With hindsight and will the knowledge built up from this forum, I think what should have happened is that my trust deed runs as normal. Don't really have an issue with my contribution or equity situation. So that's fine. My wife should have been made bankrupt. Since she wasn't working, then no contribution. She (we) should have been advised that she would still have to release her half of the equity. There is no issue there from me on that point. Then either the trustee sells our home immediately to release both shares of the equity or waits the year on the off chance we could find my wife's equity share. Either way I continue paying my monthly contribution. I'm not sure because there is joint ownership (grey area time), one bankrupt and one ptd, they could possibly hold up the sale for the term of the ptd and released both shares of the equity then. Another option is increasing my monthly contribution over the three years to cover my wife's equity share, then I either find my equity in lump sum, extend my ptd or sell my home. The last one (increased contribution) is the favoured option. I would still have to borrow to pay, but at least my wife's equity would be gone instead of the current situation. Whatever way you tweak any of the above scenarios, they would have been better than what we were/are left with. Regardless of "shades of grey", we were, in effect given the worst case scenario and that is "black and white". What should be a "black and white" situation is affordability. No contribution from unemployed or from benefits. Equity released regardless of the above. Other areas aside, that seems practical, workable and fair enough.

I'd be interested to hear from Kevin, Shona, Mark or Chris on the point about your wife becoming bankrupt at the time you started your trust deed BrianR.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure how this would have worked nearly three years ago. The certificate for sequestration did not exist, I'm assuming there had been no legal action at that point from creditors against her (?), and the LILA route to bankruptcy would not have been possible as she was a property owner.

Assuming bankruptcy had gone ahead, you would not have been able to pay off her share of the equity during your trust deed as it would be assumed that all of your disposable income was going towards your debts.

I don't think any reputable debt adviser would suggest a scenario (for the two of you collectively) that was dependent upon further borrowing to pay off your wife's equity (for the bankruptcy) during your trust deed.

These factors tend to suggest your home would have been at great risk had your wife become bankrupt when your protected trust deed began.

I totally agree with you on the fundamental importance of affordability in connection to any debt solution or debt advice. However, I'm wondering if the advice you received was intended to give you both the best chance of dealing with your debts and retaining your home at the same time. Questionable advice given the fundamental affordability problem within it, but perhaps advice coming from a person/firm that was genuinely trying to help you in the circumstances? I'm obviously writing this from afar based on the facts in this thread so this is purely speculation rather than suggestion.

Were there any discussions at the advice stage about selling your home at that point so that thereafter equity/affordability issues could have become largely irrelevant to trust deeds or sequestration?

At the time we did say we wanted, if possible to keep our home. It was also at the time before Freddie and Fannie etc had happened so the talk was remortgage. There was no legal action against my wife either. Why I say I could have paid my wife's share off, because in effect I have, albeit by borrowing. The money we have forked out amounts to her share. I can concede maybe the advice given was to keep our home, but certainly not to manage our debts, especially when our income went down a fair bit during the term. We did informed them about this. As of now we sell our home, pay off the ptd, but are still left with the borrowing after paying our monthlies. So apart from prolonging the agony, we will be in a worse position. If our home was sold either before or during then by now we would have got over it. Now it's ahead.