Hi pinalta.

I'm not sure, but aren't FOI requests limited to public bodies?

If that's right, the IPA might be a non-starter. But not the AIB of course.

18 months does seem like a very long time.

Thanks TDA , I will go down the AIB route to start with , I think the IPA might be a non starter as I am not sure if its a public body . 18 months and counting if the IPA upholds my complaint , I will share this information with the public , I am sure I am not the only one with a axe to grind with him .

Got some info from the AIB , about using the freedom of information act I will see if what I wish to know has not been already published , and let you know .

Hi pinalta.

We've asked the AIB to provide us with unpublished information in the past and they've been very helpful and responsive.

Just heard back from the AIB (FAST SERVICE) and my request under the Freedom of information act Scotland 2014 is now on going .

I asked how many times my Trustees accounts audited , how many times has his fees been reduced , and on each occasion by how much .

TDA , do you have any objections about myself sharing this info on the forum ? after all its public information . With out Bias .

Hi pinalta.

My initial concern would be that without context (a comparison with other trustees) presenting the information you may obtain here is very likely to be misinterpreted and misunderstood.

Understood , though I would not name him or the firm.

I would name him and the firm or at least an indication. Why should it be hidden, its your business also and it should be transparent.

Hi kdog7

I fully agree, however I think TDA is correct in this one.

I have been working alongside Pinalta on this case and it is by far the worst that I have ever witnessed on every possible level. One aspect of this was a fully valid offer of composition agreed with ALL creditors with previous guidance from the AIB. The Trustee's stance was that an offer of composition was invalid in a Trust Deed. It transpired one of his other cases, signed several months apart from Pinalts's, was agreed and settled. The other person posted previously on here.

As for the constant dragging out of the complaint, now in its 18th month, does make me wonder as the lack of finalisation is not due to a complex situation. It is due to either the failure to provide a simple response and the failure to pursue this response.

Mark

A note to explain the position of the site on this kdog7.

We've never told people that they cannot name firms. It's up to them provided that they're reasonable and they're prepared to be accountable for what they write.

We've sometimes (very seldom in fact) intervened when we've thought that something unreasonable or unfair has been written about a named firm. We need to be mindful that for data protection purposes firms often cannot respond in any detail to what gets written here.

There's a steady flow of posts here where people are very angry with their trustee, or feel totally let down by the firm they used, but from a professional perspective we can see that actually the firm has done absolutely nothing wrong at all. So, sometimes, we need to referee or to set out another side of the argument so that firms aren't unfairly treated.

We've also sometimes suggested that people do not name a firm when there's a serious issue. It becomes more difficult for the experts to comment fully in public about a named firm or individual for reasons of professional courtesy. People can name firms - but it might actually be counterproductive in terms of how much help they will then be offered to try to assist them to resolve a problem.

Also - is it right that an individual can post behind a username while demanding total transparency about and from others? Some people would question that and feel transparency should apply equally.

The ethos of the site has also always been to play the ball rather than the man. The forum is here to help people to get information and solve problems. It's not here to explicitly name and shame.

Some people have told us that they don't much like that about the site. That's understood, but there's plenty of angry, swear-word riddled rant-fest forums full of rubbish information and misleading advice that people can use instead if they want to. It's not for us though.

kdog7 - just re-reading my last post I can see that it might read as though I'm in some way "having a go" at you.

That's not my intention at all. I can see your point and it's one lots of other people have made in the past. I'm just explaining the perspective of the site (which we do on this issue from time to time).

Hi pinalta.

Thanks for your understanding. We'll leave it to you to use good judgment based upon whether your trustee might actually be identifiable for other reasons already.

Respect TDA , YOU DO A THANK LESS JOB TRYING TO KEEP A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD . Given that I have knowledge of other complaints against the same Trustee , his TEA IS OOT .

Heard back from the IPA today , with the usual standard waffle . Though it did state that a update is due soon , before my complaint is put before the Investigation Committee , complaint on going for 18 months , no form 5 after my discharge 5 months ago , and awaiting information under the freedom of information act stay tuned folks the person in the street has stood up to be counted . Non Nobis domine non noblis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam .