I think what Littlemo may be referring to is the trust placed in, well, trustees. There is the feeling that many firms are proposing to re-open trust deeds for commercial reasons. And why not, they are private firms and commercially minded.

My opinions on the whole PPI thing are well known (some might say too well known!) but I can certainly see some of where Littlemo is coming from.

Of course you are TDA, and i very much appreciate my chance to give my point on your forum, yes i do think folk will walk away from trust deeds as its in my opinion turning into a bit of a circus act, with trustees not even knowing the laws applicable to their industry ie ppi, the court case will make it clear in due course, some have pursued this ppi bandwagon after discharge when there has been absolutely no instruction from your governing body to do so (trust deed expert previous page), i feel that this is not only being pursued for the benefit of creditors, but for the intake of even more fees for trustees!, thats my opinion and it wont change, i also do think it is very realistic that someone on the verge of severe financial decision making will steer well clear of trust deeds due to this, why wouldnt they?, you only have to look on sites like this and others to read about this ppi debacle to realise the condition of this trust deed proccess, true there are many aspects of it that are good for all sides, but it would take a massive hit if and when this court case if upheld, becomes fully broadcast throughout the media route.
I havent spoken to anyone in your industry about jobs in jeapordy, i never said i did, ive given my opinion only, just as you have given yours:)

(A reply to tinsoldier - littlemo and I were writing at the same time).

Sure - I'm not saying that there's nothing to the argument or that people aren't entitled to take strong positions about the motives involved.

The thing is, firms were also taking a lead from the Accountancy in Bankruptcy who oversee sequestration as part of their wider work. Is this government agency also accused by the same people of greed and failing to carry out their duties?

It still just comes down to who's due the money though. The courts will decide that. In the end.

What if the trustees involved were right all along?

Will people congratulate them for putting their resources on the line for the potential benefit of creditors?

Will there be apologies for some of the strong comments we've read here?

Nothing wrong with us both having opinions littlemo!

Just to be sure, your opinion is that people will choose to spend the remainder of their lives in debt rather than opt for a trust deed or sequestration because of this?

I suppose if the AiB had issued cleaf guidance for trust deeds we might not be having this conversation TDA.

I finally after 3 months managed to get the name of the trustee who would be dealing with my trust deed should it be re - opened. I then contacted the solicitor firm instructed by BDO to try and get an idea of timescales and was promised a call back by close of business today.

No call though. I just wish sometimes business world realise there is a human being involved and not just figures and dividends.

I do agree with your final point 100% tinsoldier.

It's vital to treat people with respect even when there might be a fundamental difference in views.

Will this PPI issue put people off going into a trust deed? Probably not.

If you're in a position where a TD is the best thing for you, then 'struggling with debt' probably doesn't really cover what you're dealing with in your everyday life.

If a TD is the best thing for you right now, are you going to worry about a future risk to do with PPI refunds?

If you even know about the PPI thing. How many people have we seen post on here, who clearly didn't have a clue what signing a TD meant because it hadn't been explained to them properly? (Tbh, that's the bit that should make people hesitate about a TD, IMO!).

Current and future TDs shouldn't be affected by anything that happens with these court cases, because PPI is being checked during the life of current TDs. You'll have seen the threads which complain about that too.

It's the old cases which are affected.

The court case is about the law. The courts have the final say on the law. It wouldn't matter if there was guidance from AIB, governing bodies, this forum, you or me. If the court says something different, then that's how it is. Unless a higher court changes it.

As for media attention, I think that's a case of be careful what you wish for.

There's every chance that the headlines will go for the angle of "Man who left banks with gazillions of pounds worth of debt insists he should keep PPI windfall", with assorted unflattering sub headlines.

This forum is a safe environment for discussing this issue. Put it into the national tabloid press, and you would be torn to shreds.

Thanks for your post candlewick.

It's a very fine blend of the factual, the thoughtful, the thought-provoking, and the uncompromising!

I'm now going to announce for the second time that I'm having no more to do with this thread until something actually changes in terms of the legal position. It's the only thing that really counts. I'm adding nothing new because I have nothing to add.

Unless someone attacks you unfairly for putting forward your considered view that is. Then I'm using the site's administrative functions again.

Disagreement welcome. Disrespect not acceptable.

A lot of good points from everyone here. For me there are still a couple of unanswered questions, the main one is (using my own trust deed as an example) having been discharged for nearly 7 years now (both mine and my trustee's discharge were on the 14th July 2009) why has the trustee not once either in the duration of the trust deed or in the 6 years and 8 months after discharge made any move at all to apply to reclaim PPI? I know in the early years it was harder to reclaim it but we are now getting closer to a cut off date for reclaiming PPI and it has been widely known that reclaiming PPI that has been mis sold is a lot easier. Now this is not an accusation from me, merely a speculation and an opinion, trustee's may have a very valid reason for not acting, but they haven't yet made that reason known so what it looks like (and I think a lot will agree here) is that trustees will not do the work involved to make PPI claims as their time will cost money and there is no guarantee of getting that money back if the claim is unsuccessful. Many would say why should they do the work.? They have their ex debtor doing all the work making the claim and if it's successful they can swoop in and reopen the TD to capture the funds, making money for doing very little work. Some would call that great business sense, others (like some employees at certain claims companies) call it greed. Let's not forget the banks. It may be a little unfair to say trustees just 'swoop' in and take PPI claims if they are successful, at the end of they day they're not coming for the funds, the funds are being sent to them by the creditors who have mis sold the PPI. Banks are famous for doing this, I recently managed to get a refund back from my trustee because it was below their threshold for reopening TD's, the refund was from BoS who stated in their investigation letter, and I quote 'I can see from my review that your financial affairs are being managed by an insolvency practitioner and as the redress would be seen as an asset I have made the payment directly to them'. That letter was sent to me 8 weeks ago and WRONGLY states that my financial affairs ARE being managed by an IP, my financial affairs STOPPED being managed back in 2009 so why did the bank worker have information saying my financial affairs still were being managed when in fact they were not? Are banks doing as TDA suggested and paying IP's to save having to pay out twice? Or are they being crafty and paying the IP's (especially if the bank was a creditor in your TD) knowing full well they would probably get some of the refund money back in a dividend payment from the trustee once they'd reopened the TD? Who knows what the correct answer is, but my dear, late father used to always say 'it makes no difference what you do or what action you take, the banks will always win...one way or another'.

I'm fairly sure that a trustee has to demonstrate to creditors at the 3rd of a trust deed that they have taken all administrative steps before paying a dividend to them.

In fairly recent closed cases that are being resurrected is it fair to say this isn't the case?

PPI isn't really that recent a phenomenon. It's been around for a while now.

Sorry, last post should have said "end" and not "3rd".

I think some people forget the feeling of drowning in debt with no light at the end of the tunnel. The constant daily, weekly or monthly struggle to live, pay bills and also try and pay their debts.

The issue of PPI won't stop people signing Trust Deeds. Society today is built on finance and the buy now pay later attitude. As a result people will always get into debt and need options to help them clear this when it becomes unmanageable. For someone financially struggling a Trust Deed is one of a number of excellent tools to help them clear their debts. It's either that or paying their debts for the next 10-15+ years.

When I speak with clients who are struggling with unmanageable amount of debts (£10k, £20k, £30k+) and it's costing them £500+ per month and I can tell them that a Trust Deed can help to reduce their payments down to a more affordable level, it writes off a proportion of their debts and it will give them a fixed timescale to be debt free the relief that they have is in a lot of cases overwhelming.

In the cases that I've dealt with and advised people that we will investigate PPI and if there is anything received it will go towards the pot for creditors they have not hesitated in signing up to a Trust Deed knowing this.

A Trustee needs to take all necessary steps to ensure that they have realised all available assets.

What if that Trustee investigated all relevant PPI accounts and 1 bank said they are not upholding the PPI complaint. The Trustee then needs to make a decision. Do they close the case as a result of this or submit a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman to review the decision by the lender. Bearing in mind that I think at 1 point it could be 12-18 months for the FO to consider this. If Trustee referred the complaint to the FO it could mean that they might not discharge the client. At this point (and I have experienced this) the client is extremely unhappy and isn't slow in venting this anger over the phone.

If the Trustee decides not to refer it to the FO and then years later that lender reviews their decision, decides it was wrong and agrees to pay out compensation who is entitled to it? This is just an example of what has happened in the past.

If a Trustee hasn't contacted a creditor or even looked into PPI for a particular account and then all of a sudden a client does it and the Trustee wants this I can see what the client is upset.

As I have always maintained I sympathise with a client in this scenario. If I was in the same scenario I would probably feel the same.

Up until all of this happened I would have said that once a Trust Deed is closed, the debtor and the Trustee is discharged then that should have been it.

As candlewick has suggested a lot of good points have been raised on this thread and those should all be directed towards the Trustee who is considering trying to be reappointed. Send numerous letters, emails, reordered delivery letters. Make sure you have made your point as if the Sheriff rejects the application to be reappointed and they have held onto funds which you should have received you could be entitled to compensation/interest on these funds.

I find it hard not to get sucked into this thread but as TDA has previously advised, until further developments happen legally I'm stepping back from it. I fear we will continue going round in circles.

I've written a letter to that effect; if I am eventually awarded the funds I will certainly be looking for interest accrued since December, plus compensation for the whole process.

Just read all of this and very very grateful for all the information here to work with. My Dad has now found himself in this position after discharge in 2011, BDO plan on keeping a hefty cheque and re-open the trust deed. Legally, I am wondering if there is any option to ask a court to set a time limit on re-opening trust deeds after discharge in these circumstances, ending what I see as the 'ad infinitum' issue to all this? A precedent would help greatly.

I also feel companies like BDO are taking full advantage of the fact many of the folk who entered a trust deed are not capable or able to fight court action. They should not be at a disadvantage purely because of this.

For us, I plan to ask BDO for full breakdown and, more importantly, proof of payments made to creditors during the trust deed and if they do use this PPI money will be scrutinising every single fee charged, having the AIB audit if possible.

Can I ask, when creditors are paid, do they not then relinquish any further claim to a debt?

And not to muddy the waters even further but after a trust deed ends, is it only creditors who claim their 'x pence in the pound' that are paid and for any unclaimed funds left after fees, do they go to the insolvency practitioner as profit? If so, on re-opening a trust deed, could we also demand those creditors also be offered that money again too?

If that makes sense to anyone! Legally, I would consider a reasonable timescale of sorts after discharge to be applied to trustees as prudent for everyone as this is obviously only the beginning but personally, if BDO do look to benefit from taking this action then great. I intend to make that the case.

Sorry, that SHOULD have ended, if BDO look to benefit from taking this action then I intend to make it as hard as possible. typing with kids in my ear!