Keep fighting everyone rbs are in the wrong I have received my letter and I will be rejecting there proposal .good news for me I have written confirmation trustee is not interested in money ,there's a headache for rbs .thanks head just above water for your input and sharing your response and reply .

Hi everyone I too am rejecting their offer and now in the process of instructing our solicitor to take action against the rbs, I wish everyone involved good luck will keep you posted and thank you Luke4630 for your help will keep you informed. Like you our trustees are not interested in opening our Trust deed up again, ppi was not in the pipeline when we entered into it so rbs have no right to withhold payment the headache goes on

Thanks for reply trying to drum up some press interest . On the scandalous amounts rbs are spending and the treatment off consumers .

I too have rejected their letter yesterday, with the below email to the PPI executive. I have been arguing this complaint for over 8 years. I have told RBS the reason the donnelly case didn't have my name was I was caught up in a farce with the ombudsman. My complaint is identical to the donnelly case:

I copied in Alison Rose to this reply:

I have received your one page letter today, and to say the very least, I am very disappointed with this response.
Months have gone by waiting for this letter, and it is no more than a brush off, that could have been written in 5 minutes, to a 8 year old COMPLAINT.

I cannot force RBS to take me to Court to apply set off.
Why would RBS want to take me to Court, when they already have the compensation for the complaint already with-held?
From the ruling ' even if a party establishes a ground of reduction, that is not determinative of whether or not the remedy of reduction will be granted.'

Why would RBS pursue me, when from the ruling, there is more chance it will be refused?

This is just another stall by RBS, hoping I go away.

I have no intention of treating this matter as concluded because of the recent Court Cases, as I have a different interpretation of the findings.

My reading of findings was that RBS may try to apply set off in Court in future, but as my complaint is almost identical to Ms Donnelly's, even by time frame, the grounds that reduction was refused by the Court, in my uneducated view they are identical.

From Lady Wolffes Ruling: My decision in this case should not be construed as necessarily precluding the prospect in other cases, that it would be appropriate to reverse a debtor’s discharge, even if there are other creditors.

The decision was made considering 3 areas.

(i) the conduct and responsibility of the parties for the omission of the debtor’s PPI claim from the Trust Deed process and the availability of any alternative avenue of redress against the trustee

I see no difference in the Donnelly case to my circumstances with the Trust Deed, RBS and the Trustee at the time.

(ii) the history of the dealings and actions of the parties (or the pursuer’s predecessor in title) in respect of the outstanding settlement sum

I see no difference in the history other than me dealing for years with the Financial Ombudsman Service regarding this complaint. To be told by the FOS it found in my favour, and then to be retracted when I complained I had not been compensated. I was then told a similar complaint (Donnelly v RBS) was going through the Courts, and any decision on that case would have an impact on my complaint. The FOS could not make a decision on Law.
I contacted RBS to be told my complaint was closed as agreed by the FOS and the PPI funds had been set off against my outstanding debt. I complained I had not signed or agreed to any FOS decision.
I demanded the complaint be reopened and the funds be set aside, awaiting the outcome of this case.

(iii) the consequences for the parties if partial reduction of the discharge is granted

The Courts ruling on reduction would be at it's discretion, not automatic as is suggested. The Court would look at cogent reasons, which in my view are identical to Ms Donnelly's case, from the Opinion of Lady Wolffe, to deny this application.

From Lady Wolffes Ruling:

However, in my view, a more fundamental difficulty presents itself. The pursuer has failed fully to address the consequences of even a partial reduction of the discharge on the debtor. It would place the debtor in a highly irregular position from which it would be difficult for her to extricate herself.

There will be clear adverse impacts on her, and, on the pursuer’s approach, no obvious means to alleviate them. Collectively, these factors provide “cogent reasons” to refuse the reduction sought. I would regard it as bearing unduly harshly on the debtor, or it being “unjust and inconvenient”

it fails to take into account the passage of time and the disruption to a settled state of affairs. A very considerable amount of time has passed since the debtor was discharged, more than six years ago, from an insolvency procedure commenced 14 years ago, in respect of debts incurred more than 20 years ago. For most of the last 7 years she has been embroiled in the payment action which has been through two successive levels of appeal and in which the Supreme Court has recently refused to entertain it as a third-level appeal. If the pursuer succeeds in this action, further amendment in the payment action is proposed. The debtor’s witness statement was eloquent of the misery caused by the effect of prolonged litigation has had on her. The pursuer’s rationale in running this case was that it was a test case to obtain a ruling on the issue raised in Lord Reed’s coda to Dooneen. It has achieved an answer to the issues it wished to litigate. The amount of the outstanding settlement sum is paltry from the pursuer’s perspective and in proportion to the legal fees likely to have been incurred. This is not an insignificant sum for the debtor. There will be clear adverse impacts on her, and, on the pursuer’s approach, no obvious means to alleviate them. Collectively, these factors provide “cogent reasons” to refuse the reduction sought. I would regard it as bearing unduly harshly on the debtor, or it being “unjust and inconvenient” in this case, to grant a partial reduction of her discharge. In the whole circumstances, and in the exercise of my discretion, I refuse the remedy sought.

I am trying to avoid further Court procedures and lengthy delays, with regards to this complaint, but I am hitting one obstacle after the other.

I would like you to pass this email to your legal team, asking if they disagree with it's contents.
Ask if they would care to look at my complaint and it's contents to compare, before I seek legal advise.

I'm giving this opportunity, before I appoint a lawyer, I'm not fallping this complaint.
There must be a way for me to take action against RBS, as I'm sure RBS have no intention of applying for reduction for money they already have with-held.

Could you please reply with-in the next 10 working days, with your final decision?

By time frame, my Trustee is now insolvent, so they don't exist to contact.
Where does that leave them?

That's a great letter, dev61. Let's hope it has the desired effect.

In terms of your former Trustee's situation, I think it may be possible for them to nominate a new Trustee to be put in place by the court as part of the application for reduction (if it gets that far).

I'm more wondering how they can try to assert blame on the Trustee for not checking for PPI?
Will any record of my Trust Deed documentation still exist?

They can't blame me on not declaring it, I didn't know they had taken PPI.
The amount they took from me for the last two consolidation loans, two loans that would never have been approved now,because of my financial situation, would have been enough to prevent me from having to go into a Trust Deed. I was struggling with dept, and they miss-sold an insurance policy, they must have known was not worth the paper it was written on. I was guaranteed redeployment, and still am, rather than redundancy, and I'm paid while off. Two easy reasons to note PPI was not necessary.

The trustee did not request PPI as it was in it's infancy, when I was discharged.

RBS knew they had PPI due to me.
What were they going to do with this money if I never complained?
Share it with the rest of my creditors as it should have been put in the Trust Deed pot?
I don't think so, it's in their coffers, and they are trying to hold onto it, like the millions of other RBS customers refused for reason of set off, who have never complained or pursued their complaint.

A new reply from rbs.

I take this to mean they want me to take them to court for the ppi refund and they will try to defend the action. Other wise they just keep the money.

Even though I don't agree to them doing it.

I think my next course is to ask for a full breakdown of all ppi even the money they should have sent to wylie and Bisset.

And then get a copy of the ppi agents reports that w&b received. Which then proves the trustee did their due diligence and rbs are messing about.

Hjaw

‘Dear xxxxx

We refer to your recent correspondence, and note that you are unsatisfied with the Bank’s proposal.

By way of recap, the Bank’s position is that the redress which you have been offered should have been ingathered by your trustee, and had this happened, the Bank would have been entitled to set off the outstanding sums due to the Bank.

We note that you say that you wish to invite the court to re-appoint the trustee. That will not be opposed, however in those circumstances, the Bank would be entitled to claim in the estate for the outstanding sums due to the Bank and set off those sums against any redress offered, having the same effect as the Bank’s current proposal.

Otherwise, you remain free to raise court proceedings to try and recover the PPI redress. If you do so, as indicated previously, the Bank will defend the claim and reduce the discharge of your trust deed as part of its defence.’

Kind regards

John Hutcheon | PPI Executive Concerns

Something just popped into my head about all of this on reading some of the posts. I notice some of the posts saying the trustees should have collected this. On googling, it looks like the PPI scandal and subsequent claims were from 2006 onwards. What if you entered (2001) and was discharged (2004) before any of this has surfaced? How could the trustee have collected if this wasn't even around at that time?Might be a silly question but worth an ask!

Just had the same reply hjaw, by email from PPI executive.
Bit of a change of stance from threatening court action if we dont agree, to now wanting us to raise an action and they will defend.
Another tactic to weed out the determined.
Lets see how they react to some actions.
From my reading of the Donnelly appeal is totally different to theres

Absolutely scandalous behaviour by rbs ,I have started contacting the press and forwarding all paperwork and corespondance from rbs ,(rbs letter I quote we will have to take you to court and raise an action rbs need exposed big time .

Latest Rbs saga... it getting like a certain trilogy..

Cheers Hjaw

Hi Mr Hutcheon,

I have copied in Alison Rose to this email. It will also be posted to a public forum, So as to avoid any confusion of my position. The amount that Rbs claimed against my trust deed was £15173.53 and they received 6.5p in the pound which left £14190.20 being written off. Not as you state below £15205.93 the ppi replayment amounts you state below where bases on 2018 figures that still needs to be updated.

As I stated before I don't agree with the bank trying to offset against money that you say is outstanding even though under the terms of the trust deed you took the payment as full and final settlement.

I would also like to point out that when the trustees agents enquired about ppi, rbs said there was none. I have attached a copy of my trust deed discharge that states that they had completed there ppi investigations also.

If you had acknowledged the 4 remaining sets of ppi detailed below before we entered the trust deed. The trust deed would never have occurred. If you had acknowledged the ppi during the trust deed you could have attempted the offset. These avenues are now closed to you.

Just let me know when Rbs attempt to go to court to set aside the trust deed to allow you to do offset. So that I can attend and show the court the paperwork from before my trust deed, during the trust deed. And the attempt below of Rbs attempt to inflate the amount due to them while reducing the amount off ppi due to me.

With regards

Like others on this thread I've had a letter putting the onus on me to take RBS to Court and saying 'the Trustees should have checked whether you might have a basis for a PPI complaint against us before discharging you from your Trust Deed as if they had done so, set-off would have taken place during the lifetime of your Trust Deed' which to say the least is a bit disingenuous because I was discharged in 2007 when the PPI scandal was not in the public domain! My solicitor has indicated that this could be a possible line of attack as my Trustees would not have been aware at the time of the fact that RBS had illicitly attached PPI to my credit card repayments or of any future PPI claims I might make. What are other people's opinions?

Further update received today from RBS basically saying the same as last time and my response to it. Starting to think this is a standard letter now. Keeps referring to Trustee not checking for PPI, Mines did and RBS still denied there was any for me. They are just acting like bully boys now. Heads we keep the money, tails we keep the money.

HJAW

Dear Mrs Rose and Mr Hutcheon,

I hereby give formal notice of my objections to RBS applying set-off against my 1 historical debt to RBS and legally request that if you wish to set-off you do this formally as stated in your 4 letters dated 5th Aug 2021 which states "In order to apply set-off formally, we would need to raise a court action against you and your former trustee" Please do so.

Also in your 4 Letters sent on 5th Aug you ask for reasons why the set-off should not apply and outline exceptional circumstances for you to consider.

Our loan with RBS was the only reason I and my wife entered a trust deed, due to RBS trying to convert the unsecured loan, in to a secured loan and according to your legal advisors at the time (Anderson Strathern Solicitors) you would have attempted to enforce this with the sale of our house to payback the outstanding loan, So after taking advice ourselves we appeared at Airdrie Sherriff Court with a letter from our soon to be Trustee’s Wylie and Bissett. Outline the attempts made to come to arrangements with RBS and our proposed trust deed. The sheriff agreed to allow a extension to the court case to allow the trust deed to become protected.

Before getting to this stage we had attempt to claim on loan guard (the RBS version of PPI) for my wife who was off work at the time and where told we did not any cover.
During our trust deed our trustee DID attempt to find out about PPI for myself and my wife, RBS stated that I had no PPI but there was 1 for my wife. Through a mistake by RBS this letter of redress of ppi was sent to us and not the trustee (we forwarded the letter to them) on that
letter RBS stated that only 50% could be paid as it was a joint loan. The only other person that could have been was myself. If this letter had been sent to the trustee directly, I would never have been any the wiser about this.

Using that information RBS then found 9 accounts related to myself. 3 of which RBS claimed did not have PPI but 6 accounts did have PPI.

2 of these accounts related to mortgage and credit card so RBS paid out on these. But not on the loans due to being on hold for the Donnelly case.

It should also be noted that the 50% in wife's name was also never sent to the trustee even after they knew about it and attempted to claim it, and to date has still not been paid out or attempted to be set-off.

The Donnelly case which you refer to in the letters would not apply as the trustee DID attempt to reclaim, but due to RBS either being mistaking or out and out attempting to retain the money to the detriment of all creditors.

If RBS had admitted to the PPI before our trust deed the amount due would have just about cleared the outstanding loan and I would never have been in a trust deed to begin with.
but since RBS denied they was any PPI, myself and my wife endured 5 years in the trust deed with no access to any credit products So yes by RBS actions we where unduly harmed by it.

Even if RBS had admitted during trust deed you could have attempted to set-off but more than likely the money would have be gathered in by the trustee for the befit for all creditors.

It should be noted that RBS did get 2 payouts from the trust deed. The amount RBS Claimed from my trustee was £15,173.53 and received £983.33 after the trustee's fees which RBS had agreed to, where taken into account.
RBS accepted this money as full and final settlement of the debt and as such under Scottish law the debt is extinguished. And there is no debt to set-off against.

So even if the set-off was allowed the amount would be £14,190.20 not as you stated in the email dated 19th July £15,205.93
Also the 4 remaining PPI redress amounts are the amounts stated in 2018 not the recalculated 2021 amounts.
Even these 4 amounts from 2018 total £13,758.74 and after taking into account the 2nd payout from my wifes trust deed. The alleged debt would be just about paid off

But this is now in the past. The full point of redress is to put myself and my wife (the customers) into the position we would have been in if the mis-selling had not taken place.
Our trust deed can never be undone the damage has already happened.

If RBS insist in retaining the PPI without taking the formal court route, I would assume RBS is happy to take money by deception which under any other circumstances would be considered illegal.

Please let me know if you are willing to reconsider you response. If not I would like the PPI amounts recalculated as agreed in 2018 when they where put on hold, along with you deadlock letter
so I can approach the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Without prejudice to further action.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mickyboy.70
[br]Like others on this thread I've had a letter putting the onus on me to take RBS to Court and saying 'the Trustees should have checked whether you might have a basis for a PPI complaint against us before discharging you from your Trust Deed as if they had done so, set-off would have taken place during the lifetime of your Trust Deed' which to say the least is a bit disingenuous because I was discharged in 2007 when the PPI scandal was not in the public domain! My solicitor has indicated that this could be a possible line of attack as my Trustees would not have been aware at the time of the fact that RBS had illicitly attached PPI to my credit card repayments or of any future PPI claims I might make. What are other people's opinions?

---

I read your post with interest as I was discharged in 2004 and well before the PPI scandal came along. I have been waiting for a reply to my last email for weeks and weeks now and have received nothing in the post either like others have. I'm not sure whether just to sit and wait and let things play out in hope of getting paid out or whether to email RBS yet again to ask for an update and to chase.