Whilst this is true I do not think in your instance there are any. I have posted in other threads concering PG's that a Judges view is that 'if it looks like a PG, it says it's a PG then it is a PG' - rightly or wrongly. It is then up to you to prove your case that it isn't. In your instance I do not think there is any arguement at all that the document is a PG. Your only possible arguement could be in the way it was executed and even then I beleive you would struggle. If you went to Court and argued your case in relation to the manner the bank conducted theirselves and lost you could well be liable for their costs as well which could run into 5 figures. As advised previoulsy start negotiating with them. I will PM you a firm you could contact who specialise in this (I have no commercial connection with them)

Unfortunately I can't read the documents you have put up. Are you able to put them up as a PDF? OK I have had a look at the guarantee now. You are on the wrong lines with regards to the above. It actually states You and your co-Director (I assume) will act as Guarantors to xxxxx Bank Plc for the debts 're: xxxxxxxx Ltd'. Also the front page is a summary of your liabilities under the Guarantee. I am aware of this case and this is only applicable if you are not aware that you were guaranteeing a third party debt (to summarise). Clearly by the docuemnt you have signed and the fact that they have instructed you to seek legal independant advice before signing, itis headed Guarantee in capitals you were aware of what you were signing. It is my opinion that you would struggle in any way to get out of the PG on a technicality. Best advice start negotiating with the bank on a repayment plan. Your liability is limited to £25K Sorry can't give more positive news.

If the company is not in any form of insolvency and you have a judgment against the Ltd Company yes you can send a HCEO in. You are an unsecured creditor of the Director

You are unable to pay by credit card and the total fees are £700. Rather than using a company to help you with the paperwork it is relatively easy to do it yourself. However, I am aware of companies that will assist you for less than £500. As you have been correctly told with no surplus income an IVA would be inappropriate and BR seems the best (if not only) option.

Olli - Sorry short of time at moment so will have to be brief The misrepresentation is that the fact that you were signing a PG was not adequately brought to your attention. What they are saying in section 4 ii) is not correct and you need to tell them so. With regards to the rest of their arguements it is all based on you not being a consumer. You need to point out to them that under the ruling in R & B Customs Brokers Company Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd [1987] EWCA Civ 3 you are a consumer and are protected by the rights as detailed in your orginal letter and that you are willing to go to Court to prove this. If you want to make an increased offer to settle that's up to you.

If her name was on the mortgage she is joint and severally liable - meaning she is liable for the full amount of the shortfall.

It is illegal for them to assign the payments made from newco to oldco because it would make them a preferential creditor when they clearly were not. However, I would double check what you actually guaranteed - if you PG'd the historic debt in return for them providing services to newco you may be in difficulty

Further to debtinfo's questions is the business making a profit or is it accruing further losses and incuring further debt? What surplus income would you have after paying normal living expenses (not including debt repayments)?

Gareth Roberts and Paul Ellison of RSM Tenon were appointed administrators for the company. Further details contact: Gareth W Roberts, Email: gareth.roberts@rsmtenon.com, Tel: 0118 9530 350.

Not sure if this is old news or not but is certainly good news

Although I beleive it is never advisable to speak to creditors in this instance it might just be worth trying to speak with a human being and informing them of the situation and asking them to update their records. If they ask for proof of the liquidation point them inn the direction of the Companies House website. I have used this approach previouy for clients and it seems to do the trick. I would also check that the invoices were in fact in the company name. If they were you have nothing to worry about and that is your defence if they do in fact issue proceedings

Yes it's an offer to settle - for you to pay them the £8K over the next 23 years!!!! Personally I would reject it and if you do want to settle and have it done with make them a counter offer on your terms or wait for the outcome of the strike out hearing

No this won't have a bearing on it as in their eyes the debt is due and only becomes statute barred after 6 years. This is the reason I belive they are unwilling to test the case in court with the arguements that you have presented to them. If they lose it opens a whole can of worms for them which is why they would prefer to do a deal and accept a substantially lower amount

They would then need to start a claim in the County Court

He's a very informative post from debtinfo regarding PPI post BR from another Board. The Halifax have acted perfectly correctly and the money is due to the OR and not yourself Ok then PPI, (that is payment protection insurance) and bankruptcy, or more specifically reclaiming PPI and bankruptcy. Please note this is not about if you are eligible (in terms of if you have been miss-sold) as that is not my area and there is plenty of advice on that elsewhere, probably elsewhere on this site in fact. So for the purpose of this lets just assume that you have been miss-sold and that there is a potential to make a claim against a bank. It has been asked many times recently if you can reclaim the PPI on credit agreements if you have been made bankrupt, and more importantly for some people, whether you can keep any pay out. The first thing to understand is why a claim can be made in the first place. If it has been miss-sold to you then there has been damage caused to you estate (your finances) and so you had a right to take action in court to seek recompense. This is called a right of action. Next to look at is when this right came into being. It comes into being when you signed that contract where the miss-selling was done, from that point onwards the right or action (ROA) comes into being. Next is to see how that ROA interacts with bankruptcy, when you go bankrupt it is the default position that all of your assets transfer to the trustee of your bankruptcy unless there is a specific provision otherwise (for instance there is a specific position that you get to keep all your basic living goods). Now in the definition of what is an asset in bankruptcy it includes “Things in action”. An ROA is a “Thing in action” and therefore is an asset. So to summarise the ROA is an Asset and that asset is created when you signed the credit agreement. Being that in these instances the PPI claims we are talking about are all on credit agreements signed before the bankruptcy then these PPI claims are all assets and they all vest with the trustee of your bankruptcy. This means that not only do you not have the right to receive the monies from any claim but that you also do not have the right to make the claim, That right passed to the trustee and so it is the trustees right whether to take it forward or not, the claim now belongs to them. As far as I last heard the Insolvency service is trialling using a solicitors firm to take batches of these claims forward en masse to the banks and therefore if you have already made the claim and pocketed the cash there is a good chance that the IS will at some point try and cash in the claim and therefore realise that you already have. At that point they will have the option of recovering it from you.

Can't see any reason not to sign the Consent Order. It means that they agree that this should be heard in the County Court.

Olli - I would do 2 letters. One conrtaining youir arguements as to why you do not believe the PG to be valid as per post 13 and another offering a settlement. I would mark the settlement letter 'without prejudice save as to costs'. In the first letter also state that you note that they are intending to serve you with a Stat Demand and that they should take this letter as formal notification that this matter disputes their claim and that should they issue you with a SD you will apply have it set aside and their actions amount to an abuse of process. Further you will produce as copy of this letter at the set aside hearing and apply for costs against them

Olli - I have spoken to a few lawyers about these PG's recently and all but one have said to me 'if it says guarantee on what you are signing that's what you are signing' so in this instance it says you are signing a credit guarantee and therefore liable. Personally I think there line of thinking is a load of bollox and you need to challenge the validity of it using my arguements posted in post 13 of this thread. Be prepared to do a deal with them though as if it goes to court you need to be very sure of your arguments and you might come up against a judge who has the same line of thinking as lawyers.

Teebos - good news on that result. 75% discount with a time to pay arrangement isa result. Olli - Could you post up a copy of the account opening form as I have had a look at the one on the CFF website and that clearly contians a PG. As yours was signed in 2006 I am guessing it is signficantly different. Remember to remove all personal information

Tawny sorry to hear of the heart attack and the ruined breakfast! Hope your on the mend now. You could adapt something to send them from this letter below. Also you need to put a defence into the claim stating that it was included in your BR and therefore you are not liable for it and ask for the case to be dismissed Pursuit of a debt included in a bankruptcy. Do not ignore this letter. You must cease collection activity IMMEDIATELY. Dear Sir/Madam Account No: ***************** You have contacted us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by ourselves. I would point out that the account was included in my bankruptcy which commenced on . Consequently, the debt in question is no longer my legal responsibility. ALL contacts and claims regarding the debt MUST be addressed to the Official Receiver's Office dealing with the case. My case was XXX of 200X, at County Court, and the address of the Official Receiver is below. A copy of the bankruptcy order is enclosed for your convenience. Please note that the Official Receiver has requested that all future contact from your company regarding these accounts is reported and forwarded to themselves, and that continued contact with myself may result in Official Receiver taking enforcement actions against your organisation. Please also note that we are familiar with the ‘Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance’ which states that it is unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when the debt is not due. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods. Furthermore, ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment. This type of debt collection method is contrary to the ‘Administration of Justice Act 1970’ in that it is intended to cause alarm and distress to the recipient. Your methods will not be tolerated. A formal complaint will be submitted to the relevant authorities. This will be relevant to questions of your fitness to hold a licence under the Consumer Credit Act, whether or not it results in a prosecution. We await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed and you have withdrawn your case and that a Notice of Discontinuance has been applied for. We look forward to your reply. Yours faithfully

May well be worth pointing this out to the bank but I am surprised there was no charge registered by them. Maybe worth double checking on Companies House if one was. You will still be able to check the filing history of the company even though it has been disolved. Point 5 doesn't seem to apply becuase the bank aren't really any of the things mentioned. It is worth asking the bank why they are still operating the account when clearly they shouldn't be

should not have offered a loan to a ltd co they knew full well was insolvent - depends what they were told about the company future orders, could the company be turned around etc should not have accepted only one signatory as guarantor and on dd mandate when both directors had to sign - Just because the bank mandate needed two signatures does not mean that the loan needed two gurantors should not have used some small credit amounts from company savings accounts to reduce loan - after dissolution - depends if they had a charge/debenture over the company in any case should have frozen accounts after dissolution and come after me personally Above in red are my thoughts. Have you a copy of the agreement you could post up?

Gaston is right, you would struggle to argue against what you signed here if they are able to come up with the original to prove that it was one document and that they are able to amend their pleading to a guarantee rather than a credit agreement.

Do not really have the answer to this for you but could you not try Paypal?

With regards to the business question as long as you have do not have a BRO after discharge you can become a Director again as soon as you have been discharged. With regards to your credit file this will be the same as Stigman says six years. You can apply for credit in the normal way but obvioulsy if they do a personal search on the Directors of the company your BR will show up but you do not have to declare your BR for credit over £500 as you do when you are undicharged