Welcome to the forum Wildchild.

In very simplistic terms, David Mond (an insolvency practitioner) is arguing that PPI claims that existed when a trust deed began should be gathered in for the benefit of creditors even if the client has been discharged.

This isn’t unique. It can happen with other types of personal insolvency in the UK.

There’s logic in the argument that it’s unfair that creditors missed out on money that was owed to them and that it instead goes to a former debtor of theirs who benefited from debt being written off.

There are strong arguments against this happening as well, which is perhaps why this case has proceeded so far through the legal system without yet being finally resolved.

If it goes against you, you will not be in a trust deed again. The trustee seeks approval from the court to be reappointed and handle the cash on behalf of your former creditors, but you remain discharged at all times.

Thanks for you reply
If mond wins his case then. Trust deeds will all be re opened to claim ppi this wil casue a great deal of upset in former debtors lives with names re appearing upsetting. Credit ratings and affecting jobs etc. Such a shame as ppi was banks downfall and others now suffering. Seems very unfair. On the former debtor having to re love it all when trust deed was closed and all duties done that was expected of them. At the time
Thanks

Another point also I feel as many trustees haven't carried out these checks before discharge now debtor suffering don't seem right is it not their job to do this while they still in office

Hi Wildchild.

It would give trustees an opportunity to apply to the Court for a trust deed to be reopened in the event that they became aware of a significant PPI claim. I can't see them doing it in any other circumstances.

Banks refused claims historically that they are now being forced to pay out by regulators. It's not as simple as saying that the trustee should have handled the claim better during the trust deed.

This will not affect anyone's credit rating. A trustee being reappointed will not appear on a credit report.

Having said all of this, it's readily understandable why people think that this is unfair.

It's also clear that Mr Mond may well lose this case.

Thanks for advice much appreciated
If. Goes in debtor favour will former trustee be made aware on day of court case or could it be months before this is settled
Thanks

Very annoying also at the moment seems to be up to the trustee how it's handled most are showing no interest in ppi after trust deeds and money send to former debtor with exception of a few who are holding funds
Thanks

Hi Wildchild.

It's likely to take some time after the Court hearing before there is a decision.

You are correct that different trustees are handling this differently.

Shouldn't be the case really everyone should be treated the same so they could holiday this money legally for several months yet

Have they actually put the money in a bank account?

Or are they just holding onto a paper cheque or refusing to consent to the bank sending you the cash?

They have cheque bank sent it direct. Says it's in a clients holding account

I too was in in td discharged in 2015 an now ppi from Barclays has been raised, as they say you are or were in an IVA the money will go directly to trustee ,problem I have is the claims firm want 40% of it which I don't have so its worth while probably looking into ppi yourself remembering that the trustee will more than likely req all funds even if you are discharged ages ago.

Thanks Wildchild.

It does feel a bit odd to open a client account for someone who isn't a client and pay in a cheque that's written in their name.

Yes odd but legal I am suspecting ? And also presume bank would have written cheque to them

Hi Wildchild.

I'm not really qualified to offer a view on the legality of this.

I'd have thought the cheque would be issued in your own name. This could then be paid into a client account in your name operated by someone with the legal authority to do so.

I struggle to see how someone could legitimately open and use a client account in the name of someone who isn't a client.

From my perspective I'd imagined that trustees were holding onto cheques, or refusing to give consent to the bank to pay it over to their former client, rather than actually paying them into a client account.