It is normal that any potential PPI reclaims would be done by the trustee and given that you signed your trust deed before 2008 then they would not be able to discharge you and still stay in office themselves to do it.
Why is it that you are refusing permission for them to do this?

Welcome to the forum yad531.

Insolvency practitioners have been instructed by their regulatory bodies to see whether PPI claims could boost the returns to creditors from protected trust deeds. They don't have much choice but to do this.

I appreciate that it can be frustrating being passed around various firms, but when you initially appointed a trustee you made them responsible for recovering what they could for your creditors. That responsibility has passed to your current trustee.

It's obviously up to you whether you'll comply with their request to invetigate possible PPI claims. However, if you do not, they may feel they have no option but to withold your discharge and/or impose other consequences that you might prefer to avoid.

i was told in 2006 that i had to take the trust deed for 5 years 2 and 3months into i asked if i sold my house and gave them the money could my td be finished with. i was info that would be ok, i sold the house they got all the money. i never heard from allan adie again. i took it i finished. 6 months later i got a call from an english company telling me i was passed to them my payments were to an irish bank account for the rest of the td. i info they what happen and they said they are looking after the intrest of the creditors not me. my total det and payments were caluculated. i have payed them now they want me to say i was missold ppi. all my creditors sold there det to another company which i never heard of so why should i lie to get them more money

Hello yad531.

There is no reason why you should lie.

In what way are you being asked to lie?

The sale of your debts isn't relevant. The purchasers have the same rights to be paid from the trust deed as your original lenders did.

to sign a bit of paper to say i was miss sold ppi

Hi yad531.

Would you be prepared to sign a form saying that you may have been missold PPI and authorising them to investigate whether this was the case?

i just feel let down by the full system lost my house with lies gave up my car payed my last payment was on a high to come to an end to be told no we want ppi money as well. cant even go back to old trust deed as was put out of buisnees.

I can understand that yad531.

I think the issue is that the PPI claims are now creating an impasse preventing you from getting finished as you would like to.

Finding a way past that impasse might be the best route forwards after all of this time?

This is the kind of situation which I find deeply uncomfortable with regards to trust deeds in general - and PPI claims in particular.

yad signed a five year trust deed. After 2 and a quarter years, he asked his trustee if he could clear the TD by selling his house, and putting the proceeds into the pot. He was told that was OK.

TD was signed in 2006, the agreement on the house sale/proceeds would have happened in mid-late 2008, or early 2009. Google suggests that these were interesting times for his original trustee.

yad was then passed to another trustee, who does not seem to have been aware of the agreement over the house sale. Or ignored it. Nevertheless, yad continued to pay contributions towards the TD.

So, by this point, the creditors - and the new trustee - have had the benefit of the full five years worth of contributions, plus the proceeds of the house sale. The agreement over the proceeds of the house sale notwithstanding.

Now the trustee wants yad to sign a document which states that he has been mis-sold PPI. yad does not believe that he has been mis-sold PPI. He would be lying if he signed that document.

He also feels that he would be lying if he signed a document which states that he may have been mis-sold PPI. He does not believe that it is true.

Yet, he is being pressurised/bullied/coerced into signing this document - under the threat of not being discharged from his TD. That seems to me to be a very good definition of 'signed under duress'.

If this is what the regulatory bodies had in mind when they issued their edict on investigating PPI claims, then maybe they need to re-examine their own ethical values.

For now, it strikes me that yad would have been better off if his trustees had simply, and literally, taken a pound of flesh. It would have been quicker, more straightforward, and - compared to his current torture - more painless.

Surely there is a way around the 'PPU impasse' which does not entail keeping people in a TD indefinitely, and forcing them to sign statements which they believe to be lies and/or fraudulent?

As I've said before, I don't think the insolvency profession has done itself any favours with the way it has handled PPI.

We've spoken to insolvency practitioners who feel that their professional bodies should have provided far more support on the topic. Many individual IPs have spent huge sums taking their own legal advice on the subject.

Should people be asked to sign forms that they believe to be untrue? Of course not.

Have some people been missold PPI without realising that it happened? Yes, lots.

It seems like there could be a form of words used in connection to trust deed PPI claims that could accommodate both of these factors?

The sad part is , people are sometimes not being deemed able to say they categorically did not have PPI. I am not alone, I'm sure in making a point of refusing it. First time I recall being told the rate would change on my loan if I never had it because the risk is higher for the lender was in 2002. When I asked the guy on the phone to repeat that he corrected himself and said 'well its just more likely to be approved.' I know he probably moved on since then but the lending institutions definitely put pressure on staff to have a damned good reason for any account which didn't have PPI sold as well.
I would have no problem signing for it to be pursued if I believed any more funds could be found for my creditors. Having said that, I actually think the creditors who owe customers refunds or interest from this practice should be excluded from any benefit if the funds. Quite the reverse is possible just now with some lenders expected to reduce the debt owed to themselves rather than boost the amount to be shared out.

One of the problems I can see for people like yad, who signed their trust deed before April 2008, is that they could potentially be caught in the TD for ever - if they can't be discharged until every avenue of potential mis-selling has been explored.

(potential) mis-selling of PPI is the hot topic right now. So, let's say that a year down the line, yad's current trustee is satisfied that there was no mis-selling of PPI. But, a year down the line, there's another hot topic. yad has to sign another agreement for the trustee to look into that...

Surely there has to be a cut-off date? When the regulatory body decides that an issue should be investigated as part of a trust deed, is it fair that this should include live trust deeds which have been running for much longer than the 'standard' three years?

For TDs signed after April 2008, the regulatory bodies should make it obligatory for trustees to discharge the individual from the TD, in cases where it is only being kept open for PPI purposes. The trustee can stay in post until the investigation is completed.

As for a form of words which people could sign, when they don't believe that they have been mis-sold PPI, how about:

"I do not believe that I have ever been mis-sold PPI. However, if my trustee wishes to investigate the possibility of mis-selling, I authorise him/her to do so, on the proviso that this does not affect my personal discharge from the PTD. If any creditor subsequently believes that a fraudulent claim has been made, this will be a matter entirely between the creditor and my trustee, as I do not believe that I have ever been mis-sold PPI."

Hi candlewick.

I agree with much of what you are saying.

I think insolvency practitioners will see another angle to this, a concern that some clients might work the system to allow them to make their own PPI claims after discharge.

That will clearly be a minority, but we know some people are minded that way because they've written it here!

Another point is that one of the main areas of misselling was PPI being added to loans and cards without the individual even realising. There will be people who very genuinely say that they never took out PPI but when investigating possible claims it will turn out that they did.

So I'm putting the other side for a bit of balance. But I REALLY don't think people should be required to sign statements that the believe to be false. That's got to be wrong.

thank u for your views. it seems to me that lawers can do and say what they want back befor 2008. as my main point was the lies i was told about selling my house. where was my right then. i was under the inpression that u payed back 10% pulse equ in your house. i was told if i sold the house that it would bring it to an end that was early 2008 befor ppi and i would have been finished and out this mess.