Well now that I will have funds due to my house being forced from me , I am giving serious consideration on taking my ex trustee to court under termination of a trust deed article 3 , and termination of a trust deed under acceptance of a offer of composition by me . This might be the adverse findings by the IPA who are taking him to a tribunal .

If this turns out to be so it will put me in a better position , then we have libel under the accusation of gratious alienation , which I could counter with proof of solvency which was offered to him , and invited him to go to court , which he never did, resulting in him using 8.5k in lawyers fees from the trust deed , plus another 3.5k in lawyers fees arguing against the AIB in Scotland's fee reduction of 14k .

So creditors lost out on 12k due to him using funds for pointless legal arguments , and he took 62k in fees over the years .

So adding that up and the possible 14k fee reduction which I instigated it comes to 88k , my total debts where 98k , can you guess how much I paid into the trust deed ? , debts plus trustees fees etc , hint , hint . YER TEAS OOT .

I might be wrong pinalta, but I suspect candlewick was hoping you were keeping half an eye on this thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TDA (Debt Adviser)
[br]I might be wrong pinalta, but I suspect candlewick was hoping you were keeping half an eye on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TDA (Debt Adviser)
[br]I might be wrong pinalta, but I suspect candlewick was hoping you were keeping half an eye on this thread.

---

I'm a big fan of this forum TDA, and I try to keep more than half an eye on it myself.

It's nice to think that others might be doing the same. .

I know it's off-topic for the PPI thing but I was a bit surprised to see that a trustee was taking lawyer's fees out of the pot.

It's one thing to use the pot to pay audit fees and stuff for the trust deed.

Using it to pay lawyer fees to argue against a fee reduction? Doesn't seem right. Shouldn't he have some kind of professional indemnity insurance?

Let's call it Probity Protection Insurance to try to stay on topic! .

The only thing I'm surprised about Candlewick is that you are surprised.

Lots to come out soon.

"Probity Protection Insurance" has made my evening candlewick!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TDA (Debt Adviser)
[br]"Probity Protection Insurance" has made my evening candlewick!

---

Let's face it TDA, my pitiful attempts at quoting and using the smilies would not have made anyone's evening.

I'm glad something did! 🙂 (old-fashioned smilie)

I have received a letter from my trustee saying they are going to court to re open my trust deed even though my trustee was discharged. He said this was a legal obligation.How can it be legal if it needs to go to court.

I think your trustee is saying that they feel legally obligated to try to reopen your trust deed for this purpose Gleith.

The court will decide if it's allowable or not, and you or a representative can make representations there against that outcome.

This would surely cost me money which I cannot afford. Is it correct that the courts are now looking more favourably to us receiving the money.

Does it go to the court of session ?

Can someone explain what this means as my trustee is seeking to reopen my trust deed through the court. Does it go to the court of session or is this only through appeal. What can I do ?

I think that this case went to a higher court because it was being contested.

The decision may yet be challenged, so you shouldn't assume (or not assume) that this necessarily means anything in particular in respect of your own situation.

We've heard most other cases have gone before a Sheriff.

As explained earlier in the thread, a Court of Session decision might well strongly influence (or more) the decision a Sheriff makes on a case where the circumstances are similar.

I realise that the above information doesn't directly or specifically answer your questions, but it's all I can offer. I'm not legally trained and this website doesn't offer legal advice. If you want clarity about your legal position (assuming that clarity is even available just now) you'd need to obtain your own legal advice.

Received a correspondence from the financial ombudsman today; they are looking into my case and I particular how BDO are justifying holding onto my funds.

Sunday Mail judge has also written back.

I wonder whether this case will cause trustees holding onto cheques to at least consider where the authority to do so comes from?

Here are a few interesting questions

There is quite a lot of speculation on reasons for trustees seeking to reopen trust deeds to claw in PPI redress, the main one I've seen is that the trustees feel they have a legal obligation to creditors to get back more of the debt owed to them, fair enough. But my question is why now? Why is this legal obligation surfacing all of a sudden (for some of us) nearly 7 years after discharge? The possibility to reclaim PPI has been known for quite some time (I have found evidence that the first ever case for mis sold PPI was back in 1992-93, there was a 10 year non disclosure order put in place as part of the settlement, after 10 years a copy of the judgement was sent to the OFT and the CAB, soon after a super complaint was raised. The judicial review that followed hit the headlines as it ruled in favour of the borrowers, enabling a large number of consumers to reclaim PPI payments.) If this info has any credibility then it proves that the potential to reclaim mis sold PPI has been there from as early as 2004 albeit there might only have been a few cases here and there but it was headline news, by 2006-7 bank charges were being reclaimed successfully and by 2009-10 the financial ombudsman reported that 30% of new cases were for PPI. My point here? Reclaiming of PPI should have been looked at during a TD's duration, if it fell between 2004-2010 (by 2011 the competition commission released an order designed to prevent the mis selling of PPI and it included rules that had to be followed to ensure the PPI wasn't mis sold. Most of these rules were put in place late 2011 and were all in place by April 2012) because the potential for reclaiming PPI was known. My TD was signed and became protected in 2005 and both me and my trustee were discharged in 2009 (I've had this recently confirmed) not once was the potential for reclaiming PPI discussed or investigated at any point through the 4 year duration of my TD despite it being known widely that PPI reclaiming was possible....why? Now we all know that when trustee discharge has been granted creditors are all agreed on final dividend payments and that all assets have been recognised and utilised toward making up that final dividend, satisfaction has been reached and the case is closed. In fact I do clearly remember being told by my ex trustee on the day I signed my TD that these lenders still get all their money back as they are insured against "bad debt" and that the dividend payment at the conclusion of the TD was 'interest' for them. So, in conclusion, is it really a legal obligation to the creditors the trustee feels? Or is it a recognised opportunity to make more money for doing nothing as the work for reclaiming has already been done by the former debtor, leaving the trustee/company free to swoop in and take the rewards with creditors benefiting from a little more interest. This, I guess, would be seen as good business.

What's everyone's thoughts on this? I want to point out this is just my opinion which has been running around in my mind from 2.30am while I struggle to sleep so thought I'd share and get a few more opinions on the subject, now my head's been emptied perhaps I'll be able to get some sleep? Ha ha ha [:D]

Goodnight!