There seem to be two important issues you didnt take into account about your case. Firstly the OFT guidelines are GUIDELINES they are not the law. The Court is only concerned with the law, they can be influenced by statuatory bodies guidelines but they don't hold any legal standing. Secondly you've found out a core problem people use to avoid debts. "I didnt get the letter". The courts only require evidence of SENDING, not receipt as it is assumed that letters are received. Given your argument was that many letters were not received (seems every letter the other side claims you claim never arrived) which in a judges eyes will quickly flag you up as unreliable as a witness - that alone will destroy your case. The most surprising part of the judgement is that the judge decided the early termination charge was a financial penalty and unenforceable, did Lowell's barrister not argue that it was in fact what it is - recovery of the "phone subsidy"?

They don't do so without impunity. Its hard to explain just how heavily regulated the industry is to someone outside of it. 100% call recording, clients who class an unjustified complaint as a black mark against an agent/DCA, instructions to accept any repayment offer even when you can prove the debtor is lying, etc, etc, etc. There is no impunity in the industry. Of course, there are rogue agents (most collectors earn less than £18k pa with a couple of hundred bonus every odd month) and rogue agencies (who get fined and/or closed down). The banks withdraw business from DCAs all the time based on failures of compliance which are treated incredibly seriously.

There would be a difference between something stated in a explanatory leaflet and what is actually recorded on a credit file.

Doing something illegal (as the issues I've seen reported here) doesn't make individuals achieving F&F invalid.

Id be very interested to see a scan of that then, Ive seen a lot of credit reports in my time but never seen partial settlement noted anywhere.

There is no such status as "Partially Settled" on any credit file. once it is Defaulted the only ammendment which would be made is that the debt is Settled/Satisfied without any indication of how much was paid to settle the balance. If a partial paytment is accepted as Full and Final Settlement then it is both full (credit rating shows settled) and Final (no further pursuit the remaining balance is voided). It would be illegal to pursue the remaining balance. Im sure there are cases where it has happened but this will be due to human error not deliberate miscreance. Anyone doing such would be shut down VERY fast by the OFT.

I dont expect anyone would argue that PEOPLE don't lie.

Many basic utility providers have specific legislation which allows them to obtain the equivalent of a court judgement without it going to court or at least "signed by book" by which a batch of cases are signed off by a sheriff or judge without any individual calls being made or the individuals being specifically notified. I have no idea how English water companies function and theres no such thing in Scotland, but Scottish Power can undertake a number of actions without the same court process required by, for example, a bank. Same with council tax. In all honesty it seems outdated given that English water companies are privatised but im sure they will fight to retain their rights to such actions. HOWEVER, read the letter carefully or scan it in and upload it because there are lots of ways for them to APPEAR to have a CCJ when they don't especially for the uninitiated.

If the individual owns the shares they are an asset which is a basis for recovery.

That advice to the OP suggests that a creditor cannot leverage his company value against his debt. But its not true for the reasons I explained above. I mentioned bankruptcy because its the easiest way for a creditor to leverage a cash rich company (as he describes his company as able to provide him a future income this is a reasonable assumption) an individual owns against a debt the individual is responsible for. There are methods to obtain court order for payment short of bankruptcy but as they are convoluted a creditor who decides to go down this route would issue a bankruptcy petition against the individual. It sounds like a shell company but perhaps it isnt. That wont actually matter to a creditor, he is the sole employee and, presumably, the sole shareholder.

Im getting the impression that Im actually missing your point and i reread the last few posts and still dont see what your meaning. A Settlement is a partial payment to clear the debt and restore a credit file. Paying a balance is called a Payment In Full. Industry standard terms A credit rating does not show in any way whether an account which is Settled/Satisfied was part paid or fully paid, defaulted or not. There is no way to tell from an individuals credit file.

Settled and Satisfied are the status used on credit reference reports which are replaced today with (S) Settled/Satisfied or just (S) Settled. In any case they never meant that a partial settlement was received - Settled meant resolved without default, Satisfied meant resolved post default. But as an incentive to create payment of debt, these seperated statuses were merged. And this was years ago, well over a decade. What is your source for this statistic? It smacks of "making stuff up".

OK Ill clarify. If the individual benefitting from a tax avoidance shell company is the only or main shareholder (extremely likely) that shareholding is an asset. In the event of that individuals bankruptcy that shareholding is passed to the Official Receiver who would, in all likelihood, liquidate the company to pay off the bankrupts debts. If the entire shareholding is outside the individuals name, this can be avoided but only if that has been the case for at least the last 6 years.

You are correct that debts of the Ltd Company can only be pursued versus the assets of the Ltd Company. But thats not the OPs question. He's asking if his asset (the business) can be pursued for his Personal debts. It can. Of course if its a family member who owns the business and he has not had any ownership interest for at least 6 years this is moot. My assumption is that he is the shareholder as well as director (it sounds likely). Whether they will or not, of course, is the risk. Personally I'd await a court summons for bankruptcy proceedings then agree to pay (probably at a small additional cost for initial solicitors costs) or take a Settlement if its attractive. Initial cost to the stage of issuing a summons shouldnt exceed £600. Obviously if the bankruptcy is declared the Receiver will get his £12k as well as the creditors getting their money.

Surely their argument is that this company is an asset owned and controlled by the individual and as such can be considered in terms of an individuals means to repay debt. If they have already gone to this trouble they may be considering an enforced bankruptcy so the Receiver is responsible for disposing of the assets in favour of creditors. If it is a substantial debt (or the creditor is Amex) then this needs to be considered.