Hello ronnie46uk.

That sounds normal. It means your creditors may receive back more of what is owed to them.

This whole PPI business seems to be popping up everywhere
Is there no way that the trustee could explain during set up that they will apply for PPI claims and that any / all returns will go to the creditors? In addition, could the trustee not start this action soon after the deed becomes protected? This way all debtors will have clear understanding in advance and all PPI claims will be settled way before the end of the trust deed term, ensuring no un-necessary delays in discharge.

Im also seeing threads suggesting that the debtor is being asked / forced to sign a declaration stating they were Mis-sold, even although they may have taken PPI after legitimate advice and in good faith. Whilst I agree that any monies recovered through PPI payouts should go back to the trustee for distribution tothe creditors, this practic does seem a bit off.

I think it should be explained at the start.

In terms of trust deeds PPI claims are a relatively new development so there will be established cases where this couldn't have happened.

Starting claims early in the process makes a lot of sense.

There are many reasons why PPI may have been missold, some of which will not be immediately obvious to all. It should also be remembered that the banks can defend themselves if their sales process and records were/are in good order.

Clearly people shouldn't be asked to make untrue factual statements.

I think some good points are made on this thread.

In my view, it is perfectly acceptable to ask someone to sign a declaration along the lines of "I believe that I was mis-sold PPI" - if that is what the person truly believes.

It is also acceptable to ask a person to sign a declaration which says something along the lines of "I may have been mis-sold PPI, and I authorise my trustee to investigate this matter".

It is completely unacceptable, and utterly unethical, to ask someone to sign a declaration which says "I believe I was mis-sold PPI" - if the person believes no such thing.

In the latter case, if someone is forced to sign such a declaration under duress (the threat of not being discharged from their trust deed), what redress do they have?

Hi candlewick.

I'd imagine redress would be via the regulatory bodies that IP's are members of?

They'll not want their members to force individuals to sign statements that they believe to be incorrect.

If I was uncomfortable about what I was being asked to sign I'd complain to the trustee (personally) first and their professional body if necessary thereafter.

Again, it's a fair point, TDA.

And an easy one to make, and believe - for those of us who are not currently in a trust deed.

Yet, one thing which comes through again and again in posts on this forum is the fact that many people are afraid of challenging, questioning - or even talking to - their trustees about various issues. Their fear is that the trustee will take umbrage, and make life difficult - in whatever way.

So, I'm not entirely persuaded that people will feel able to complain to their trustee or regulatory body.

Maybe the regulatory bodies could be proactive on this point? As they have been in introducing a requirement for trustess to investigate the possibility of PPI refunds.

They could create a neutrally worded form, authorising the trustee to investigate the PPI issue, no more, no less.

Being in a trust deed can be stressful enough, without feeling pressurised into signing a form which says "I was mis-sold PPI", when the person doesn't believe that at all.

I don't disagree with that candlewick.

The regulatory bodies must realise that this situation with PPI, connected to both protected trust deeds and IVAs, has done nothing to enhance the reputation of their members and the profession at large.