Thanks but Im not doing this to get the debt written off, The Halifax have been a right pain in the ar*se about getting a reduced payment plan agreed and would not freeze interest when I explained my dire financial circumstances, all the while piling interest and charges on and so the amount I paid each month was eaten up by interest and what was owing increased????!! So, its about having a bargaining tool to use to get a low full and final settlement to get rid of this debt and these robbing b*stards once and for all.....

http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp8/julieh2/HalaifaxreconstitutedCCAfrontsid-1.jpg http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp8/julieh2/ReconstitutedCCA.jpg http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp8/julieh2/Responsetoreconstitutedccabackpage.jpg http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp8/julieh2/Halifaxlettertellingmeitiscompliant.jpg These any better??? Ha yeah, I've got loads of Horse crap!!!

Oh crap! I'll try again....

This is their response to my last letter. What should be my response???

[/ATTACH] This is what i receeived in response to my CCA request

ALL VERY QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT - not a dickie bird from anyone? Thought I might have had a few threats of legal action for the balance from some of them, but nothing?! Do you think they've realised they can't do anything about it now and given up???!

Awww thank you both for your kind comments but its The Mould who should take credit for it really. BD Crap 1 was one of my creditors and they cashed the cheque, so could be worth a shot for you? Egg were also but they returned the cheque, so they are one of my 'to contend with' debts still, however, it has been passed around from one DCA to another and then back to Egg again. Im waiting for the next DCA to start chasing and I'll do the same, sooner or later one of them will accept it.....

Hey BD, only just read your posts - sorry. I agree with Mould, I can only state what happened in my circumstance and yes there were varying factors that made the settlements binding, however, you are always onto a good start if you know from the outset that the debt is unenforceable because the likelihood of them taking Court action at any point would be minimal. Also I have diputed these debts for years without any resolution in sight but to be honest, it was my OH who wanted it all cleared up one way or another and thats why we decided this was the best option. There will be a way for you to do this Im sure, you just need to make sure you have crossed all the t's and dotted the i's before you send any money. Mould is the expert on the ins and out of it and I can advise on what i did if you want me too.. Let us know

Basically as long as your letter accompanying the cheque lays out very clear terms eg. Only bank this cheque if you want to be bound by these terms (name your terms) and states "Without admission of liability to the amount claimed" as long as they bank it the contract is then created and no rejection letter or refund from them afterwards will make any difference.

For all you doubters of The Moulds knowledge on contract Law and Full and Final settlements, this is for you: I went and asked a Solicitor for advice, due to the OH also being cynical about this working. I showed him the letters and he said "The contract was made upon them receiving and banking the cheque, the terms in my letter were very very clear and furthermore should they be foolish enough to try to pursue the balance in Court, they would not win as my Defence is complete in Law". So I may still have a fight on my hands to get my credit files cleaned up, but effectively I have now had around £55k legally extinguished.... Around, 80% of my debts (Yes it was that much). There are a few more to contend with, but am no longer worried, as I will use the same method. Thanks to all who contributed to this thread but in particular The Mould who has only ever offered help, advice and support, you have undoubtedly saved my life in more ways than you could ever know and for that I will be eternally grateful.

Of course not - they are never wrong are they???!! Except this time they've admitted it in writing - doh!

Had a weekend off from it all and feel better about everything this week. Have had 6 responses (3 weeks after banking my cheques) from differents DCA's to my last letter, all offering me a refund as they banked my Fathers cheque 'by mistake'! OOPS silly DCA's - do you think they have finally read and understood the terms in my letters and therefore have realised theyv'e made a HUGE mistake?!!

Not only that the last letter I sent to all them actually stated that I would follow pre-action protocol and then court if no satisfactory reponse from them within 7 days. Surely I have to follow through don't i? Mould Please advise what my response should be. Thanks

MINT & Moorcroft Debt Recovery, not worried about Moorcroft as seen them off many times with other accounts. However, just want it finished, accounts closed and credit files reflecting this, otherwise would have just ignored them for 6 years. My worry now is if we ignore them, they will just sell on the remaining balance, which was not the point of doing this. I am prepared to go to court if necesscary and would like it legally cancelled so without going to Court how do we get them to do this?

letter posted yesterday

There are some personal details that people do not want to post in an open forum for their own reasons and for possible 'prying eyes' of creditors and for that reason pm's are a good thing. With regard to the pm's I have sent and recived from The Mould, his help and advice has been invaluable in my own personal debt hell and as far as his intentions being questionable, my own experience of him is that he is only out to help in whatever way he can and for that I have nothing but respect for him.

First response received the DCA has totally ignored the last letter I sent recorded delivery and sent there usual threatogram of notice of possible litigation and to send payment before 12/6/10. Mould, what pre-action protocol should I folllow or should I just start a claim in County Court?

For those companies that actually banked the cheques, this was the follow up letter I have sent to them all and as yet am awaiting a response from any of them: "REFERENCE: LEGALLY BINDING FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS To whom it may concern, FOR YOUR ATTENTION: The rule at law, case law in Full and Final Settlements. (408yrs of case law) The foundation to the rule in law to this complex subject has been held in the High Courts and upheld in the Court of Appeal. The said foundation is as follows: The circumstances in which you (dodgy DCA & Unscrupulous bank), the creditor, will be bound by a cheque made out in 'Full and Final Settlement are: 1. The cheque is offered in circumstances where there is a dispute about the amount owed/the account. 2. The offer in 'Full and Final Settlement' of the dispute is made at the time the cheque is presented. 3. You present the cheque in payment and it is duly honoured, you present the cheque in payment and it is stopped or does not clear. 4. At the same time of or prior to presenting the cheque you fail to inform the payer that the cheque is not accepted in 'Full and Final'. 5. You present a cheque in 'Full and Final' that is offered 'Without any admission of liability to the amount claimed'. 6. You present the cheque for payment and it is from a third party. 7. You present the cheque for payment and ignore the clause in the settlement offer to return the said cheque if you do not accept the settlement terms. 8. You present the cheque when it is offered unequivocally in 'Full and Final'. Otherwise, as the Court of Appeal explained, 'Paying in and clearance of the cheque is a clear and unequivocal acceptance..', furthermore, if a creditor should bank a cheque from a third party in 'Full and Final Settlement' of a sum (whether or not disputed) owed by your debtor you will have signified acceptance of it as discharge of the debt. Please see Hirachand Punamchand v Temple. In a recent case Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled that acceptance of the settlement agreement had been completed by the creditor's conduct of paying in the cheque into the debtor's account, this was a clear, unequivocal and qualified acceptance of the settlement offer and the terms of the said offer by conduct. In this particular case, the cheque payment was stopped, but the Court ruled that the Settlement was still good. My father (the third party) has informed me that the funds have cleared out of his account. The rule at law on this complex subject holds in my favour, your actions of presenting the third party cheque enclosed with my letter of Full and Final Settlement Offer dated (17th May 2010) constituted a clear, unequivocal and qualified acceptance by conduct of the terms that the said cheque was tendered by, I do not legally or otherwise owe any further monies to you and this is an indisputable fact. I respectfully request that you honour your now legal obligations under that instrument to which you are bound by in law and up-date my credit files and your internal record of my account as per the terms that you have agreed to contained in the said Settlement offer letter. It seems to me that you fail to comprehend the language of the terms in my Full and Final Settlement offer, even though those said terms are unambiguous, therefore, I strongly recommend that you seek advice from your legal representatives, undoubtedly they will inform you that you nor anyone else have any legal right to pursue me for the balance, you nor anyone else have any legal right to claim ownership of the balance as the account has now been legally terminated and the debt has been discharged by virtue of your conduct in direct relation to my Full and Final Settlement offer. If you fail to perform your obligations under the terms of the Settlement agreement that you have accepted within the next seven (7) days, then I shall follow Pre - Action Protocol and if there is still no positive result forthcomming from you I will commence with legal action against you for breach of contract. I look forward in anticipation of being in receipt of your positive and swift response to this communication".

This was the 2nd letter used with cheque payment attached: "REFERENCE: FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT PAYMENT DCA Ref: xxxxxxxxxx Note: For the purposes of this communication, 'I', 'Me', 'My', shall mean, (xxxxxxx), 'You', 'Your organization', shall mean; (dodgy DCA acting on behalf of unscrupulous bank), you, your personnel and associated companies. To whom it may concern, Despite recent discussion and correspondence, you and me appear to be deadlocked in this dispute regarding the above account. In sending this communication to you, which is my further but absolute final attempt to obtain an amicable, mutually agreeable, satisfactory and honourable closure to the entirety of all matters that relate between you and me, I respectfully invite you to kindly afford your consideration to my proposal in order to secure that said closure for both your organization and my household. Enclosed/attached to this letter is a cheque payment for the sum of £xxxxxthat is offered to you in Full and Final Settlement of the account without any admission of liability to the amount claimed. The said enclosed cheque payment is offered only in Full and Final payment to the account, with the further conditions that should you accept the said cheque payment, then you agree that no further monies are required to the account and that the balance of the account will be put to zero and the account will be closed, furthermore, should you accept this settlement offer, then you also agree to make an entry on my credit reference files removing all adverse data and to show the status of this account as closed, settled and balance £0. If you are not willing to accept the said cheque settlement payment enclosed, under these terms that the said cheque is tendered by, then I respectfully ask you to return the said enclosed cheque within seven (7) days of taking receipt of this communication. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that my mind is fully furnished with the knowledge of my legal rights regarding improperly executed credit agreements, the credit agreement to this account is heavily flawed and certainly does not comply with legislation contained in the Consumer Credit Act 1974, therefore the credit agreement to this account is in a permanent state of being unenforceable at law. I respectfully ask of you to absorb that indisputable fact while you give your consideration to my Full and Final Settlement payment proposal, this offer will not be repeated after the end of this month (May 2010) as the funds that have been made available to make this offer to you, will no longer be available from that point onwards. If this offer is not accepted for whatever reason, then I would like to inform you that my household will have no problem ignoring your organization for the next six (6) yrs, and at that time this improperly executed and unenforceable agreement will have of developed into a state of statute barred. Furthermore, if your organization or the third party acting on your behalf continues to send letters to my household intimating that you can take action against me regarding this account, then you should be aware that to do so would constitute an offence under the Malicious Communications Act, moreover and of equal importance, if your organization or the third party continue to make those threats of legal action, you will be also committing an offence under the Fraud Act as well as being in breach of regulations governed by the OFT. I am sure that you will agree, that given the circumstances between your organization and me this does indeed seem to be the most suitable way to end this dispute. I would like to express my gratitude to you in advance for your consideration to this communication. I look forward in anticipation of being in receipt of your response".

Here is the templated letter I used in the first instance for the unenforceable debts. "Without Prejudice I write with reference to the money which you are claiming on the above account. I can confirm that I am unable to offer to pay the money which I owe in full, due to being in financial difficulty, furthermore following my requests you and xxxx have failed to supply me with a compliant true and certified copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement for this account which therefore renders it unenforceable at law. However, with the help of a family member I can raise £xxxxx and I want to offer this an ex-gratia payment in full and final settlement of the account. This offer is made on the clear understanding that, if accepted, neither you nor any associate company will take any other action to enforce or pursue this debt in any way whatsoever and that I will be released for any liability. I also request that, if accepted, you will make an entry on a credit reference agency file relating to the above account as "satisfied" in full and any default notices be removed due to the ‘disputed’ status of this account. Payment can be made by the 30th July 2010 and would request receiving your written agreement of this offer and method of payment. I look forward to receiving your reply". However The Mould pointed out that it states 'the money which I owe' on it although it does not state that it is in agreement an is therefore ambiguous, but should be superseded with the next letter.

No probs Mould, youv'e been there when i needed you. I'll gladly do the same. Saw your post about pm's, not sure why there should be a problem with them? anyhow, will post all info up.

Might be worth trying to negotiate a settlement with the OC but make it a condition that you want the judgement set aside. Make it clear the money is coming from a relative or someone other than you though. Good luck.

Was the debt sold onto a DCA, if so was there a proper assignment of the debt? I was being taken to Court by a DCA but there had been no proper assignment and so I was able to negotiate an out of court settlement, however I applied for the judgement set aside first and settled out of court before the hearing with the condition that they wrote to the court agreeing to the judgement set aside and CRA's would be updated.

Here is my response: I am in receipt of your letter dated 25th May 2010 regarding the above account.Further to my request dated 29th April 2010 under s78 of the consumer credit act, for a true copy of any credit agreement that you may hold, I have to date only received current terms and conditions[/font] which you will be aware does not constitute an executed agreement. It is not sufficient for you to claim that you would have had an executed agreement signed. That document needs to physically exist, for 6 years after the account has been closed. Contrary to your comments, Halifax have not complied with the terms of CCA 1974 s78. A reconstruction does not comply with your duties to supply a “True Copy” of any agreement you claim to have been signed by me.In a recent letter from the enforcement department of the OFT, the text below was quoted, explaining what is required.“The copy of the executed agreement need not be an exact copy but it must be a ‘true copy’ and not some reconstruction of what the original might have been and it must contain the same terms as the original. Where the terms have been varied as provided for within the agreement, the copy of the original agreement must be accompanied by a document setting out the current terms, as varied. Certain details may be omitted from the original agreement eg the signature but the debtor must be in no doubt as to the true nature of his obligations under the loan. Should no original agreement be in existence it is very hard to say that the copy the creditor offers to the debtor is, in fact, a true copy as there would be no original with which to compare it. In our view the onus of proof would be on the creditor to show that the copy is a true one and where none existed he may have difficulty discharging this. Neither should creditors suggest that a consumer has signed a credit agreement where they are unable to provide evidence to support this — to do so is likely to be a misleading action under Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs) and would also constitute an unfair or improper business practice.” I refer you also to the information below.[/font] 1. A valid credit agreement must contain certain terms within the signature document (s.60(1)(2) CCA 1974). These core terms are the credit limit, repayment terms and the rate of interest (SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms must be within the signature document. (Column 2 schedule 6). s.61(1)(a) states the agreement must contain all the prescribed terms and be signed by both the debtor and on behalf of the creditor. 2. Further, s.127(3) CCA 1974 makes the account unenforceable if it is not in the proper form and content or improperly executed In Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) it was stated “In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties … and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s.61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement”. 2. The need for prescribed terms to be contained in the credit agreement is confirmed by the Author of the CCA1974 act, I quote ““As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97. Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed.” - 167 Justice of the Peace (2003) 773.”[/font] You have confirmed that what you have sent me you believe to be a true copy of the credit agreement that exists in relation to this account. As you have sent this document in response to my requests under Section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, then this statement by you is now binding on you as per section 172 of the Act.[/font] Section 172 states: 172 Statements by creditor or owner to be binding (1) A statement by a creditor or owner is binding on him if given under— section 77(1), section 78(1), section 79(1), section 97(1), section 107(1)©, section 108(1)©, or section 109(1)©. THIS MEANS THAT THE DOCUMENT YOU HAVE SENT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT YOU MAY NOW RELY ON IN ANY ATTEMPT AT ENFORCING THIS ALLEGED DEBT. Any further documentation you may present is irrelevant as you did not provide it in response to my lawful request. This debt is completely unenforceable under S127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 is clear on what agreements must contain in order to be enforceable, even in court. At the very least, an agreement must contain the following within the signature document to be enforceable, even in court: A credit limit or a statement as to how this will be determined. An APR. A schedule of repayments. These are the prescribed terms as required by the Act and subsequent Regulations. There are also many other things, which are called required terms, that should be in an agreement. These include: Details of default charges. Statements of protection for customers. The agreement you have sent me does not include all of the information needed to make it enforceable, and therefore it is completely unenforceable under Section 127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. If you deny that the document you have sent me fails to comply with the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In that case, given the facts I have outlined above, perhaps you could direct me to all of the prescribed and required terms in the agreement you have sent me. I think you will find that they are not there. I expect Halifax to comply with my outstanding request within 7 days to produce a copy of an executable agreement.After that I will consider that the above matter is closed and that you will no longer pursue the alleged debt.If you are insisting that the non enforceable document, that you have supplied, is the only alleged agreement in your possession, then I would suggest that the best course of action would be to immediately set the balance of the above account number to zero, and remove any adverse data that you may have registered with credit reference agencies.

Cheers MM, thats was my thoughts too, just wanted it confriming what I was thinking. Am ready to play hard ball now then!