Welcome to the forum Bailey boy.

There have been many topics here recently about trust deeds being reopened to capture PPI claims.

This is, I think, the first time we've heard that someone hadn't even been aware that their trustee had gone to court for this purpose. I'm afraid we're very limited in terms of how we can help you with this side of things - we're not legally trained.

Taking legal advice seems like the best course of action if you want to address this - but it could be very expensive and you may not win.

The university of Edinburgh runs a free legal clinic chaired by top lawyers in the old college in the south side of Edinburgh and is free .

Given what you have written I could hazard a guess at the firm and trustee . I found all insolvency solicitors which I contacted stated we have worked for this firm so it would be a conflict of interests , have you contacted the trustees governing body and or the FSB ?.

I would request a audit of fees from the AIB in Scotland and information on fee reductions against this trustee under the freedom of information act Scotland directly from the AIB.

Thank you for your post ,wear your scars with pride , because a life without scars has not felt the hardship of life or the feeling of pain .[:D]

Hi.
Thank you both for your advice, Amy I had a look at the link and the information is a mirror image of my case.

Pinalta
I will look into all that you have said and advised on, these companies are becoming a law unto themselves, and by taking this to court without me knowing to me is a breach of my rights not even being able to explain I never asked for the PPI to start with.
both of you are the first two to even offer some advice every time I try to talk to someone about it the answer is the Sheriff has made her ruling, I ask on my last letter to the court to advise me where I can appeal, never got an answer on that just it would be inappropriate for My Lady to comment, I am asking why not she made a ruling without the full facts behind the case in front of her, the one sided case by MAZARS

Again thank you will keep you up dated as the days go on.

Mutual respect .
[8D]

Hi Pinalta
Just to let you know I have contacted university free legal clinic and left my details and reason for contacting them will let you know how I get on, and will contact AIB tomorrow.
If we ever get a few days spare I will tell you about the rest of the scars I am carrying, re care home for my 84 year old mum with vascular dementia, how my POA has been revoked because of the trust deed law changed 2007 had POA since 2006 and when this came to light, SS forcing sale of the house after me paying for it for 30 years but mum never changed title deeds.
And tax man asking for shortage in tax I am PAYE and he set the code so yes scars are mounting up over last few month, I have always lived by the law, but it keeps kicking you when you are down, now time to fight back

Glad to see you are taking positive steps and fighting back .
You should also make a complaint to the trustees governing body , afraid there is not more I can do to help as you seem to be helping yourself in a positive way .

I understand the pain you must feel and in particular about the house , the 26th should bring some clarity for me but I suspect it will be a white wash but there are many ways to skin a rabbit .

Hi Bailey Boy

I sympathise with your position - it sounds like you've had a raw deal.

The fact that you never realised that you had taken PPI in the first place is exactly the point - that is presumably why Black Horse are paying out. The thing is, when you sign a Trust Deed you are also giving your trustee the right to take action on your behalf in order to maximise the return to your creditors. This includes matters such as reclaiming PPI and it sounds like they did indeed seek to reclaim this on your behalf back in 2011.

Your trustee would argue that the fact that it has taken so long for Black Horse to pay out should not disadvantage your creditors and that they are entitled to a share these funds to go towards settling the debts that were owed to them. It sounds like a Sheriff has agreed with them and I'm afraid that there is not much you can do about it short of taking this back into court . As Trust Deed Assistant says, this may be expensive and you might not win.

I'm sorry I can't offer you a more positive reply.

Hi Kevin
Thanks for your honesty, I wish I had never taken that call back in 2011 enter into this agreement / contract after 3 years you are debt free no mention of however if at any point after you are discharged and we find out that you have a wind fall of money we will go to court without you knowing and convince a Sheriff that you can stay on the poverty line as long as we get the money and by the way your creditors don't get all the money we keep most of it for admin fees, I am sorry but where is the justice in this.
These companies are cold selling trust deeds without ppl knowing how it can come back to bite you.
And for a sheriff to rule on it without even asking what does the defendant say about this!
Well My Lady we have not told him but we will after you rule in our favour in a few months time.
I am sorry for the rant but it looks like the big boys have won again.

Hi Bailey boy.

I don't think this will be of any consolation to you whatsoever, but there is a distinction between new windfalls and assets that you owned while in the trust deed.

If you won the lottery or inherited money today it would be yours.

The issue here is that the asset was owned when you were in the trust deed (with the asset being the potential to reclaim PPI). The creditors at the time agreed to your trust deed partly on the basis that assets would/could be realised to help repay them.

Hi Bailey Boy,

Like Kevin, I sympathise with not only your situation but also others where the issue of PPI is causing problems like this.

When it comes to applying to court to be reappointed the Trustee will make an application and the Sheriff will want to hear the other parties side of the story. The Sheriff will normally request that ÔÇ£answers be lodgedÔÇØ before them to consider the matter. You should have been notified about this legal action and the request for the Trustee to be reappointed in your Trust Deed.

To be notified of this, Sheriff Officers should have served paperwork upon you which notified you of this legal action and provided you with a chance to put your answers and your side of the story into the Sheriff. The Sheriff Officers need to certify to the court that you were properly notified of the legal action/court case. If you fail to lodge answers or turn up at the hearing then the Sheriff will normally grant what the other party is requesting unless they are not satisfied that the person has been properly notified.

Do you know if you ever received paperwork regarding this? You could try and find a copy of the Sheriff Officer report to establish how the carried out effective service on you. This may be something which the legal clinic could look at for you.

At the time when a Trustee investigates PPI the lender will give a decision. If they say no to PPI there isn't much a Trustee can do except challenge it at court. A Trustee will then take the decision to close a Trust Deed on the basis that they believe they investigated and realised all assets. What is has happened after which this is the lender will change their decision and pay out tens of thousands of pounds in PPI.

The argument that is valid is does a Trustee have the right to be appointed to a Trust Deed if they have been discharged. This is why we need a case argued by two solicitors at court before a sheriff for a sheriff to be aware of all of the facts.

Hi David.
Firstly thank you all for taking the time to reply back it's appreciated.

Never was I notified regarding this Blackhorse said they seen I had been in a trust deed and by law they sent the cheque to MAZARS after I was discharged, when I asked MAZARS they said it was unusual so they decided to go to court to have the trust deed reopened.

All this was done without me knowing anything about it, only when I got a letter from MAZARS on the 30th Nov regarding the above that's the first time I knew of it and this all happened round April / May time. Your explanation is bang on the Sheriff would have probably been under that impression no counter claim no appearance yes the money is yours Mr MAZARS but if Mr MAZARS bid not tell Mr Bailey boy to start with then Mr Bailey boy can't fight back he is beat and the sheriff is not going to reverse her decision it's the way it was done that's hurting me.
I am still paying the same repayment to the loan that issued the PPI so that's not been reduced but Blackhorse have sold my loan to another company now so as far as I see I am still paying PPI on that loan therefore in 2 years time am I going to be in the same position with this company are they going to say hear Mr MAZARS his loan is paid off however here's his PPI again split it 50 50 between creditors and admin

Give the creditors all the money pound for pound I will be a happy man they were good enough to give me credit at the time so yes they should be paid back in some way but the way it has been conducted is not right

I totally sympathise and to a great deal empathise with you here Bailey boy. There is an argument that trying to be re-appointed after discharge is unethical; not to inform you is downright criminal.

Hi Bailey Boy,

Ask your Trustee to send you out the sheriff officer report for the serving of the paperwork giving you notice of the court hearing. The Sheriff Officer will have had to sign a report for the sheriff to be satisfied.

Like I said, this may be a route for the legal clinic to approach if they can demonstrate effective service was not carried out and you did not receive notice to take representation. This is more of a legal argument on court procedures than an Insolvency one.

Hi David.
I asked that question re the above, and got a email from MAZARS stating.
Unfortunately it was the sheriff in ------------ sheriff court who did not make the order in that way, as our ( MAZARS ) application had requested notice be given.

Plus I ask re the tax, and they have confirmed that basic rate tax has already been deducted.

I have also been informed on the email, any submission or challenge should be submitted by the end of this week, so I would say the fight is over, I can't see a lawyer taking on a sheriff for not issuing paperwork.