I've made my feelings pretty clear on the matter Gsteel; suffice to say I heartily agree with you. It really would be interesting to see just how much (or how little) creditors will receive in some of these cases.

Thanks for adding so much detail GSteel27. I certainly didn't know all of that.

I guess at heart however this is just coming down to the "motives" discussion we've had a number of times. Trustees would say they're doing the right thing for creditors while being paid for their work. Some people posting here say they've found a nice little earner justified by some of the money going to creditors. I don't suppose either side will find agreement on motives.

Are the motives centrally important though? A question that might help to answer this for you and for tinsoldier:

If trustees were entirely altruistic (and didn't need to earn a living) and every penny of the PPI was going to creditors, wouldn't you still object strongly?

I wish trustees seeking to be re-appointed would be more transparent. Instead of saying they are acting entirely for the benefit of creditors, they could for example offer at the stage of seeking this a breakdown of just where the PPI award will be going. A financial statement for example.

The centrally important thing is, and has always been, a trustee having been discharged has no vested interest in a PPI claim, and they have no authority to hold onto these funds. I've yet to see an answer as to which authority they are doing so; only arguments for and against, and hypothetical situations involving a cheque being delivered to a neighbour by accident.

That's all fair enough tinsoldier, I agree that transparency and authority are also very important issues.

I'm not sure that you've answered my question though?

My argument would still be the same if 100% were going to creditors post-discharge of trustee.

If that makes me mercenary, I apologise.

No need to apologise tinsoldier. You have perfectly legitimate arguments for why that should happen.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that issues such as the commercial motivations of the trustee are kind of irrelevant (or at best a sideshow).

The primary issue is quite simple:

Who's due the money?

The courts will decide that. Not you, not me, not trustees, not creditors, not regulators.

Quite so TDA, and as shown in the judgement last week, it will no doubt come down to very complex legal arguments around insolvency legislation and contract law.

Which makes the following irrelevant I suppose, but nevertheless, Gleith makes some interesting points and I think it is worth remembering how the PPI reclaiming issue changed over time.

To start with, many trustees weren't seeking to reclaim PPI as there was a much greater onus to prove misselling, which they couldn't necessarily do easily.

Then the finance companies starting paying out more readily and trustees suddenly had a deluge of claims to make, creating a large backlog which was resulting in delays to debtors' discharges, to final distribution payments to creditors and to trustees' discharges. Many of the long-term forum members will remember well that these delays to the end of the Trust Deed process were understandably a very sore point to many people (and still are).

Even at this stage, some banks were rejecting claims that were valid, which has partly led to this latest round of PPI funds being paid out following further intervention by regulators. Certainly a proportion of these current payouts will be in relation to PPI over which misselling claims were made previously by Trustees whilst they were in post but were unfairly rejected by the banks.

My overall point is that I think it is too simplistic to say that PPI reclaiming has been around for years and that Trustees should have made sure everything was claimed before their discharge. There are often good reasons why not all PPI will have been reclaimed prior to a trustee's discharge and I am sure that most people at the end of the trust deed process would not have been best pleased had they been told by their trustee that they were going to delay their own discharge for and indefinite period in case further PPI should become payable by creditors - especially given that the ROI entry will only disappear a year after the Trustee's discharge, not a year after the debtor's.

Worth remembering too that the true villains of the piece - trying not to be melodramatic or revering to hyperbole of course! - are the banks, and in particular those in charge of the whole miss-selling scandal.

I have been sent a letter by Barclays Bank informing me that they have sent my trustee £1468.04 this was sent to them in November 2015 on contacting them they are saying the case is with their lawyer and that they will re-open my case by applying to the sherif cort, they also have stated that this will not affect me at all, I have since been informed by the accountant and bancruptcy that this will indeed make me appear on the register of bankruptcies ,1 why is it taking so long, for them to do anything and 2 can they do this ? They seem to be sitting on this money hoping that I will go away .

Just so everyone is aware, my claims firm contacted my ex trustee and informed me that they would continue to go for reappointment. The reason being that the ruling on the test case goes back to 2005. When my TD was taken out in 2008, the wording had changed!! They didn't specify what wording so I suppose the court will decide if it makes a difference.

Welcome to the forum Anon1703.

This article summarises what has been happening:

http://www.trust-deed.co.uk/news/canatrustdeedbereopenedtocaptureppiclaims.php

As you can see if you read this thread through though, the position is unsettled and may change in the future.

Hi tk333.

Thanks for sharing that.

Referring back to Kevin's last post, this situation is incredibly complex. We're not just talking about insolvency legislation in general, the precise nature of your own contract terms may also be an important factor.

Thanks TDA. We have constantly been informed that if trustees successfully re-open cases it has no impact on individuals. Having read Anon's post it states that we would in fact appear on the Insolvency Register!! This is worrying as I have recently started my own business and appearing on the register could seriously affect my credit worthiness even though I am no longer insolvent! Could one of the experts confirm if this is actually the case? In gathering of PPI is one thing. Being registered as insolvent in order to do so nearly 5 years after I was discharged is in my opinion grossly unfair and wrong!!

You won't be shown as being insolvent tk333. The entry will make it very clear what your discharge date from insolvency was.

The very appearance on the register will bring back bad memories for many.