Oh there was definitely a little gloating when I got made aware had the amount been over £5000 they would've been holding onto it and seeking to reopen my TD.

Oh this is interesting, so it looks like someone is going to oppose a trustee reopening a TD in court? Good, there needs to be some rule put in place with this, like a time barr or something, my TD ended almost 7 years ago! The company knew of the possibility to reclaim mis sold PPI a year after my trust deed ended and had numerous opportunities to pursue it but never did. My question is why?

I imagine if it is indeed deemed in court that a trust deed cannot be re opened then yes, everyone who has lost their funds should get them recovered, I imagine this would be the reason behind the claims company taking this action, they'll receive a % stake of all monies recovered which depending on the number of lost funds being recovered, could earn them a lot of cash. I'm almost certain any sort of ruling in favour of the claims company would be appealed though and it'll end up going on forever!

Again - and very obvious - I'm not legal expert. However if a contested court case said that a trustee could not get reappointed then that might help people in the future. Having said that, the decision could be challenged.

Would it help people where the trustee had already been reappointed? Not directly I'd have thought, other than to open the door for them to initiate their own action to secure redress at their own expense and risk.

I am waiting to see if the RBS gives me my cheque as my TD finished 10 years ago as they said the funds might get used to off set the debt - I have already received a cheque from them for a Royalties Gold Acc surely they would have kept that too - If they do keep the funds I will be contacting them to complain as the guy that I spoke with from RBS yesterday in the insolvency had never heard of the 5 year limitation on TD in Scotland. If I cant find my release letter do I just ask the company that dealt with my TD for a copy. Thanks

You could certainly get in touch with them to see if they have a copy Teen40.

It's a long time ago though and they might not have it, or have ready access to it.

I've never heard of a 5 year limitation rule for a Trust Deed - can someone clarify??

As I have been told the 5 year limitation is that if you TD finished more than 5 years ago that any money that you receive back from your bank etc should go to you.

Hi Teen40 and tinsoldier.

It's not something that I've heard of in this respect.

It may reflect the policy of a particular bank.

I am waiting to hear from RBS and I believe they are the worst so fingers crossed.

If you look back to page 3 of this particular thread there's a post from David Tannock which points out that a 5 year limitation definitely applies to a sequestration in relation to a trustee being reappointed to collect an asset which has come to light. There doesn't seem to be the same (or any) time limit that's applied to trust deeds, have a read at it, it may help to clarify things. I believe there should be a time limitation applied to trust deeds just like sequestrations and I believe there will be when the day comes that a trustee's application for reappointment is challenged in court. As right now, with no time limit in place, does it mean that any asset which comes to light 5, 10, 20 years after a discharge from a TD that's over £5000, a trustee can apply to court to get reappointed and recover it?

Certainly seems that way. Ludicrous but true.

The practices for trust deeds do tend to follow those applied to sequestration.

Hopefully with the pending court cases regarding this matter it will put an end to the speculation and give us clear guidance and direction.

Hi All
having read the posts with interest over the past few months I thought I'd share my experience. My PTD ended in 2011 and out the blue I also received a letter from Barclays at the end of November informing me I had been awarded £1402 but that they had sent the cheque to my ex trustee (AG Taggart & Co). Having heard nothing from Taggarts, I wrote to them and received a reply last week informing me they would indeed be applying to be re-appointed "for the benefit of the creditors". David, in reply to a recent post stated that to seek re-appointment for such a small sum, the costs would outweigh the benefits. My question therefore is why are they doing this? Call me cynical but I would suggest that this trustee is seeking re-appointment for no ones benefit but their own!! I accept that there are genuine companies out there who conduct their business in a fair and decent manner but fear that they are quickly becoming the minority. In my case, I suspect that my creditors will see very little if any 'benefit' from this re-appointment!

Hi tk333.

Welcome to the forum.

As far as I know you'll be perfectly entitled to get a breakdown of where this money goes in the end. I guess you'll make your own mind up regarding benefits and motives when that's set down for you in black and white (assuming that the trustee is reappointed of course).

For £1402 it's fairly obvious where most of the money will go, and it won't be to any creditors.