hi The Ghost, have you found anything else? thanks

The Ghost - I don't think this is the BArlcays case referred to by Tingy and others earlier in this thread....do you have any other Barclays cases that may apply?

So does anyone (ghost or any other Cagger) have a link with more details of the oft-quoted but not found (certainly not by me at least!) 'Barclays' case??? This has now been quoted on a couple of occasions within this thread but I cannot find any trace of this elsewhere on this site or otherwise. Can anyone provide more infor for the benefit of all on this site? thanks

Hi sequenci - any further thoughts on this matter yet? thanks

billyray - it has NOT reset the clock. the 6 years is from the date of the last payment you make. Selling the debt has absolutely no effect on this. The credit reporting agencies have to remove any defaults markers and traces of the debt after this period of time. It is NOT a new debt and you need to highlight this to all concerned when the time is right. king123 is correct though, you should post this as a new thread. best of luck with getting it resolved.

Hi king123, Most of them had at some point made an offer to consider short settlement but had not made any specific offer that was taken up by me and no specific previous correspondence was tied in to the full and final settlement that was made in the end in each case i.e. no specific agreement was reached before cheques and letter were sent by the 3rd party relating to each of my accounts.

HI horsemad1, The letter looks fine although I am not sure why you even need to mention the following: 1. True copy of original signed executed credit agreement 2. Copy of the executed deed of assignment from Northern Rock 3. A fair processing notice. If you mention these then surely it justs presents them with an avenue to reopen a discussion on whther you owe a debt or not. The salient point is that the debt has been fully and finally settled. End of. Whether there actually was an enforceable debt, etc. is now irrelevant because by their conduct in cashing a 3rd party cheque sent in full and final settlement that was accompanied by a letter with clear and unequivocal terms of settlement should they cash the cheque and then no rejection from them at all or within a resonable period of time, they have demonstrated that the settlement was full and final. Hence no obligation to them from you exists any longer. I appreciate you may be trying a belt and braces approach but in a way you may be weakening or losing some of the strneght of your argument. Maybe not though, others may nnot see it this way. But it seems best to mu mind to keep it simple and focused on the fact that it was a valid full and final settlement and the argument stops there. Either way, I don't think they can do much and are merely making noise to see if they can push you into some action that benefits them. I would just continue to hold firm if I were you. Good luck with it whichever way you choose to respond.

Sequenci - thanks for looking into this further. I agree that Welby v Drake may apply to a 3rd party payment. But have you had any further thoughts on specifically how The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 might apply in this situation? i.e. does the creditor, by ignoring the terms of the new contract made with the debtor's third party representative (via the letter and cheque, when the cheque is cashed and the offer not rejected in sufficient time or at all), breach the terms of the contract by not recognising full and final settlement, thereby denying the rights of the 3rd party to this new contract (i.e. the original debtor) and therefore be open to legal remedy due to the tenets of The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999? In other words, I could see how Welby v Drake and Bracken v Billinghurst would show that the creditor was committing a fraud against the 3rd party who was party to the new contract with the creditor but is there also an angle for the original debtor to take action as the 3rd party to the new contract?

Linda - without wanting to be overly critical, how what percentage of the proceeds from this book are you donating to CAG? I notice the reviews on Amazon.co.uk all give 5 stars out of 5 and all of the reviewers have only reviewed your books!! Isn't that a bit amateur? At least make it a bit more convincing if you write your own reviews on Amazon, or are the reviewers all members of your fanclub?! In all seriousness, I would be disappointed if you seek to profit from a collation & regurgitation of material contained on this website. Surely the intention is to help indebted people, many of whom have their backs to the wall and are in a desparate situation.....if you have benefitted from this site then why seek to profit from it and the misfortune of others? You could simply provide the advice free and not charge for it.

BD - would love to attend your bash, if for no other reason than to have a valet park my zimmer! You could also try to do a full and final for a very low amount to each of your remaing creditors/their DCAs using the methods we have all discussed within this thread (i.e. via a 3rd party) so that you don't have to wait another 1980 months but only 72 at the most!!

Hi horsemad1, AIC are a joke. They have threatened me in the past a number of times on behalf of various creditors and each time I have called their bluff and they have backed off rather quickly or never been heard from again. I would stand strong on this one and, as you suggest, ask for proof of delivery of their supposed letter. You may also wish to remind them that manufacturing such letter is illegal and that you will happily and promptly report them to the financial ombudsman, OFT, trading standards and if necessary the courts of law if they continue to assert this when it is incorrect. Very likely they will then blame the other DCA or at least state that they will check with them for proof so they can extricate themselves from any suggestion of fraudulent activity on their part. I very much doubt they will proceed any further with it anyway.

Hi Iain - settlement was made in all but one of my cases with the OC, only one DCA. I won't quote the exact percentage but it was small (well below 10% in each case). Most of them had at some point made an offer to consider short settlement but had not made a specific offer that was taken up and tied in to the full and final settlement that was made in the end. There were several rejections and in one case it was rejected but then accepted when a 3rd party cheque and accompanying letter with the terms laid out by the 3rd party were resent shortly after the initial rejection. Some of the OCs have correctly recognised now after a significant amount of post-settlement correspondence that the debt is fully and finally settled and have amended the corresponding entry at the DCA. Some have marked the debt as settled at the DCA but have not removed the default markers and some are still being battled and do not recognise it as of yet. It is important to note that whilst my credit file is still not in great shape (because of course even one default marker is a virtual death knell to a credit record or at least entails that any credit granted will be on very punitive terms), it is much better than before reaching full and final settlements with my former creditors and most importantly, none of then have sought to chase me in court or in any other meaningful way. I very strongly believe that if they had any grounds at all to do so then they would have by now. Although in a worse case scenario I might have to wait a few more years for a clean credit record again, I feel much happier now that the debts are settled and that I cannot be legally forced to make any more payments. I am looking into the ins and outs of having the creditors recognise these settlements fully and in line with the agreed terms so that I can have my credit file cleaned more quickly but the main benefit is that I don't have to stress anymore about debts owed. As a final point, you mention partial settlement - I would not bother with that and go for full and final settlement if I were you, to avoid any possibility that they or any DCAs they pass it on to may chase you in the future for any remaining balance. Good luck with it all.

BD - like I said, very happy that you have found success with your efforts to settle your issues. On the note of moral obligation, I will be honest and state that part of me would of course like to pay as little as possible but despite that I do have a (I believe at least!) fairly high moral code too and was quite prepared for a very long time to pay what I saw as a fair amount. However the credit companies generally do not, in my experience, have any such moral code and any attempts on my part to reach a genuine agreement prior to my final approach merely resulted in them attempting to completely screw me irrespective of the end results for me or for my family. I therefore have very little sympathy for them and know for a fact that they play a numbers game that involves squeezing the most that they can from each consumer. Anyway, best of luck with resolving your remaining issues.

Sequenci - is there a clear legal definition (either statute or case law) that defines a loan or credit card as a bill of exchange or a promissory note or any other negotiable instrument? If so where is this? Or are you referring to the fact that a cheque was used in the full and final settlement? If the latter, then I query how it applies as the contract in question relates to a credit card or loan debt. Not to a cheque. The contract terms were contained and verified in the letter accompanying the cheque, whilst the cheque was used to make payment (to give consideration to the creditor for accepting part payment of the alleged debt as full and final settlement) as per the terms of the contract, not as a contract in itself. By cashing the cheque and by not rejecting the payment and contract offer in sufficient time, the creditor demonstrated by its conduct that the contract was accepted and binding. By then failing to honour this contract, the creditor has created a situation whereby the third party is to have a right to enforce a term of the contract. This may be incorrect logic (if indeed the exclusion noted above does in fact apply to 3rd party settlement by cheque) or untested. Do you know if it is explicitly stated or demonstrated that the exclusion does relate to a contract in which payment is made by a cheque rather than the cheque itself being the contract? In my view, the exclusion applies or is intended to apply to a contract that dictates funds should be transferred from one party to another. Not to a contract that sets out terms but then uses a cheques merely as a method to transfer payment (i.e. confer consideration from the promisee to the promissor). With a cheque there are three parties - the person holding the bank account who gives the cheque (the drawer), the party the cheque is made out to (the payee) and the drawer's bank which promises to pay the money to the payee (the drawee). I believe the Act may in fact have been intending to exclude the drawee from enforcing a right under this Act, as a cheque is generally used as a contractual payment between the payer and payee. I appreciate that it could be argued that as the cheque is referred to in the letter and as the acceptance of full and final settlement is partly contingent upon the cheque not being cashed and returned, that the Act may then be viewed as applicable but is there anything that clearly and beyond doubt illustrates this? Anyone have any thoughts on this?

whilst waiting for sequenci's feedback on the questions I raised, does anyone else out there have specific answers to any of these points? thanks