There is nothing at all stopping reps from any firm registering on the site to give their side. The site at the end of the day is to help and support those in financial strife, and to give them the knowledge to better understand their options.

Theres always 2 sides to any tale but we often do not hear from the companies involved yet they would be happy to take our money.

Paul

The data protection act stops them from replying in any level of detail to individual circumstances Paul.

We do see a couple of firms that respond in much more general terms though.

They dont have to be specific on cases, but the industry on the whole would benefit from more black and white and less grey!

Still too many firms not up to scratch profiting greatly from bad situations.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by plasticdaft

There is nothing at all stopping reps from any firm registering on the site to give their side. The site at the end of the day is to help and support those in financial strife, and to give them the knowledge to better understand their options.

Theres always 2 sides to any tale but we often do not hear from the companies involved yet they would be happy to take our money.

Paul

---

But that can't really happen, can it?

Anyone can log on to this site and say what they like about company 'x', trustee 'y' and the world in general.

The world in general can then come back and say what they like. So, as a representative of the world in general, based on what I have read of gresgow's story, I know that right at the start, he (or she) was advised that DAS would be a good option given the level of debt involved.

gresgow was adamant that a trust deed would be the best bet.

Shortly thereafter, when the PTD was a fact, gresgow mentioned the likelihoood of inheriting a property. Too late for anyone to do, or advise, anything about it.

Like "Seriously? You could pay off your debts within a very short space of time AND you are likely to inherit a property with a significant amount of equity during the PTD? why in the name of the wee man are you even considering a trust deed?"

Then all the business about negotiating to pay the equity - without giving any figures. The snippets about changing relationships manager - with the suggestion being that the relationships manager was at fault. When, for all we know, it might have been the client.

Not to mention the arteless reference to the fact that - having negotiated a very good deal on the property issue - gresgow failed to keep up the payments.

At this point, most forums would attack me for giving such a summary of another member's posting history.

So, imagine what would happen if the trustee's organisation gave that kind of summary of the person's posting history.

What about a no holds barred summary from the trustee's files?

There's no way a public forum can be a level playing field. not when one party can say what they like - including genuine misunderstandings. And another party is restricted to apologetic platitudes.

You've got a tough job keeping the playing field as level as possible, TDA.

I wasnt being case specific about gresgow as I havent followed whats gone on there. The other site I use seems to cope and even perhaps invites more experts on to answer particular questions where a company maybe does things a little differently to others.

Paul

Hi Paul.

Companies are welcome to contribute where they're named Paul.

They are limited in what they can say though which is one reason why many choose not to.

I can remember two examples of companies posting quite defensively about situations in which they were named here. Both got a bit of a kicking by the site's members when they did that.

I think that's why some companies now employ social media professionals to comment in forums like this one.

I will continue to look into this site as I have found it helpful in the past. I will however not be posting on it in future

Not for the first time, I have posted on here an another poster has come on and had a pop at me and my situation.

To clarify.

gresgow was not adamant that a trust deed would be the best bet but was advised this by the trust deed company and not being savvy in these matters went with the advice of the company as I wished to get matters started as soon as possible.

There was not a likelihood of inheriting a property during the trust deed as who can tell of the likelihood of an inheritance happending

I did not blame the changing of Ralationship Managers for my situation but did not find it helped my situation.

I did negotiate a good deal on the equity issue in the property and yes I have not kept up to date with the payments thereafter. Without being in possession of the facts as to why I missed the payments then I do not feel that Candlewick should be making the statements that he/she does with such assurance without being in possession of the facts

I would like to thank the other posters on the forum for their help and advice and to the experts who unlike Candlewick have always approached matters from a neutral point of view unlike some.

Aside from the very specific particulars of this case, the problem with naming companies is that, for the most part - companies are usually only named when an individual has a problem with the service they are providing - but this might not be representative of the experience of that firm's wider client base.

This, in turn, makes people new to trust deeds nervous about dealing with those companies - even though their circumstances might be completely different and they would not encounter such problems.

Therefore, unless there is one particular company which is continually providing unprofessional service - where is the need to name them? The individual can deal directly with the company - they don't need to do so on a forum, they can get advice on the circumstances without naming the firm.

Having been on other finance-related sites, I do have to say that this is the most human, friendly and balanced.

Hi gresgow.

I'm not sure that Candlewick was referring to your situation in detail. I think he/she may have been making a more general illustrative point to Paul about how a firms file or view might be at odds with their clients view, and the subsequent impossibility of them presenting their case in the forum for fear of drawing a battering here. I think Candlewick alludes to that quite strongly in the post that they'd expect to be attacked for posting in that way.

I think this thread has become about two different things and can see how you'd draw offence even though I very much doubt that it was intended. I'm sure Candlewick will touch on that when they next visit.

If you'd like help as this current situation develops can I suggest you start a new thread? From a moderation point of view I'll make sure that it focusses only on trying to help you move forward in a way that you're happy with .

Hi Gresgow

I think that you should concentrate on the matter of contacting the Trustee to arrange a meeting and clarify the position regarding the equity, hopefully you can get the equity sorted out and come to an arrangement.

Michael

Dear Gresgow,

As you know we have been working with you for many months now to try and help you stay in your property. We have endeavoured to find a flexible approach to achieve this. However, to do this successfully we do need cooperation from all parties.

To try and find a way forward I've asked your Relationship Manager to give you a call to discuss the next steps.

Sarah

TDA, thank you for understanding where I was coming from in my posting.

gresgow, I apologise if I caused offence - that was definitely not intended.

Perhaps I should rephrase my analogy.

Imagine if I were to complain about this forum, on another internet site.

If TDA were to go onto that forum and give a detailed listing of points I had made on this site, that would be fair enough (IMO) as it is all information which is out there in public, though others might take a different view on that point.

It would be very different if TDA were to give out information which I hadn't made publicly available.

That pretty much sums up the difficulties faced by companies who are criticised on here.

In my experience, posts fall into 3 categories. Someone advising on the facts, someone's perception of what the facts are and someone advising only the facts they wish you to know. I've been doing this job long enough to have experienced all 3.

I think the forum is nicely balanced in its approach as otherwise it's a free for all. The idea of the forum I thought was to give advice & guidance on matters to allow the individual to see why something is being done in a particular way or question the trustee as to why it's being done in a particular way.

Personally I continue to be horrified at what goes on out there in terms of advice and process, but the only way forward is to discuss problems and processes and give people ( and I include myself in the learning bit) the knowledge to question things.

Mark

Hello gresgow.

Hopefully you can see that there has been some misunderstanding here and, as I thought, the point that Candlewick was making had nothing to do with you personally or your circumstances specifically.

If we can help in the future please let us know.