|
|
 |
 |
FORUM |
|
> Browse and post on our forum |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| rosies |
Posted - 24 March 2010 : 10:35:09
I petitioned for my own bankruptcy in March 2009, a majority creditor appeared from nowhere in Jan 2010 and raised an objection, the OR appointed a Trustee apparently this particular Trustee was appointed at the request of the creditor, is this legal? and if I wanted to question the validity of the appointment with the OR how long do I have to do this? |
| 12 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| rosies |
Posted - 26 March 2010 : 10:09:47
Hi Bridgewood I am actually hoping that they don't dispute mine which was done last year and accepted by the OR, I will no doubt find out in the next few days, I will let you know. |
| Bridgewood |
Posted - 26 March 2010 : 10:05:58
Hi Rosies
If they've done a drive by, they wouldn't normally need anything else unless you disputed their valuation |
| rosies |
Posted - 25 March 2010 : 18:05:35
Many thanks for your reply , the trustees had a drive by assessment done by their agent some weeks ago, in a recent letter from them this week they have stated from the information to hand there is no chance of a dividend being paid. I wonder if they will want a further valuation done or be satisfied with what they have. |
| Bridgewood |
Posted - 25 March 2010 : 16:42:37
Hi Rosies
Thanks for the extra info provided.
If I understand you correctly, your trustee was appointed by the OR at the request of various creditors including Nat West/RBS and that you are concerned that their appointment was "dodgy" in some way.
I think there are two separate issues here - the first one is the appointment of the trustee, and the second one being how it affects you.
As far as the appointment is concerned, you don't really have much say in it I'm afraid. The OR will determine the wishes of creditors and appoint a trustee accordingly. If the OR is satisfied that the creditors nominating Tenon's are valid creditors he will go along with their wishes.
As Jane.l said, it doesn't really make much difference to your bankruptcy if your debts are £84,000 greater than originally estimated as long as you made a full disclosure to the best of your knowledge at the time you were made bankrupt.
I am assuming you are now discharged.
The bigger issue, I think, as far as you are concerned, is how the appointment of a trustee affects you.
The trustee has a duty to get the maximum value he can from your share of the equity in the property, and will require an up to date value of the property. This would be the same irrespective of who the trustee is, and applies even if the OR is dealing with it.
The principle would still be the same - you/the joint owner/your daughter can still make an offer to purchase your interest in the property from the trustee, and it shouldn't be significantly different whoever the trustee is.
If you can't reach an agreement with the trustee there is nothing to stop you canvassing the views of your creditors directly.
Sorry if this was a bit long winded, and I hope it helps, but please post back if there is anything not clear |
| rosies |
Posted - 25 March 2010 : 10:32:37
Thanks Jane there is some equity in my jointly owned property the beneficial interest my daughter was going to buy, this was on figureand values from last year. Obviously the property market has moved slightly and the property is probably worth more this year. |
| rosies |
Posted - 25 March 2010 : 10:30:29
quote:
Originally posted by Jane.l
It does seem a bit iffy to me and forgive my ignorance but if you are bankrupt, what does it matter if this company say you owe £XXX? you will not be paying it back  does not matter if it is 84p or £84million 
I thought a trustee was only appointed if there were assets to be disposed of? Have you any significant assets?
|
| Jane.l |
Posted - 25 March 2010 : 10:09:16
It does seem a bit iffy to me and forgive my ignorance but if you are bankrupt, what does it matter if this company say you owe £XXX? you will not be paying it back does not matter if it is 84p or £84million
I thought a trustee was only appointed if there were assets to be disposed of? Have you any significant assets? |
| rosies |
Posted - 25 March 2010 : 09:18:30
Hi Bridgewood, many thanks for your reply the situation is this, I had gone all the way to the papers being sent to RTLU and the offer for beneficial interest being issued in January and about 10 day later Trustee appointed R S M Tenon.I mentioned a 16 yr old debt which is Nat West bank and involved joint account and an o/d, now in all this time we have only had 2/3 statements butnevre any figures etc, in October lasy year I received a letter from believe it or not TEnon Recoveries acting on behalf of Nat West bank concerning my debt of £84000! requesting ameeting as they thought they may be able to help me..touting for business.
I sent this to my case manager at the OR's office who promtly informed them of my bankruptcy and aftre that never thought anymore of it until this trustees appointment.
You would have thought that if I knew of a debt of this magnitude I would have declared it in my petition, illegal not to.
I spoke to my solicitor and IP who both said that we should question the validity of the appointment as we know that Nat West are probably unable to prove the debt maost of it being apparently overdraft with interest rolled up for 16 yrs and a loan which by their own admission is unenforceble as they do not have the original agreements.My solicitor rang the Trustee who told him that their appointment was due to a majority of creditors objecting and not to a value of debt.I have it on good authority from the OR's office that it was an objection from Nat West due to size of their claim and nominated Tenons to be appointed as Trustee.
What has actually happened is that behind the scenes Tenons have got the list of creditors and have canvassed them all to get the majority hence their answer to my solictor but quite untrue really. You should all know that RSM Tenon are retained by RBS Group and have blanket authority to deal with everything.
We would like to inform the OR of this and were seeking the supporting evidence of Nat West's claim which the Trustees have shyed away from...I wonder why?
As you can see I am quite wound up about this, is it too late to shout FOUL to the OR or is there still time as thre Trustee is about to set his stall out after the Creditors meeting tomorrow to agree the fees!
Sorry to carry on a bit but any help would be appreciated, Trustees hav appointment is definitely flawed. |
| Bridgewood |
Posted - 24 March 2010 : 15:40:54
Hi Rosies
There are numerous reasons why a trustee would be appointed, and a couple of ways for the OR to do it.
If the OR notifies creditors that he does not intend calling a meeting of creditors to appoint a trustee he may decide to appoint the next one on his rota, or he may decide that it is unlikely a trustee would want to be appointed, and keep the case himself.
Any creditor may ask the OR to appoint a trustee, usually on the basis that the creditor believes the trustee will be able to realise assets for their benefit (e.g. an interest in a property)
Generally speaking (although there are exceptions) the OR will only consider appointing a trustee if the creditor is owed more than 25% of the total debts, or, as debtinfo says, if he can get other creditors to support the request.
If you are concerned as to why a creditor wanted a trustee appointed you may ask the OR, but I'm not sure he has to give you a reason.
If you dispute the creditor's claim you should inform the OR of this immediately, but I don't think it would automatically invalidate the trustee's appointment
Hope this helps |
| debtinfo |
Posted - 24 March 2010 : 11:25:18
as long as he can get 50% support from other creditors he can go ahead, it shouldnt make any difference in the long run as all trustees have to follow the same rules |
| rosies |
Posted - 24 March 2010 : 11:18:52
Thanks for the answer, but this particular creditor does not have 50%+ and is also unable to substantiate it fully as it goes back 16yrs. |
| debtinfo |
Posted - 24 March 2010 : 10:39:32
It is perfectly legal, Any creditor with more than 50% by value of the total debts can ask for a differnt IP to be appointed |
|
|
| bankruptcyhelp.org.uk Forum |
© bankruptcyhelp |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
