I emailed Mr Brown at AG Taggart yesterday informing him I wish to attend court and to make a complaint about re-appearing on the Insolvency Register. I also requested a breakdown of where the funds would go. He emailed me back this morning stating I would not be affected as I was discharged. He also stated I would receive a copy of where the funds would go. An hour later I was emailed again and informed they will be withdrawing their application for re-appointment after re-assessing the costs and will forward the funds to me. A successful outcome and credit to Mr Brown at AG Taggart for his swift and professional response. Best of luck to all on the forum and thank you to the experts for all the advice!!

Low and behold, mention taking legal action and I get a swift response from Cleardebt, I am informed that they are appealing the recent court decision and will await the outcome of this, so fingers crossed, this episode will reach a conclusion either way.

Hi Bert.

As you may know already, it was the trustee at Cleardebt who fought (and lost on this occasion) the court case referenced at the start of the thread).

Thanks for letting us know that the decision is now to be appealed, as per the information you've just shared.

I'm curious about your comment that this activity is to the detriment of creditors. Would you mind clarifying your thoughts on that subject?

What I was trying to say TDA, is that maybe a proper legal framework, with regards to PPI repayments, should have been in place to protect both the creditor and trustee, so all legal wrangles over who the PPI payments belong to could have been avoided, thus avoiding any delays. Hope this clears up my point, sorry for any confusion caused.

Thanks Bert. Fair points.

I think this falls into the unforeseen and contentious bracket.

Guess it's unreasonable to expect politicians to legislate for every single eventuality and nuance. That's where the courts come in - interpretation of the legislation that does exist to fit the merits of any individual case.

It's definitely a slow and uncertain process though. And too expensive for many to have any chance to fight their corner.

Legal costs will deter a lot of people from fighting their corner in court. And not many people feel able to take it on themselves.

It's always worth checking if your local CAB or Council money advice team has an advisor who can help support you in court. There are also various "Law Centres" around the country who might be able to help. Free of charge or at a minimal cost.

If you can give them a link to a judgment from the Court of Session, which agrees with the point you're making, things already look a bit more positive (although there is no guarantee of success).

It's still a lot more positive than trying to do it by yourself.

Can anyone answer as to why sequestration cases have clear guidance when it comes to PPI but trust deeds don't?

Hi tinsoldier.

Maybe the nature of your contractual relationship with your trustee, which will vary from firm to firm.

Also that the contractual relationship between trustees and their clients will vary within firms over the course of time.

I know it would be good for all concerned to have clarity on this issue - but hopefully we can all just accept that clarity simply doesn't exist right now?

Sorry but I can't accept it - although it is the case. I can't accept that trustees are basically making the rules up as they go along in the absence of any clear guidance on the subject of PPI post discharge. I can't accept that a third party with no vested interest in MY £17,500 PPI payout is holding onto MY cheque. I can't accept that many others are in limbo like me with no means to fight their case in court against companies with the financial clout to do so.

So no, I can't "just accept" it, sorry.

Nobody asked you to accept all of that tinsoldier.

Just to accept that there's no clarity. Which you do.

Have to agree with tinsoldier on this, we were told of the legal responsibilities of a trust deed placed on the trustee and deed holder when we signed on the dotted line, to be told, in some cases years later, that the rules we adhered to were not final and can possibly be changed in the future and then to be backdated, my have resulted in some people choosing not to sign the contract presented to us. These PPI payments may in some cases gave respite to some, so that they might never have entered a trust deed in the 1st place( but that's another can of worms). But for trustees to try to change the rules and guidelines both parties signed up to, is not professional in the least. U can say this was unforeseen and unusual circumstances, but whose fault is this, the people responsible for writing these contracts as a legal framework? Or the person signing the contract, I know who my money is on ?

And the issues I've highlighted contribute towards the lack of clarity. I am agreeing that there isn't any - I don't simply have to accept it though.

I've said a few times before on here Bert, that the opportunity for commercial companies to rake in more fees cannot be resisted really. Perhaps in the future when this utopian clarity reaches us all there will be a requirement for trustees to show exactly how much of PPI funds ingathered will go to creditors.

They already have to show that tinsoldier.

Kind of irrelevant to focus on trustees here though - you've previously confirmed that your argument would be no different if they were doing this work for free and every penny was going to creditors.

Hi Bert,

How about it's all just a big mess because:

1 - Some (many) trustees feel legally and professionally obligated to try to collect these funds for the benefit of creditors.
2 - Some individuals take the position that the money should come to them post-discharge.
3 - Trust deeds don't involve a single standard contract.
4 - Legislators didn't legislate for something nobody foresaw.
5 - The legal process to resolve the irreconcilable differences in opinion that exist hasn't finished.

Focusing on trustees here really is a massive waste of time. They're one part of a much wider jumble and are just as confused about what the situation is at as you probably are.

That's not meant to be at all rude to you by the way.