Welcome to the forum carrie961.

We do know that RBS has taken a position that they can offset PPI payments against old debts that were included in trust deeds.

More on that subject here:

https://www.trust-deed.co.uk/rbs-and-ppi-claims-after-trust-deeds.html

Will RBS have personal insolvency records going back to 2003 - 2006? That remains to be seen and you might be lucky in this respect.

I'm sure they wouldn't try to retain any more of any funds than the amount of debt that they wrote off previously.

Hi TDa thanks for the response - The major issue is that we used a claims company to help as we are both busy working and wouldn't have bothered to be honest claiming, although I now realise the process is so simple to do. (big mistake) what I am worried about is accepting the offer with these clauses and then the RBS takes the money and we are left with £2k plus bill to the claims company. We had four claims relating to four loans over a period of time. We already accepted one offer for £420 but haven't received a cheque yet. Now the other three offers are in I think it best to wait to see if we receive any money from the first acceptance. Would the RBS still have our debt recorded from a PTD that finished in 2006? I thought the whole point is that you are discharged from your debts. Thats why we went down that route. I think we only had two years left on the loan anyway but with other circumstances just could not meet all our commitments. Some of the PPI relates to cleared/settled accounts but can these be used also for the debt that came under the PTD? It's a minefield and now I wish we had never bothered 🙁

Hi carrie961.

Regarding discharge from your debts, I can only really point to the position of RBS as stated in the link I provided in my last answer.

There's some logic to that RBS argument, but whether it would stand up in court is a different matter. We'll probably never know though.

I understand that RBS could choose to set-off any money for any PPI claim against an old debt.

Regards RBS record-keeping and 2006, I'm afraid you'll have to wait and see.

Your suggestion on holding back on accepting these three new offers seems like a good one. You'll have a better idea where you stand once that one has worked its way through the system.

You make a good point about the fees of claims companies. For anyone who has previously completed a trust deed they're taking a risk of ending up out of pocket if they do use a claims firm. I do hope that this doesn't happen to you.

Received a Letter from RBS regarding the first PPI claim settlement offer advising the file is now closed. No payment received so it looks like they have allocated it to an old debt that was in a protected trust deed. There were four loans with RBS each with mis sold PPI but only one loan with RBS under trust deed.
My husband needs to call RBS tomorrow to get a clear picture of what has happened.

I will contest the legality of this as I can find no legislation that would approve this. I also fail to see how even under the trust deed regulations, how the debt, (that we believed to be written off) would not be considered statute barred. Our discharge was granted on 8th November 2007. PPI mis selling wasn't even an issue back then. How can this be granted as an "asset" under these terms.

Meanwhile the claims management company are now hounding us for their fee's totally almost £3,500.

We feel absolutely stupid and will never pursue anything like this again in the future.

Hi carrie961.

It's all pretty complex here.

How would you contest the legality? Ultimately that would involve going to court and winning - then potentially going to court and winning again if a decision was appealed. The legal costs and time involved could be enormous, with no guarantee of success, and perhaps even the risk of having to pay the other party's (RBS's) costs if you lost.

I'd imagine RBS have already taken legal advice on this and believe that they can defend their position if a case went to court.

Statute barred (or "prescription" in Scotland) is perhaps an irrelevance here. That's all about being able to enforce a debt. They're not apparently enforcing a debt here - just setting off PPI funds against an old account.

I'm sorry that I can't be more positive but I think you're in a tough spot on this. I wish that wasn't the case.

The fact is however that RBS have got the money. If you think they should give it to you and they will not, the onus then falls on you to compel them. Compelling them might not be realistic.

Did the claims management company check with you whether you'd ever been insolvent before taking on your claim?

I just found a very old and very tattered copy of the OFT's guidance on debt collection.

It draws a distinction between 'statute-barred' debts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland - where statute barred debt still exists and is therefore recoverable - and the situation in Scotland, where statute barred debt is 'extinguished' and no longer recoverable.

I know the OFT no longer exists, but maybe those comments are still true?

Thanks Candlewick - there is a distinction for sure.

I don't know that RBS would consider this to be relevant though because, as we understand it (link above), their position is retrospective as follows:

"They consider that any goodwill payment that they now offer for PPI arose pre-insolvency. This is because the date when their claimant contends they became entitled to be compensated or refunded was when the original mis-selling took place.

Reciprocal obligations existed when the trust deed was signed. Any detriment or loss to the customer can be quantified in monetary terms at this date."

It is certainly hard to know what might be considered 'relevant' by a creditor who mis-sold PPI, and has had to pay out millions to cover that mis-selling

I'm neither impressed nor persuaded by RBS's legal waffle, as quoted in your article. Nor do I think that it covers a scenario where prescription may also come into the equation.

Challenging something in court can cost a lot of money. Putting in a formal complaint to RBS, detailing dates, facts, prescription and so on, takes some time and the cost of a stamp.

Taking it to the next level - whether that's the FCA or an ombudsman - after RBS reject your complaint takes a bit more time and another stamp.

It might be successful. It might not. But it gives another choice between 'suck it up' and 'take it to court'.

That's certainly all true Candlewick.

The quotes above come from correspondence between the bank and a party who had made just such a complaint to the bank. That complaint was supported, we understand, by some pretty high-level legal opinion. We've heard nothing since to suggest that there has been any movement in the position - but the complainant has resources and may well still be trying to push it further.

In terms of the Ombudsman, I think we've heard from members that have taking this scenario to them and who haven't been successful in getting the position changed. I'll try to find such a thread if I can to illustrate this (will be later).

Update To Our Situation
RBS did offset the PPI claim money to a Debt Account held following discharge from a trust deed in Nov 2007. Thee PPI I accept is rightfully due to any old debt, however the interest accrued from said miss sold PPI I am not willing to accept is a rightful asset that the RBS can claim. Our good news is that the claims company have agreed to refund the money we paid for the first invoice they sent £191.00 the PPI claim settlement was £408.00 and have sent a letter advising we will not need to pay any monies in this case as we will not receive the money from RBS. We have written to RBS to query the position on the interest and also wether the off set rule can apply. It stipulates monies from one account in credit can be used to offset an account in debit. Someone has legally challenged this with the Finance Ombudsman and won as they determined that money awarded from a PPI claim could not be deemed as having an "account" We are more than happy for all PPI money mis sold to be used to reduce a debt RBS have. It looks like this debt will be around for eternity something we definitely were not advised about. To me written off means gone but apparently not in the banking world, there, there is no such thing as written off.

Hi carrie961.

I'm very glad to hear that the claims company will not charge you.

It's an interesting thought regarding whether the debt is written off or not.

They certainly cannot pursue you directly for that old debt - so it certainly appears to be written off.

Their argument to retain PPI money due seems to be based on a retrospective argument - that your claim arose a long time ago when your debts did exist. In that sense, from their perspective, I guess they'd argue that they're not contending that this debt in any way exists now or that it hasn't been written off. The argument appears to be that the debt existed "back then" so they're within their rights to hold onto the PPI payment that was potentially due to you "back then" also.

I can see how this feels different from your perspective.

Hey Carrie

I find this discussion really interesting and keen to know how you progressed. I'm also in a similar situation having used a claims company to do a check for me on PPI and discovered 3 loans all with the RBS. My trust deed dated back to 2000 and when I received the offer for settlement I accepted. Now I'm in a situation that having been offered a total of £9500, I owe the claims company £4000 and the RBS has held onto the majority but paid me £888 from one which is the 8% interest, yet on the 2 other accounts held the full 100%

I don't understand how they can keep the money on 2 accounts but pay me the interest on the 3rd. It makes no sense nor can they explain it to me, other than to say I need to wait another 28 days for an investigation as they are unable to locate the exact records to discuss when I call.

Meanwhile the claims company are chasing me for payment which I have stalled for now, but they will be back.

Did you ever get a resolution with the RBS?