Hopefully LyndaLou has reached an agreed position with the trustee who was dealing with her case. It just struck me though, in both LyndaLou's and this week Seany Boy have been advised as though there were some element of influence / persuasion to be applied by their trustee. Surely this is inappropriate if the payment has to be from someone else's funds.

I think Sarah Jolly said the value or worth of finishing early has to be a personal decision. It's really not a negotiable point if a family member or friend offers an amount which settles outstanding agreed payments to be collected, at least not something to be negotiated with the individual who entered the trust deed. Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Hi Pamjo.

I may be being a little slow this morning (!) but I'm not absolutely sure of the point you are making. Could you clarify it please when you have a minute spare?

Hi TDA

Sorry-gobbledegook posts!

Re. the 3rd party offers to pay the outstanding amounts-all remaining payments and fees, it seemed odd that Sarah Jolly in LyndaLou's case and also Seany Boy's trustee gave responses which were similar on this point.

In essence, for both, the trustee appeared to assume that the person in the trust deed could decide whether it was worth paying / offering more than the amount remaining for the benefit of being finished with the trust deed early.

I'm not sure the person in the trust deed has the ability to make that decision or be persuaded to change their offer if it has to come from someone else.

I think I see what you mean Pamjo (still not 100% - I may be having a slow afternoon as well!).

Presumably a person seeking to end their trust deed earlier could ask the supportive third party whether it would be possible to improve an offer?

If the answer to that question is "no" it does seem like the creditors should be given the opportunity to have their say where a trustee receives a reasonable and viable proposal.

not sure if im reading it correctly either, but if someone offers to pay off the trust deed early through a 3rd party surely its the IP's duty to put this to the creditors and let them make the decision?

I would agree with that andy, but with a proviso that the offer is reasoable and that there is a realistic prospect that the creditors will accept it as being a good commercial outcome for them.

I think we're saying pretty much the same thing.

The idea that a trust deed can be "paid off early" is an interesting one.

At the beginning of the TD, creditors were effectively told that the person owes, say, 20 grand, but can only afford to pay back x pounds per month. After three years of making contributions at that rate, and after the trustee's fees have been paid, the creditors will get, say, 15p in the pound. The rest of the debt will be written off.

The creditors agree to accept the proposal on the basis that this is the amount which the person can afford to pay.

If the person gets a windfall during the period of the TD, then the windfall goes into the pot, but they still have to pay the agreed number of contributions. So, the creditors could get a higher dividend, and have to write off a lesser amount of debt

Unless, apparently, the windfall is described as "funds from a third party"...

Technically, the person still owes the full amount of the debt (and that's why any windfalls/PPI claims etc will be taken into the trust deed estate - to pay off more of the debt that is still owed).

So, I can see why a trustee or creditor might say that those debts would have to be paid off in full (plus fees) before the person could be discharged early from their undertaking to pay x amount per month for 3 years.

It's interesting to see the different views on this one.

As always, you make a very fair point candlewick.

That idea has been put forward on similar threads by several of the regular posters here in the past to balance the information and it's useful that you have added it here.

I think the general point being advanced is that where a third party makes such an offer the trustee should seriously consider putting it the the creditors so that they can decide, rather than the point being that just because such an offer is forthcoming that anyone should consider that they have a right to an early discharge.

That way the creditors can weigh up the possibility of earlier payment (and possibly reduced fees) versus the lost potential to benefit from windfalls if they arise later.

All good points, TDA! It's a swings and roundabouts situation, isn't it?

How likely would it be that the trustee's fees would be reduced? I'd understood that a lot of their costs are incurred in the initial stages of the TD. If so, an early discharge probably wouldn't have that much of an impact on their fees.

If there is a significant reduction in the fees, then the creditors would get a higher dividend - so they would see the benefit in the early discharge.

How much information would the trustee want about the payment from the third party? There's obviously the possibility that someone could sign a trust deed as a means of getting the creditors to accept an effective 'full and final settlement' of 15p in the pound, and then simply accelerating the timescale. Would that be somehting that the trustee would take into consideration?

(To be absolutely clear, this is purely a hypothetical question - not a comment on the OP!)

Back to school for me-clarity required.

Candlewick, if I read your point and subtext correctly, you refer to the possibility that an individual may come into money which would settle the full agreed trust deed commitment but not 'the full debt plus fees'? Then, the individual perhaps chooses to call this amount 3rd party funds instead of windfall to avoid paying it towards the initial debt (in addition to agreed commitment)?

I see your point but it's not the scenario I'd assumed earlier. Not sure which, if either, applies to SeanyBoy or LyndaLou.

I was referring to the 3rd party offering funds but the person who signed the deed being told the payment needed to be improved.

With any financial matter, a minority will bend the rules to improve their outcome and convince themselves their actions are not wrong or questionable. Generally though my impression is someone has struggled to come to terms with financial problems, set up a trust deed to deal with it then mentioned it to parents who pull together what they can to help.

I know my parents would view any insolvency as a real blemish on one's character/family and would offer to help but be limited in ability to produce adequate funds. I think that is common but am willing to take on others' experience.

Hi pamjo

I don't really have a subtext - just a lot of musings.

I'm running through different scenarios in my mind, and finding that - for me - the concept of 'pay it off early via third party funds' doesn't fit in with other aspects of trust deeds.

So, I've come up with these scenarios:

- Get a windfall? It goes into the trust deed, and you keep paying your contributions as agreed, till the three years are up. Theoretically, your creditors get a higher dividend.

- Get a bonus? It goes into the trust deed, and you keep paying your contributions as agreed, till the three years are up. Theoretically, your creditors get a higher dividend.

- Get a payrise? You keep paying your contributions, albeit they have now been increased, till the three years are up. Theoretically, your creditors get a higher dividend.

- Get third party funds to cover planned contributions in a lump sum? (If trustee/creditors agree) You stop paying your contributions, get discharged from your trust deed early, and your creditors get the originally estimated dividend. Even though you are still in a position to keep paying contributions.

It seems like an imbalance to me. Hence, my observation about the way the funds are described.

I suppose it brings up the question - is the aim of a trust deed to pay back as much as possible of the debt, or to pay back the amount which creditors accepted as 'estimated'?

If it's the former, then I'm not sure how you can really end the TD early, unless the debts are paid in full (plus fees). If it's the latter, then why should trustees bother about reviews of income and expenditure, or windfalls etc?

Perhaps a difference can be found in the "conditional" nature of an offer of third party funds.

Most often such an offer seems to come from family, perhaps because they have come into money or perhaps because they have discovered that their relative is in a trust deed and want to try to help.

The offers of lump sums in such circumstances are typically conditional upon the trust deed being brought to an early end. If it cannot be, the money will not be paid and the creditors will not benefit (assuming of course that they believe this type of outcome does represent a benefit).

So the creditors (assuming the offer is shared with them) must make a commercial decision between the option of accepting the conditional lump sum, or rejecting it and allowing the trust deed to carry on its usual path to completion.

If I were a creditor I think I'd want to be put in a position to make that commercial decision as to whether to accept the conditional offer or not. I might lose the potential benefit of windfalls or income increases in the future, but equally I might minimise the risk of the trust deed not achieving its original objective due to income reductions, redundancy, ill-heath etc.

TDA-I think your comments re. the creditors making the choice and knowing it is available is key.

Candlewick, you made the comparison for the creditors very clear thanks. I see how the option of being open to a 3rd party sum might be viewed as lessening the potential return of monies owed.

For the person in the trust deed, there really would be no benefit in accepting others' money were it not to result in earlier discharge?

For all the above reasons, the trustee should be willing to put forward any proposal to creditors.

I think TDA demonstrates what you (Candlewick)refer to as swings n roundabouts too.
Although there is the lost potential for increased return, there is also the lost potential for reduced return or failed deed. Presumably in some /many cases these funds are not available to the person in trust deed unless they are being used to end the trust deed.

I might be wrong but I haven't seen anyone suggest a family member should commit to a direct debit to increase monthly contributions and therefore the return to creditors during the trust deed period.

Thanks for all your comments and support. Not been on this forum for a while however i made the decision to continue on with my monthly contributions, had i taken the funds from a third party i would have still have been paying monthly contributions to pay this back also! I was looking for the comfort of having to repay this back to someone i know rather than worrying about job loss / money worries and keeping up the payments to the TD company etc however 21 months to go!! I have to say Wilson Andrew are fair in their correspondence and having regular email contact with them helps answer any of my questions or concerns. Thanks again for all your help guys! Good luck to the rest of you

Hello all, I sold my home & paid my trust deed off in full & settled all accounts, this was over a year ago now but I still can’t increase my credit score to allow myself to move on with life & buy a car or apply for a mortgage. If I’ve been discharged early & all debts paid off in full surely the trust deed can be removed from my file now? Or will I need to still wait 6 years? Any help would be greatly appreciated thank you.