Hi steve1984.

We had this question recently and the expert consensus was no.

So if that is not the case why is it valid to do it during the first 3 years!

On what basis tho TDA? How could you be sure that they would stick to the agreement they made at the start of year that they wouldn't revalue ? it seems very risky to me based on what we've been talking about recently that any paperwork is worthless etc.

I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable agreeing to an extra year whilst still making mortgage payments in case I got asked for it again the following year.

It's becoming apparent why our TD were so saleable. The new trust deeds are more regulated ours are just an unregulated shambles so open to creative interpretation !

Sold down the river.

You've no evidence for that statement whatsoever!

Mmm let me think now, your equity is protected sign here all is well. Ohhh sorry we sold your trust deed on and the paperwork you signed is worthless, yep sounds regulated to me !

No evidence 🙂 chemical ali ain't got a look in here. TDA do you work for this forum or one of the recommended companies? Regards how they worked out which TD's were sold over there is a prominent poster who could easily clear this up. His silence speaks voulumes though.

TDA I feel sorry for you having to answer all these things but hopefully you can help.

Is there no way you can email this chris perry guy who has emailed you and you put in on here?

Can you not tell him you are admin of this forum and ask him to clarify their position on previously agreed equity as you are getting numerous questions about it? Its surely black and white. No 500 pound and ham sandwich talk and every case different etc. They were set up properly at the time and what was agreed should stand.

If he can answer you with a straight yes or no then it would put and end to this. Not a generic answer just

a - What was agreed regarding equity will stand without a doubt

b- we are not interested what was agreed. We will be doing valuations and taking your equity or extending the TD

That would save you having to deal with the questions and debate.

Just an idea

The CreditFix trustee will be obligated to view each case on its own merits steve1984. The generalised answer you're looking for will therefore probably not exist. You have seen what he had to say though.

Bruce - I work for this forum, as you well know. Lots of worried people are asking questions. For every person writing, an awful lot more are quietly reading. For that reason, when someone posts total nonsense and presents it as being fact, I'll call it out. For the benefit of the silent majority I suppose, who are alarmed enough already without having to read ill-informed tosh that is being presented here occasionally as being black and white fact.

It might be easier to answer question if there were more details on:

- how many people have been told, explicitly, by Creditfix that the agreements made with PJG are not valid

- the reasons given by Creditfix for believing that the agreements are not valid

- the difference between the equity amount calculated by PJG, and the equity amount calculated by Creditfix

- the information used by Creditfix in calculating the equity

Sorry I disagree again. The issue is that CF carry out valuations at the end. We have signed with PG on the basis that they didn't.

CF can easily provide you a yes or no answer as to whether they are using their own policy on valuations or honouring the original agreement. That doesn't require them to look into individual cases it's just a yes or no.

I mean if you're saying every case will be looked at then they can just turn round and say ..... shopping of 500 pound per month, hmmmm no we disagree. You should only have got 400. So thats 3600 you owe us now.

Everyone seems to disagree with every answer I'm giving steve1984!

I guess either I'll stop bothering to answer, or people will find somewhere else to ask their questions.

By the way... I'd really strongly recommend people read the good sense that Candlewick has been writing.

Maybe even respond.

quote:

---

Originally posted by steve1984
[br]Sorry I disagree again. The issue is that CF carry out valuations at the end. We have signed with PG on the basis that they didn't.

CF can easily provide you a yes or no answer as to whether they are using their own policy on valuations or honouring the original agreement. That doesn't require them to look into individual cases it's just a yes or no.

I mean if you're saying every case will be looked at then they can just turn round and say ..... shopping of 500 pound per month, hmmmm no we disagree. You should only have got 400. So thats 3600 you owe us now.

---

I disagree with you. I don't think that it's possible for businesses to make those kind of generalisations.

I was actually surprised that Chris Parry went so far in his original statement on here. In your shoes (all of you), I would have quietly pocketed that statement, to be used if necessary, and just kept watching to see developments.

As for your final paragraph, if you really believe that would happen, I think you are worrying yourself unnecessarily.

If you don't really believe that would happen, then you are potentially worrying others unnecessarily.