Thanks for the advice DX but it seems a bit wishy washy to simply ask "if they can" make the changes when you consider the situation. They agreed to accept the money as a f&f settlement following which they would make three specific changes to the CRA status. They took the money and failed to make any of the changes which has resulted in my credit status being worse than it should have been for the past two years. In addition the third party who provided the funds would have offered less if the creditor had attempted to negotiate less favourable terms. Bottom line is that they took the money and failed to complete their side of the f&f agreement, to my detriment.

Date of default July 2011 Date of agreed f&f settlement terms and the 40% agreed f&f payment - March 2012 Since then every month shows account still open, DF, balance history £2100, Limit history £5000

Does your information mean that I cannot take any action to ensure the creditor applies all the f&f settlement terms? The creditor's legal department agreed that receipt of the payment would form a binding contract where they would carry out the following: The balance would set to £0 (it continues to show £1200) Within 14 days all CRA files would be marked to show the account as satisfied or settled in full. (That was two years ago, the account continues to only show default) The account would be closed (it is still in the open accounts section of the CRA reports). Do I have any reasonable grounds for claiming compensation?

Hi Brigadier Would you update please.

Thank you, it may help others who are negotiating F&F's now.

Mmm, so are you saying that the creditor agreed to mark the account as settled/satisfied in full but is prevented from complying? i.e. they cannot remove the default status unless the debt is paid in full. My view is that a full and final settlement comprising a partial payment plus the balance being written off by the creditor = settlement in full. Therefore the default is satisfied by contributions from both sides. How does OFT guidance contradict this view?

My aim with f&f settlements was for the CRA entries to change to: Settled or Satisfied in full. Zero balance Account closed Default status removed No "partially satisfied" note. I failed to include the last point in the settlement terms as the creditors agreed to mark CRA registers "Settled or Satisfied in Full". How is it that an entry can comply with that stipulation and also show "partially satisfied". Can it be both? I am confused (not for the first time, according to my wife).

Thank you, I will request for the default status to be removed. I am puzzled as to why you say the entry shows accurate and up to date information when it should have been changed by the creditor two years ago in accordance with the terms of the f&f settlement.

The cost of bankruptcy can be huge in comparison to the size of the original debt. I had months of awful stress and worry after I was unable to keep up payments on a credit card and a debt collector bought the £2500 debt. They soon issued a statutory demand with the threat of bankruptcy as I had equity in the house I own with my wife. A consultation with an insolvency practitioner revealed that if the DCA had pursued the bankruptcy petition it would have been likely to cost me in excess of £20k to be made bankrupt in order to settle a £2.5k debt. Is that a fair cost? The OFT guidelines on debt collection need to be given the force of law. In this case they helped me after the DCA threatened to proceed with bankruptcy proceedings unless I "make adequate repayment proposals in view of the equity you appear to hold in the family home". I made a formal complaint that they had contravened Section 3 of the OFT Guidelines on Debt Collection (Unfair or Improper Business Practices) 3.7b physical or psychological harassment "pressurising debtors to raise funds by selling their property or by taking on further borrowing" 3.7i "pressurising debtors to pay more than they can reasonably afford without experiencing undue difficulty or to pay within an unreasonably short period. For example, by using a threat of enforcement action through the courts – including but not limited to applications for charging orders and orders for sale – to pressure debtors in financial difficulties to pay more than they can reasonably afford.” Note 32 states: “For example, pressuring a debtor to make unreasonably large repayments or to pay off his debts in full in a single (or very few) repayment(s), when to do so would have an adverse impact on the debtor's financial circumstances.” Note 33 states: “The OFT would regard 'without undue difficulty' in this context as meaning the debtor being able to make repayments while also meeting other debt repayments and other normal / reasonable outgoings and without having to borrow further to meet these repayments.” Section 3.7n states: “Making undue, excessive or otherwise inappropriate use of statutory demands when pursuing arrears or debts.” It seems that my complaint had some effect as the DCA took four months to reply, finally saying that they believed the statutory demand was justified but after further consideration they would be willing to accept a full and final settlement. This was concluded at 40% by a relative who is willing to wait until I can repay her. I dread to think of the consequences for those who aren't fortunate to have such a lifeline. Caggers, please sign the petition and lobby your MP and the Citizens Advice Bureau to raise this matter with the Financial Conduct Authority and the government.

Yes, they agreed in writing to reduce the balance to £0, mark the account as settled/satisfied and close the account. It seems that I was under the (mistaken) belief that on closing the account the default would cease to show. I did not realise that I needed to negotiate its removal separately. Oops. The account is now shown as open, default and balance £2100. Does this harm my credit rating more than if the account was marked closed, settled and £0 with the default history still showing?

Hi Caggers, The agreed written terms of my Full and Final Settlement for my debt with the Post Office Credit Card (Bank of Ireland) were The balance would set to £0 CRA files would be marked to show the account as "satisfied" or "settled" in full The account would be closed All three to be actioned within 14 days after payment which was made two years ago. I supposed I should have checked my CRA files sooner but I did so today and found the balance is shown as £2100, The status is "Default" and the account is still shown in the "Open Accounts" section. I will write a complaint letter demanding that they modify the entry as agreed. Do I have a legitimate claim for compensation on the ground that they made my credit rating files worse than they would otherwise have been? I realise this could be tricky as the agreement was made with The Bank of Ireland who are based in the Republic of Ireland so can I claim compensation under UK law because they operate the Post Office Credit Card here? I will be grateful for your advice.

UPDATE: They refused to continue to accept my token payments or a full and final settlement offer from a third party "in view of the equity you appear to hold in the family home". They threatened to proceed with bankruptcy proceedings unless I settled in full within 28 days or made "adequate" repayment proposals. I made a formal complaint that they had contravened Section 3 of the OFT Guidelines on Debt Collection (Unfair or Improper Business Practices) 3.7b physical or psychological harassment "pressurising debtors to raise funds by selling their property or by taking on further borrowing" 3.7i "pressurising debtors to pay more than they can reasonably afford without experiencing undue difficulty or to pay within an unreasonably short period. For example, by using a threat of enforcement action through the courts – including but not limited to applications for charging orders and orders for sale – to pressure debtors in financial difficulties to pay more than they can reasonably afford.” Note 32 states: “For example, pressuring a debtor to make unreasonably large repayments or to pay off his debts in full in a single (or very few) repayment(s), when to do so would have an adverse impact on the debtor's financial circumstances.” Note 33 states: “The OFT would regard 'without undue difficulty' in this context as meaning the debtor being able to make repayments while also meeting other debt repayments and other normal / reasonable outgoings and without having to borrow further to meet these repayments.” Section 3.7n states: “Making undue, excessive or otherwise inappropriate use of statutory demands when pursuing arrears or debts.” They took four months to answer my complaint, saying that they believed issuing of the statutory demand was justified but after further consideration they would be willing to settle the matter by accepting 10% more than the third party had offered. The debt was settled F&F at 40% thanks to the third party who is happy to wait until I can repay them.

Hi DD can you help with your letter suggestions re the CCA please.

I did a CCA request. Cabot sent a copy of the front signature page which says it is a "Full Page Agreement". They did not send a copy of the reverse but sent 5 pages of T&C's. They also sent the latest t&c's and all of the statements. There is no misold PPI shown and Cap One sent a DN and TN before they sold the account. Thanks for the Phoenix vs Kotecha reference. The debtor won the appeal because the judge accepted that the interest rates shown in the creditors CCA response were different to those in a leaflet they were offered when they applied for the account. In my case I do not have that sort of evidence, only that it is supposed to be a "full page agreement" but they sent six pages. Is that sufficient grounds to claim they have not complied with my CCA request? should I post up what they sent me?

I think three grounds for a set aside might apply: "The amount stated on the statutory demand is disputed." Because there is about £100 max in disputed late payment fees, although I am worried that a judge might regard this as insignificant as the total debt is over £4k "The demand was issued in error." because Cabot bought the account and then issued the Statutory demand without first checking whether Cap One had posession of the original agreement in order to prove enforceability in court. This point seems different to proving the debt exists. "The creditor failed to comply with the rules and prejudiced the debtor in the process." By failing to check if there was an enforceable agreement before isuing the SD. The last two seem much the same to me and all three would seem to need some technical stuff to make them suitable to present to a judge. Also I need some advice of what to write to Cabot challenging them to produce a valid original enforceable agreement for use in court.