Have a look at everyone elses posts who are going through this debacle and take strenght from knowing you are not alone, hopefully the courts have now cottoned onto this "ingathering of funds" nonesense (in my view) and will put an end to the endless stress this reopening of TDs cause to so many.

Its bad enough having to make the step into a Trust Deed for 3-4 years but these companies now want to keep this stress going for many more years, we havent committed any crimes we havent deliberately fell by the wayside, we have stuck to our agreements and payed our dues, stay positive in knowing you are right, you have to ensure you clearly explain that you have stuck to your agreement and highlight to the court that you have been discharged...not discharged for a few years but discharged totally!!!...i would urge anyone in your position to 100% ALWAYS take on any attempt to reopen your TD in court, you have done no wrong, we will all fight this together.

Give them hell.

I am not a solicitor or any kind of legal expert and my advice to anyone in your position would be to get some help from a legal professional if you can.

If not then the fact that there is a precedent set in the Court of Session must surely count in your favour - so I would at least have the details of that case to hand to ensure the Sheriff is aware.

Some ideas for you.

At least one person on here has said that they won their case. If they could tell you which sheriff court they attended, you or your lawyers could check to see if there is a report of the case. You can refer to the case or cases as precedent for the outcome you're looking for.

If there isn't a report of the cases, you could use the arguments which seem to have worked. You might get that information from the people who have been to court, or you might have to look through the posts on this forum and gather them up.

Make good use of the Court of Session judgement in February(?) this year. The one where the TD was NOT re-opened. There was a link on one of the earlier 'hot topic' threads on the forum.

Try to make the point that the case at Glasgow Sheriff court around the same time - which was about the bank being able to offset the PPI refund against the debt - is not the same situation.

Keep it factual, not emotional - unless you're talking about the effect it has had on you. Don't rant about 'greedy trustees' for example.

But do question why your former trustee (who was discharged as the trustee in the trust deed on whatever date) believes that he has the right to hold on to the PPI cheque. Or to be reappointed as trustee now - however many years after he was discharged.

Ask what part of the law does your former trustee think backs him up on any of this Look at posts made in the past by David, Kevin and Mark to get ideas about points which say the law doesn't back the former trustee up. And mention the court of Session judgement again!

Mention the practical problems which might come from being back on the Register of Insolvencies. You'll find posts which mention things which people are worried about.

There's not enough detail in some of the posts to be sure that being on the Register will definitely cause problems, so be prepared for those arguments to be kicked out if you can't back them up.

It's still worth putting them out there, because they show that this isn't just a bit of admin for the former trustee - it has a real effect on you and your family, and causes stress. You can be emotional when talking about this bit, because all of those effects and stresses are real.

I hope that some of those thoughts will help.

Extremely well put accross Candlewick, to the point!, mind gscullion1977...keep to the facts and take all on board the advice given.

ALSO,AS CANDLEWICK HAS ADVISED YOU,ITS VERY IMPORTANT TO REMIND THE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF SESSION DECISION REGARDS ANOTHER SIMILAR CASE BACK IN FEBRUARY!!!

I "won" my appeal at the Sheriff Court in Glasgow 3 weeks ago, I say "won" because I've not received my Cheque yet and i think the trustee plans to appeal. To be honest at court i didn't have to say much, the sheriff focused on the lawyer and their argument and asked if the lawyer was sure it wouldn't affect my chances of credit or would it appear on my credit file to which he couldn't be certain and that's what made the sheriffs mind up. I didn't have to put arguments across but from what I seen in court the Sheriff focuses on what's been put down when you lodged your answers and that was it. I was told I was the first person to represent myself and the company I was appealing against were only successful before because nobody was at court to object to it so I see this as a positive for anyone representing theirselves at court! I do expect an appeal now, I have until next Wednesday when the 28 days (appeal limit) is up and will either get a letter of appeal or my Cheque back! It's easy for me to say now but it honestly isn't as daunting as u might think! Good Luck!

Hi gscullion1977,

Good luck with things on Thursday.

Candlewick has given an excellent summary of what you should consider speaking about.

Although you don't have legal representation as such, I hope someone is accompanying you to the hearing, a friend or relative for example. Always good to have someone to lean on.

Best of luck.

Wishing you a positive outcome gscullion. Hpe all goes your way.

This just in (by email) from a friendly insolvency practitioner in respect of this thread and the general topic. It's very interesting because the perspective is quite different than that which we've often read here and it broadens the subject (and confusion!) out further:

"I feel I have to write this having read the post referred to above. I worry sometimes that things become fact just because someone posts something!

I think it should be pointed out that the Court of Session decision being referred to throughout by members of the public and experts is NOT precedent and further more is being appealed so has no real basis to be used to support an argument. A Court of Session does not ÔÇ£trumpÔÇØ a Sheriff Court decision unless it is a decision of the Inner House (ie appeal).

Most of the solicitors I have spoken to indeed say that the late Lord Jones erred in law anyway possibly because this was not his area but equally because he had not been presented with all the facts.

It should always be borne in mind that a Trust Deed is based on Trust law first and foremost and does not exclusively deal with insolvency options. Trust Deeds are used for many other applications It also happens to be one of the more complex areas of Scots Law and the various arguments being presented by those wishing to ÔÇ£reopenÔÇØ (were they ever closed!?) trust deeds are relying on trust law more than the application of bankruptcy and insolvency law.

All in all very complex!!"

That email just muddies the waters even more, with respect.

What it does say is that if the appeal to the Inner House is dismissed, (or otherwise) then we should at last have clarity. Or am I reading it wrongly?

Hi tinsoldier.

I'm not entirely sure. I do agree with you that this muddies the waters further. It's really very muddy water.

Well to me your "email" implies that a Trust Deed NEVER ends!!
Very murky waters indeed!