have provided a lot of comfort to a lot of people. Including those who like to be prepared for the worst - tuck that public declaration into your back pocket; mention it every time that the call centre staff are reading from the wrong script; and wield it if it ever got to the stage where Creditfix tried to change what the original trustee had told people.

Unfortunately, that message - which was 'help' to everyone affected by the change of trustee - was buried under further layers of speculation and accusation. I still don't see how that could have 'helped' anyone.

As for your other accusation, I'm not aware of having pointed out anyone's errors in grammar or spelling.

I'll start off by saying that I really appreciate candlewick's contributions to the forum. He/she clearly has a very significant level of knowledge and experience in this area. He/she also has a slightly different perspective to that of Mark, David, Kevin and myself. That adds greatly to the forum in my view, to the benefit of those that use it and ask questions here.

There hasn't been any pointing out of spelling or grammar issues. An observation that someone repeatedly fails to get your name right says more about the courtesy of the person making the error than it does about the person who points it out in my view.

I'll also point out that we (at Trust-Deed.co.uk) don't know who candlewick is (though I think I could take a good guess at what he/she does or did for a living!). The way we look at it, if Trust-Deed.co.uk was Top Gear, candlewick would be The Stig!

I suppose this whole saga may fit into the category of "where you stand depends on where you sit".

Speaking as someone with professional experience in this area the following seemed important to me:

1 - The selling firm provided written confirmation of agreements.
2 - The buying firm provided reassurance they'd be honoured.
3 - If that had broken down any affected client would be in a great position to defend their corner.
4 - There was no reason to think it would break down.

So, irrespective of what the process was, it seemed very likely to me that the outcome would be just fine.

Reading the experience and concerns of those affected by this I can see that very different things were important:

1 - Everything seemed secure and going along as expected.
2 - Then a change of ownership raised concerns about "what ifs", albeit extremely important "what ifs" that I'd be worried about also.
3 - The general statement by the buying firm that agreements would be honoured didn't always seem to be confirmed by the processes used by the new firm.
4 - Until you've actually been discharged you could never be 100% certain that everything would be OK.

I guess from this position it's the process that would cause concerns and therefore seem to be the most important issue.

So, depending upon where you sit, we're probably seeing all of this from entirely different perspectives.

To the likes of me (and candlewick I think) the outcome was the important thing and we saw little prospect that the outcome would be negative.

For some people personally affected by the handover the process was the important thing because it was raising some very important concerns for an extended period of time.

And that, in short, is why I don't think we're all ever going to be in the same place on this one!