It's surely part of the contract? Does that not put them in breach of contract? Maybe you should have included a penalty clause that they will pay you £1000 if the defaults are not removed by a specified date say 3 months after the payment date. My thinking on this is to offer a silver coin (or anything else of value) as consideration to forgo the balance. That way, if they accept it they have accepted part payment plus "sufficient" (doesn't have to be "adequate") consideration to forgo the balance. This really is full and final. Maybe they're not so stupid after all They obviously understand the 3rd party payment rule, i.e. they can't sue for the balance. Awesome! Well done:D

Hi PT2537, This Carey judgement has got me really worried about an agreement I thought was unenforceable. Would you be kind enough to take a look please? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/250385-barclays-agreement-enforceable.html

Barclays said in a letter that they don't have a copy because it was an "internet application" (from 2005) My argument is that they insisted the contract be printed and returned, so therefore it is a paper contract and they must have a copy in order to enforce it. I also thought that because the prescribed terms don't appear on the signature page that would make it unenforceable. The Carey case has got me worried now. Although I'd still argue no contract - no money. Thanks in advance for any help on this. Loan20k.pdf

It might be worth a letter to the creditor telling them you authorise your chosen third party to negotiate or act on your behalf. Don't know if it will help or not, but shouldn't do any harm. The thinking behind that is to give them less to complain about.

Not completely sure I do in legal terms terms. Here's what I think: Third party has no obligation to the creditor, but offers to settle the debt for a reduced amount. If the creditor takes the third party's money as F&F and then sues you, they have dishonestly taken money from the third party. Using dishonesty to make money is fraud. You might get a better explanation if you copy and paste this into a new thread in the legal issues section.

An IVA is not what I want. What I want is a legally binding F&F to be paid over years instead of as a lump sum. (I don't have a lump sum) My credit file is trashed to the point I can't get contract mobile broadband. Don't care (much) Problem here is they can come after you for the balance because part payment is not good consideration to forgo the balance. An exception are composition agreements where a group of creditors accept a reduced settlement, none can sue for the balance as this would amount to fraud against the others. This is what I had in mind with the "sort of IVA" thing. The other exception is part-payment by a third party; if they sue for the balance it would amount to fraud against the third party. I'm also looking at the principle that consideration need not be adequate, but must have some value. I am thinking of offering one silver coin for each debt as consideration to forgo the balance. So it would be part payment plus one silver coin. You actually explained what I want better than I did:) This is one of the reasons I don't want to go to court. Received late. I'll edit that for clarity. The default notice arrived later than it should have done, leaving me about 12 or 13 clear days to remedy the breach, instead of the required 14. Thanks, I'll have a read:)

Thanks to all for the advice so far. Just for clarity I stopped paying everything between March and May last year. Amex wouldn't negotiate, or accept my new address, so after a few arguments with Newman & co they gave up. Barclaycard used their "right to set-off" to steal from my savings account. The payment they took was the last one they got. Barclays let them take it. I had a new current account by the end of the next morning. I thinks Barclays are getting fed up with not being paid.

"Nutshells contract law" by Robert Duxbury pages 35-36. (Cost me £8.95) A contract must have "consideration" - something of value offered by each party. Part payment of a debt is not good enough consideration to write off the balance. BUT: 1. Composition agreements. Where a group of creditors agree to accept a partial settlement, none of them can sue for the rest after, because allowing them to do so would amount to fraud on the other creditors. 2. Part-payment of the debt by a third party. They cannot sue you after accepting F&F from a third party because that would amount to fraud against the third party. Hope that helps:)

I don't know, although it would be good to have that confirmed. If not a formal IVA, then can I negotiate an agreement with all my creditors, including the one's I'm not legally obliged to pay, that would achieve the same goals as an IVA, i.e. part payments then the balance written off. I don't know if I can for this, or how to, but it seems like a good idea. TBH the ongoing disputes are quite draining, and in some ways I'd rather form some kind of mutually acceptable agreement than carry on arguing, which is why I'm exploring this possibility.

Thanks PGH, I'm totally in favour of doing it myself. What I'm looking for is something that tells me how. I'm looking to get the banks into a binding agreement where I pay a bit for a few years and they write off the rest. They would only get a fraction of what they want, but more than selling it as junk debt. I've disputed a lot, and still am. Amex - Unenforceable, defective DN. They can only say yes. The rest is within Barclays group. Barclaycard - no cca. Loan 1 - arguably unenforceable. They argue internet application, but they insisted on a signed paper agreement which is unforceable. Loan 2 - 2008, e-signature, default notice received late. Loan 3 - 2008, e-signature, payable. Overdraft - Disputed charges. (Barclays reserve charges, not agreed, extortionate)

That's what I really meant, I'm looking for info on how to do it myself. That is better both for me and the creditor. The most important part is to get the balance written off after a fixed time, ideally 3 years as that's how long I expect to have job security for, but no more than the standard 5 years. Whilst I do have a job, I don't have overtime any more and my wife's no longer working, hence the difficulty with the debts.

My disposable income is less than the standard £200pm minimum to get an IVA. Since a lot of what you pay goes in fees, is it possible to arrange your own IVA for a slightly smaller amount (say £100 to £150) I've got 2 unenforceable credit cards, an overdraft and 3 loans one of which looks unenforceable.

Unfortunately that's true. Acceptance can be by words or conduct. (Brogden v Metropolitan Railway co 1877) Also, when post is used an acceptance is effectively communicated on posting. (Household Fire Insurance v Grant 1879) This applies even if the letter is lost or delayed!!!! [source: Nutshells contract law] Hence you can have offer and acceptance without a signature. How about the other stuff though? How would you present it so that the drones can understand what they're reading?

This is one of the problems with the strawman argument. The court case was against 'Mr Fred Bloggs' not 'Fred of the Bloggs family'. 'F of the B fam.' atttended court, 'Mr F bloggs' didn't. The court ruled against the defendant, Mr Fred Bloggs, in his absence, as they always do. The house was owned/mortgaged by Mr Fred Bloggs. The court took it. "I am a human being not a person" or the "strawman argument" will not override the lien that the bank has against the house. Because Mr Fred Bloggs owned the house, and lost the case by failing to defend, they took the house from Mr Fred Bloggs as expected, leaving poor old Fred of the Bloggs family with nowhere to live. Hopefully the above will make at least some sense, at least to those familiar with the strawman/freeman etc ideas. P.S. PT2537, no conspiracy here; the strawman was the defendant, and did not attend court so 'it' lost by default. That's how the courts always treat this.

Sent a complaint to their complaints dept, copied to the OC's complaints dept. Asked that Barclays take the acct back and deal with the issues, as CDCS do not appear capable of doing so. Complained about harassment as well. Not sent complaint to FOS yet, will see what they say first.

nuke em, which aspects of contract law are you using? I'm looking into contract law but it's a vast subject. Some ideas on what to look into would be really helpful. I've been thinking in terms of mirepresentation or possibly unjust enrichment. What's working for you?

Reserve is an extra facility which is only triggered when you go over the overdraft limit.

Barclays Reserve could be described as an extension to the overdraft. I had an overdraft limit (£2300) which was applied for and agreed. The Reserve is an additional £500 on top of the overdraft which they just gave me without being asked. The reserve costs £22 every 5 days of part thereof. That's probably plus interest. I didn't ask for the extra, or sign anything, and don't think it's right that they should be able to do that.

The charges in question are Barclays Reserve charges. Like everyone else, I didn't apply for this, nor would I have done as the charges are extortionate. The £500 reserve amount just appeared at some point. I think it was long enough ago that I never used the overdraft, although I can't be totally sure. Do I understand correctly that all contract issues are irrelevant to overdrafts?

CDCS have got the 3 loans. The overdraft is with Capella.

They are. Got rid of Barclayshark already - no CCA:D Now it's Barclays bank. 3 loans and an overdraft.

bump. Any thoughts?

CDCS are Barclay's in-house DCA. It stands for Central Debt Collection Services. Is it worthy of a complaint letter to someone?

Leeds1, In law, consideration doesn't have to be equal or fair:mad: If you have a year to pay, I would expect the bank would repossess, sell the house, take enough to pay their claim and give the debtor the rest. They surely can't take more money out of it than their contract says they can. Your post does echo my point about the imbalance in risk. Your friend's parents lost their house for something which was probably just an accounting entry. I was thinking in terms of unjust enrichment, but judging from PT's posts on this thread we probably wouldn't be able to justify a "total failure of consideration". The problem we have here is that we all know that this [problem] is wrong (morally) but it is difficult at best to justify this legally.

I have written 3 letters to CDCS in response to their threatograms. They have ignored all of these. The most recent even asked for a real address as they have ignored the 2 I sent to their PO box, and I want to use rec delivery. So I have a series of threats from them, and yet they've totally ignored my written responses. Isn't this simply harassment? They have now sent 2 "final notices" where they say they will employ "another dca". Any suugestions?