quote:

---

Originally posted by Trust Deed Assistant
[br]Hi candlewick.

I meant respond in terms of acknowledging the sensible points you've made. Thank you for making them.

I didn't expect to pass the baton to you altogether. Unless you're offering for an hour or two?!!

---

No worries, TDA - I understood that.

I'll decline the baton, thank you [:)]. I think I have reached my breaking point on this one for now, and that's a signal that it's time to take a big step back (and have a cuppa!)

Thankfully candlewick that isn't the case.

Unexpected though.

Enjoy your cuppa candlewick.

I might just go for an iPhone free walk.

Back later though!

Only one person who should be ashamed for taking the thread down that route, Candlewick. yes you!!!! End of the day this is only money. Hopefully whatever has made Mark unable to post is nothing serious because I still believe he's a genuniune man. Possibly these things were out with his control. You, however should take a step back from this thead if you only want to take shots at people with genuine concerns.

Genuine concerns are fine Bruce. Always have been and always will be.

Repeatedly being rude or disrespectful towards individuals isn't though. Anyone who cannot abide by that standard isn't going to be welcome here.

Almost everyone posting here has managed to avoid crossing that line despite their genuine concerns. A couple haven't.

A bit harsh to say that the other experts obviously have no interest in answering on this thread, Steve, given that it only dates back half a day on a Sunday. Thankfully I do occasionally have other things to do on a Sunday other than checking the forum every 5 minutes!

In any case, it looks like your question was answered pretty quickly by Trust Deed Assistant.

It seems to me like there is a lot of very understandable, but probably unfounded, paranoia about this whole situation. Given the statements given by the new Trustee previously on such a public forum then I'd be surprised if any of the concerns do turn out to be well-founded.

Thanks kevin although I was probably referring to the whole thing in general. I have lost the concept of which thread is which and who answered what!

Hmmm on looking back it wasn't really answered so feel free to give an answer if you wish Kevin?

If they chose to ignore the original agreement of no equity and extend the TD by a year, what would stop them in theory from looking for equity again at the end of that year based on 12 mortgage payments and a possible rise in house values?

Good morning Steve.

You asked if your property could go into a never ending spiral of valuations and revaluations. 12 minutes and 7 seconds later I replied with "no".

What part of that is "not really answered"?

Yes TDA that is an "answer".... but I'm trying to make point in that if they chose to pursue equity despite a previous agreement in place confirming equity was nil and no further valuation, what legal grounds could prevent them from pursuing it again the following year? Just "no" doesn't really answer it.

I mean prior to this debate, if someone had posted saying " I have everything in writing confirming no interest in equity, could the company just ignore this and carry out a further valuation at the end and pursue equity?" I'm pretty sure this would have got a resounding "no" also....

So forgive me if I don't hold much faith at this point in things that are agreed a year in advance.

Hopefully I wont have to make this decision and my original agreement is honoured but I'd like to be fully aware of my rights just in case.

I did appreciate the 7 second reply though. ...

Yes TDA that is an "answer".... but I'm trying to make point in that if they chose to pursue equity despite a previous agreement in place confirming equity was nil and no further valuation, what legal grounds could prevent them from pursuing it again the following year? Just "no" doesn't really answer it.

I mean prior to this debate, if someone had posted saying " I have everything in writing confirming no interest in equity, could the company just ignore this and carry out a further valuation at the end and pursue equity?" I'm pretty sure this would have got a resounding "no" also....

So forgive me if I don't hold much faith at this point in things that are agreed a year in advance.

Hopefully I wont have to make this decision and my original agreement is honoured but I'd like to be fully aware of my rights just in case.

I did appreciate the 7 second reply though. ...

That different question has been answered on numerous occasions already steve1984, though of course few people seem to want to accept the answer I've given.

Best to go back to Bert Rudge's post about chewing gum, and various posts from me regarding sources of challenge and/or redress.

Steve , I take on board your original point . I am in the position whereby there was equity at the start . After three years I still had the equity to pay but the value had fallen .
I agreed to continue making contributions whilst still paying my mortgage.
I haven't managed to pay all the equity so a recent valuation was done . This was aligned to my current mortgage which I have paid for a further three years since starting the trust deed . Catch 22 . Keep paying the mortgage and the equity keeps building so yes the trustee wants more!!!
Yes I see how you point makes total sense

The more I think about this the more angry I get .
It's totally unjust .
By making payments to your mortgage you create a bigger equity gap , keeping yourself in debt .
That is exactly what had happened to me .
Can these cases be taken to court ?

goneunder, I'm not sure if this link will work - but I hope that the post which is quoted there (if it works!) will answer some of your questions.

https://forum.trust-deed.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5207&whichpage=13