Hi buddy

I think you need to take the word of the trustee that it will be sent away to be protected, although he's playing a dangerous game. You confirm a debt is due, the trustee proceeds on that basis and a claim is received which he objects to!

Mark

I thought objections had to amount to over half the debt as a whole and that the one third rule was for a single creditor. What is the issue with evidence? surely it's a straight answer, they are a creditor or the aren't?

Hi SkintAlly.

It doesn't have to be a single creditor owed more than a third of the total debts (though such a creditor that is in this position is often discussed here as a concern); it could be a combination of two or more where their share of the debts add up to more than a third of the total.

So what is it that requires 50% then?

That's 50% of the creditors in total by number (irrespective of how much is owed to each of them).

The one third rule might be seen to protect the interests of larger creditors (who otherwise might be over-ruled by the smaller ones) and the 50% rule might be seen to do the opposite.

That's kind of what I thought. So how would it be decided which rule would be applied if both the 30% and 50% apply to multiple creditors? Is this where satisfying the debt companies that represent the creditors comes into account? I know that RBS and Tesco for example are represented by the same company.

Hi SkintAlly.

If either threshold of a third of the creditors by value, or half by number, object then the trust deed will not become protected.

The voting representatives represent multiple large and well-known creditors as you say, but it's only the votes for each individual creditor that count no matter whether a voting representative is involved or not.

These voting representatives make it quite clear what they will and will not accept so that a trust deed company can factor this into the cases that they choose to proceed with and how they present them.

ahhhh, That make sense now. Thanks TDA 🙂

Thanks for the replies here and the advice. Can someone explain what is meant by "no evidence" being given with the objections. I have been told by trustee that without evidence the objection does not stand.

Hi buddy.

I'm not totally sure what this refers to; I'm sure Mark, Kevin or Shona will clear it up soon enough though...

Hi all

A trustee needs to formally adjudicate on claims to see if they are valid claims. To do this they need a claim and supporting documentation to verify the claim ie copy agreement, printout of balance etc.

There is a process to objecting claims and I hope the Trustee has requested copy paperwork and notified of rejection.

Mark

So because a claim hasn't been validated any objection based on the same claim has, in this instance, been ignored?

Thanks guys... Mark, does this mean that without the supporting documents the objection would not stand. That is certainly what the trustee told us. Will this cause us problems now that paperwork has been sent for official registration?

Hi buddy

I don't think there's anything to worry about. The protection docs are sent to the AIB's office who will register them. They only require to check the doc's they are sent.

I'm sure it will all be fine.

Mark