that's not nice to hear pinalta , I`m having some issues with my trustee to , hoping it wont get the stage I need to lodge a complaint tho

If you , wish to share the name of the Trustee/ firm then please do so , but only back up your post with facts to give a balanced opinion . But TDA must decide on the ethics , regarding posts .

Im quite happy to name my trustee/ firm and list the failings , whilst been taken for TENS OF THOUSANDS IN FEES .

Time to stop going in the shower me thinks .[B)]

Hi both.

We have no problem with firms being named.

However, when this happens in a negative context there is an extra responsibility on the poster (and the forum to a lesser extent) for points made to be thoughtful and backed up with more fact than opinion.

The AiB has just published a "Protected Trust Deed Update" on the AiB website.

I found the table at the end of the update very interesting - but that's just my opinion of course.

The table certainly makes interesting reading, although it also raises other questions. Apparently we are in 8% for cases where no dividend has been paid, when in fact we have never had a single completed case where no dividend had been paid.

I suspect they are including cases which have failed, say after 6 months, to complete and therefore obviously no dividend is likely. Even taking this info account, some of the percentages in the table are quite scary.

Mark

Please look at the AIB UPDATE , the facts lodged against Begbies Traynor speak for themselves , the highest on zero dividents and Admin costs to , among others , you can't hide from the truth .[:D]

It may not be quite as straightforward as that pinalta.

As Mark has already written there are some underlying important factors that this data set doesn't report on. That said, the headline figures are there to be seen.

I think the AIB data provides a very interesting comparison betwen firms, and certainly suggests that some firms are much more realistic about their fee levels at the proposal stage than others.

However, dividends being less than forecast and a high percentage of "zero dividends" is really just a reflection of the economic situation at present and the squeeze on household incomes rather than anything more sinister. It is inevitable that a proportion of those entering trust deeds will find their situation worsens due to redundancy etc.

I think the Accountant in Bankruptcy should really be putting the figures into context, as otherwise it is too easy to assume that many insolvency practitioners are just "at it".

Even allowing for the 'missing' information, it still makes interesting reading. I do think however that the AIB should expand their columns for a more detailed picture. Otherwise it's like 68% of 32 people prefer the George Foreman grill to Asda's own. ( sneaked it in!!)

Curiously one of the firms listed with the biggest variations was the loudest guy at an AIB meeting demanding that the firms who don't pay or substantially increase their fees be named by the AIB. Well you just have! Fix the stats and you'll be fine.

Mark

Just queried our no dividends 8% figure and the AIB have come back with 2 Trust Deeds both of which failed before the 1st year. By my reckoning we are working on around 12.5 live Trust Deed cases in total!!

Ah! The clever use of statistics.

Mark

There seems to be very little actual meaning to these figures. Unfortunately, I think the AIB too often misinterprets this kind of thing and then blindly runs with it.