There response to my email and my next email reply to this has without prejudice on
Thank you for your email, and firstly I apologise for the delay in coming back to you.
Before I refer to the question of settlement figures, there is one point that should be addressed first namely the question of the default entry. As much as agreeing to the removal of that entry in all probability would smooth the way to a negotiated settlement I regret I cannot agree to this. The issues you have previously raised regarding this subject do not negate the fact that a notice was served, and in consequence we are under an obligation to report the status of this account truthfully to the credit reference agencies. To provide them with inaccurate information, or to remove that entry without proper justification, would place us in breach of our reporting obligations and could render us liable to any organisation that relied on the information we provide, or that the entry was removed, could result in proceedings being brought against us for damages. Therefore at best if the sum outstanding were paid in full the entry would be marked as “satisfied”, or alternatively if a reduced sum were accepted in settlement it would be marked as “partially satisfied”. In fairness to you I felt it important to provide this information early on in this round of discussions.
I completely echo your view that an agreed settlement is far more desirable than going down the litigation route from both our points of view.
As I have mentioned in earlier correspondence, particularly in our exchange of emails on the 13th March 2014, I have based any discount offered on the principle balance on what I perceive to be our litigation risk, that is to say our risk of losing any claim and what I consider to be the element of our costs that is invariably declared irrecoverable by the Court. These irrecoverable costs are not an exception in legal proceedings, but it is generally accepted that a successful litigant will not recover all their costs unless the Court decides this should be the case based on the behaviour of their opponent. Therefore I have to say that the discounted sum I previously offered for a single payment settlement of £8,252.84 remains a reasonable.
From your latest email it seems that this will be unachievable from your point of view, and it would seem more logical to approach the discharge of the sums due on a monthly payment basis. In an effort to bring this matter to a close I am prepared to offer a discounted sum to be paid by mutually agreed instalments, but I am sure you will appreciate that any discount offered will not be as substantial as the discount offered for a single payment. In consideration of an agreement to discharge the balance outstanding by instalments I am prepared to discount this sum to £9,903.40. Any discussions on instalment levels would have to be subject to your completing an income and expenditure questionnaire, and any information provided as a result of any reasonable requests for additional information we may make.
I look forward to receiving your views on my comments in due course.