Full & Final Settlement offer advice on how to clear asap

[panther12]

Ok I’ve now had sight of their letter. It is dated 10th May (3 days before we posted the “prove it” letter). It says:-

I write in relation to the recent correspondence sent to this office.

Unfortunately Moorcroft is no longer responsible for collection activity on this account. The control of the account has been returned to our clients and we would ask that you refer all future correspondence directly to them.

If you have any specific queries in relation to our involvement on your account, please contact us on the above number.

 

Where do we stand on this? The 3rd party F&F cheque was cashed on the 9th May and they have not sent any correspondence saying that it is not accepted as F&F so one can only presume the settlement proposal has been accepted. The plot thickens!

[The Mould]

Ok I’ve now had sight of their letter. It is dated 10th May (3 days before we posted the “prove it” letter). It says:-

 

 

Where do we stand on this? The 3rd party F&F cheque was cashed on the 9th May and they have not sent any correspondence saying that it is not accepted as F&F so one can only presume the settlement proposal has been accepted. The plot thickens!

 

Hello Panther

 

Interesting, perhaps they have realized what they have done with the account in respect of the £5 (third party) cheque, main contractor (the OC) might be a little upset with the sub-contractor's actions.

 

There might be a slim chance here, I note that you have also written "Not to be used for any other purpose" on back of said cheque, however the dca offered a 'substantial discount' but, said £5 is less than 1% of the amount claimed.

 

Wait and see what the OC has to say, then post back here when he does say something, because he is going to say something about this matter.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[panther12]

Hello Panther

 

Interesting, perhaps they have realized what they have done with the account in respect of the £5 (third party) cheque, main contractor (the OC) might be a little upset with the sub-contractor's actions.

 

There might be a slim chance here, I note that you have also written "Not to be used for any other purpose" on back of said cheque, however the dca offered a 'substantial discount' but, said £5 is less than 1% of the amount claimed.

 

Wait and see what the OC has to say, then post back here when he does say something, because he is going to say something about this matter.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

 

Hi Mould,

 

Yes, my thoughts exactly. Moorcroft are agents acting on behalf of their client so if they weren’t sure on what action to take they should have referred back to their client for instructions before making decisions on their own back. As far as I’m concerned any decision they make is though it came from the OC - as they are the ones who are acting under full instructions and therefore authorised to make such decisions on their behalf. I don’t think they realised the importance of their actions in their sheer greed to get their dirty mitts on any amount of money. I realise it’s a low amount but they did have the opportunity to say no. They’ve not helped their cause by banking the payment and ignoring me (or trying it on by sending silly payment books and lying about entering into monthly agreements) then trying to wash their hands from this when they realise the potential cock-up.

 

Yes this sure is an interesting one. Like you say, I think I’ll wait and see if I hear anything from the OC, but knowing them they’ll simply pass it to another DCA.

 

If you think it’s ok I was thinking of sending Moorcroft something along the lines of the below, just so it’s on file then can send a copy to the OC if they do get in touch, or to any other DCA they decide to instruct.

 

Re: Your acceptance to my full and final settlement payment without any admission of liability

 

In my communication of 22nd April 2011, to facilitate full closure to this dispute you were presented with my proposal in order to secure a mutually agreeable closure for all concerned. Payment was presented in the form of a cheque from a third party benefactor and offered to you in full and final settlement of the account without any admission of liability to the amount claimed. The terms of the settlement contract were clear, unambiguous and not open to interpretation. In accepting the settlement proposal a clear, unequivocal and qualified acceptance by conduct occurred, thus entering into a legally binding agreement with the third party benefactor.

 

I would like to express my gratitude for your consideration and full acceptance of the terms the said settlement payment was presented and I am sure you will agree that this is the best solution ensuring resolution and final closure for all parties.

 

Finally, and as a condition of your acceptance to the settlement payment, I ask that you now make an entry on my credit files showing the termination/cancellation of the account as settled and balance £0.

[The Mould]

Hi Mould,

 

Yes, my thoughts exactly. Moorcroft are agents acting on behalf of their client so if they weren’t sure on what action to take they should have referred back to their client for instructions before making decisions on their own back. As far as I’m concerned any decision they make is though it came from the OC - as they are the ones who are acting under full instructions and therefore authorised to make such decisions on their behalf. I don’t think they realised the importance of their actions in their sheer greed to get their dirty mitts on any amount of money. I realise it’s a low amount but they did have the opportunity to say no. They’ve not helped their cause by banking the payment and ignoring me (or trying it on by sending silly payment books and lying about entering into monthly agreements) then trying to wash their hands from this when they realise the potential cock-up.

 

Yes this sure is an interesting one. Like you say, I think I’ll wait and see if I hear anything from the OC, but knowing them they’ll simply pass it to another DCA.

 

If you think it’s ok I was thinking of sending Moorcroft something along the lines of the below, just so it’s on file then can send a copy to the OC if they do get in touch, or to any other DCA they decide to instruct.

 

Good morning Panther

 

It is entirely up to you, the dca might send it on to the oc or simply return to sender as they have notified you that they no longer have the case under their management and control.

 

Try and work out if the dca held onto said cheque for a day or two before he presented it for payment.

 

In any event, said cheque was a third party one, so the name on the front of it would of course be completely different to yours and so the dca should of investigated the matter first before he banked it, what was written on the back thereof might not have any actual effect against your defence, if the oc pursues you that is, we shall see what happens.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[Indebt1]

Hi

whew my head is spinning from these posts, hope the Credit card companies are too.

 

i have a cc account with RBS and after going through major difficulties i have a letter from them in August 09 that the agreement has been misfiled and while that renders the agreement unenforcable i still need to pay blah blah blah, there is just 0ver £9k outstanding.

i want to try and clean up my credit so based on them knowing that there is no chance of them collecting, do i offer xxx amount? 5-10%? or can i clean it anyway based on them not having the agreement, i havent paid anything in the last 2 years, also i have been registerd disabled within the last year so how would i go about clearing this up?

 

any help is most appriciated.

[panther12]

Good morning Panther

 

It is entirely up to you, the dca might send it on to the oc or simply return to sender as they have notified you that they no longer have the case under their management and control.

 

Try and work out if the dca held onto said cheque for a day or two before he presented it for payment.

 

In any event, said cheque was a third party one, so the name on the front of it would of course be completely different to yours and so the dca should of investigated the matter first before he banked it, what was written on the back thereof might not have any actual effect against your defence, if the oc pursues you that is, we shall see what happens.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Hi Mould,

Cheque & settlement proposal letter were sent dated 22/04/11 – that was good fri so would have been received around 26-27/Apr.

Money went from bank a/c 09/05/11 so if it’s 3 clear banking days would have been presented around 3/5/11.

So they would have been in possession of it for a few days before banking.

 

Yes, cheque was in completely different name.

Perhaps it would have been better to send both the cheque AND settlement letter in the name & address of the third party – with the debtors details/account number buried within the letter so there could be no doubt they would have had to read the letter in order to be able to match the cheque payment to the debtor. Oh well, will remember that for another time.

 

Have sent the letter to Moorcroft so will wait & see what happens and let you know.

Cheers for the help.

[panther12]

Hello Mould,

A bit of activity from Moorcroft. Have today received the below letter. They say if we object to this course of action to let them know by 3rd June. That will be difficult as their letter is dated 27th May but was received today 4th June. Any thoughts on this grateful.

 

We have received your payment of £5. We note that you have expressed this to be a payment made in “full and final settlement”. Please note that we have no agreement with you to accept such a payment on a full and final basis and we have therefore accepted the payment simply as an instalment with regard to the outstanding balance.

 

If you object to this course of action please let us know by the 3rd June 2011 and we will return your payment provided that it has cleared our account.

[The Mould]

Hello Mould,

A bit of activity from Moorcroft. Have today received the below letter. They say if we object to this course of action to let them know by 3rd June. That will be difficult as their letter is dated 27th May but was received today 4th June. Any thoughts on this grateful.

 

Good afternoon Panther

 

Something along these lines perhaps.

 

Dear Sir/Madam (helpful if you have named addressee)

RE: Account no: xxxxxxxxxxx – Full and Final Settlement Agreement

I refer to the above.

Thank you for your letter dated 27 May 2011, received by me on 4 June 2011, the contents therein are noted and I respond to the same.

On (put date) I received your letter dated (put date), in response thereto I sent you my letter dated (put date) which contained my offer to settle the account (Third party cheque enclosed) in accordance with the contents of your letter dated (put date).

You received said third party cheque payment attached to the letter of terms said cheque was tendered by on 3 May 2011 pursuant to your letter (put date) which contained your intention to accept a sum substantially less than that to which was claimed by your client, further, the contents therein clearly state the authority granted to you by your client to offer me a substantial discount from the outstanding balance claimed, if an agreeable amount was paid to you within the next 14 days.

As stated above, said cheque payment and covering letter of terms thereto therewith was received by you on 3 May 2011, said cheque cleared from third party payer’s account on 9 May 2011, therefore, clearly you held onto said cheque for a few days before you presented the same for payment, said cheque was duly honoured, at no point prior to your presenting of said cheque for payment did you serve any notice upon me to inform that you did not accept the terms thereof, nor did you inform me that you were only willing to accept said cheque payment as a partial payment or as a payment on account only. Your conduct in presenting said cheque payment into the account constituted a clear and unequivocal acceptance (by conduct) of the terms said cheque was tendered by.

Your letter dated 27 May 2011 has been sent three and a half (3.5) weeks after you had taken receipt of said offer and said cheque, further, said offer was made without any admission of liability to the amount claimed and also contained a clause for you to return said cheque within 7 days if you were not in agreement to the terms of settlement and therefore your said conduct has bound you to the settlement agreement.

I respectfully request that you honour your obligations to said settlement agreement concluded between us two parties and return the file on this account to you client, your written confirmation as to the same will be required by return, since I consider this matter closed.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this communication.

Yours faithfully (sincerely, if you have the name of the person)

Mr Panther

Words to the above effect Panther, amend to suit if you want or need to.

Kind regards

The Mould

[panther12]

Thank you Mould, great stuff as always.

 

I will have a good digest of this tomorrow and get it sent off.

From their recent letter they know that the cheque was presented as payment in F&F settlement so at least they can’t claim to have simply banked it without reading the terms.

 

Their previous letter dated 10 May (received 16 May) said they are no longer responsible for collection activities on this account as control of the account has been returned to their clients and ask that you refer all future correspondence directly to them. Think they just want to wash their hands from this! Not sure if they've informed the OC of what's happening, we've not received anything from them.

[Bigdebtor]

Panther

 

This is an excellent letter from Mould. Hopefully you've hiot his star to express your thanks?

 

I would send this letter off ASAP - by recorded delivery. Perhaps even fax it NOW if you have their fax no?

 

I think your prompt actions will be in sharp contrast t the delays they have shown - and their unreasonable conduct in ensuring you could NOT adhere to the "conditions" they had applied. There is some case law (on other CAG threads) re 3rd party payments - and I think speed (by them) is of the essence in rejecting the T&C's accompanying the 3rd party cheque. 3 1/2 weeks is not exactly speedy - especially when they expected YOU to turn it round in minus 1 day - without a time machine to assist!

 

I really think they have screwed up royally and you will be off the hook - but don't expect it to be too easy! Expect lots of further contact and threats etc.

 

Is the written off balance above or below the Small Claims Limit? That might influence how much they fight - but I think the OC will be far from pleased with how they've screwed up. It might be worth send in copy of both letters to the OC - what does Mould think?

 

BD

[panther12]

Panther

 

This is an excellent letter from Mould. Hopefully you've hiot his star to express your thanks?

 

I would send this letter off ASAP - by recorded delivery. Perhaps even fax it NOW if you have their fax no?

 

I think your prompt actions will be in sharp contrast t the delays they have shown - and their unreasonable conduct in ensuring you could NOT adhere to the "conditions" they had applied. There is some case law (on other CAG threads) re 3rd party payments - and I think speed (by them) is of the essence in rejecting the T&C's accompanying the 3rd party cheque. 3 1/2 weeks is not exactly speedy - especially when they expected YOU to turn it round in minus 1 day - without a time machine to assist!

 

I really think they have screwed up royally and you will be off the hook - but don't expect it to be too easy! Expect lots of further contact and threats etc.

 

Is the written off balance above or below the Small Claims Limit? That might influence how much they fight - but I think the OC will be far from pleased with how they've screwed up. It might be worth send in copy of both letters to the OC - what does Mould think?

 

BD

 

Hi Bigdebtor,

I’ve just printed off the below ready to send today. More or less as per the excellent post by The Mould.

 

They’ve probably realised they have made a boo-boo in their greed to get their hands on any amount of money. This one isn’t a big one (in the grand scheme of things) being under £900. A couple hundred of that made up of charges anyway so I don’t expect any major repercussions whatever happens. I’m using this as a learning curve, and what an enjoyable one it is 

 

Yes I think someone at Moorcroft has finally realised the implications of their actions, their previous letters were of the template type with the digital signature of A.J. Martin but looks like we’ve now been fast tracked to actual human intervention from the accounts department.

 

I’m not sure whether to send copies to the OC or wait & see if we hear anything from them. They probably won’t be best pleased with the actions of their instructed client. We’ve not heard a peep from them since April last year when they passed it to their in-house Triton, who then passed it to Newman & Co., then Moorcroft.

 

Be interesting to see what develops next. Either way I'm fully prepared to take it all the way...

 

I refer to the above and your letter dated 27 May 2011, received by me on 04 June 2011, the contents therein are noted and I respond to the same.

 

On 21 April 2011 I received your letter dated 06 March 2011, in response thereto I sent you my letter dated 22 April 2011 which contained my offer to settle this account (third party cheque enclosed) in accordance with the contents of your letter dated 06 March 2011.

 

You received said third party cheque payment attached to the letter of terms said cheque was tendered by on 03 May 2011 pursuant to your letter dated 06 March 2011, received by me 21 April 2011, which contained your intention to accept a sum substantially less than that to which was claimed by your client, further, the contents therein clearly state the authority granted to you by your client to offer me a substantial discount from the outstanding balance claimed, if an agreeable amount was paid to you within the next 14 days.

 

As stated above, said cheque payment and covering letter of terms thereto was received by you on 03 May 2011, said cheque cleared from third party payer’s account on 09 May 2011, therefore, clearly you held onto said cheque for a few days before you presented the same for payment, said cheque was duly honoured, at no point prior to your presenting of said cheque for payment did you serve any notice upon me to inform that you did not accept the terms thereof, nor did you inform me that you were only willing to accept said cheque payment as a partial payment or as a payment on account only. Your conduct in presenting said cheque payment into the account constituted a clear and unequivocal acceptance (by conduct) of the terms said cheque was tendered by.

 

Your letter dated 27 May 2011 has been sent three and a half (3.5) weeks after you had taken receipt of said offer and said cheque, further, said offer was made without any admission of liability to the amount claimed and also contained a clause for you to return said cheque within seven (7) days if you were not in agreement to the terms of settlement and therefore your said conduct has bound you to the settlement agreement, said cheque also containing the clause not to be used for any other purpose.

 

I respectfully request that you honour your obligations to said settlement agreement concluded between the parties and return the file on this account to you client, your written confirmation as to the same will be required by return, since I consider this concludes closure to the entirety of all matters relating to this account.

 

Thank you in advance for your attention to this communication.

 

Yours faithfully

[Bigdebtor]

Panther

 

Good for you. If they do contest it, then it will be Small Claims - so zero risk for you to contest - and a good chance it would go your way in court. If this looks likely remember to get info from other threads on 3rd party F&F cheques etc. as part of your defence.

 

On reflection I think it best NOT to tell OC at this stge. If they then get another DCA involved then just send a "puzzled" letter stating this last DCA accepted a cheque in F&F on XX May 2011 and as far as you are concerned the matter is closed. That will cause a bit of head scratching both at the next DCA and the OC - and waste their time into the bargain - time which cannot then be spent chasing anoher debtor - so everyone wins - except OC and DCA!

 

BD

[panther12]

Letter was signed for yesterday morning, would love to be a fly on the wall at Moorcroft Mansions My concern was, like mould said earlier, that with the account details written on reverse of the cheque they may argue it was banked before reading the letter of terms – but from their last letter there is no doubt they had full knowledge that it was presented in F&F settlement.

 

Have done quite a bit of digging around and feel confident to argue this in court, should it ever come to that. I came across an excellent post in one of the legal forums, if I can shamelessly copy it here to hopefully help others thinking of doing similar.

 

At last after much promising, here is Garlok’s take on Full & Final settlements. First of all let me say that there is some excellent material on this site about Full & Finals (Cetelco et al) however on reading around, there does seem to be some loose ends and misapprehensions which I feel could lead to troubles in the future for those who are a little unwary with particular concern about holding these things watertight. I would never lay claim to being an expert, this is just what we did to achieve a result.

 

We have just had a little success with F & F at a figure of 10% with a business overdraft and the remnants of a business loan. I will try to pull together all the comments I have made on other threads so that they are all in one place and open for comment and discussion. There are some little practical things that we picked up along the way as well which have proved of value.

 

When we first considered a Full & Final settlement offer the prerequisite was that should any deal be accepted then it had to be absolutely watertight with no get out for the creditor now or in the future. We had disputes/complaints with four credit cards with the same bank where the business account was held which had been ongoing for some two years. The cards were fully paid up to date at the time but the account, already in OD was stripped up to and above its agreed overdraft limit by the card company subsidiary and for which they tried to charge us for the privilege. We did get the money back after a load of histrionics in a crowded branch one Saturday morning. However we could no longer trust the bank to behave correctly if we paid money into the account or to make payments on the loan account without covering paperwork etc. I expected to pay about 70 to 80% on a F & F but any saving would have been of help. I started a “reading round” to find out what I could and to see if there really was any mileage in offering the F & F and closing the account(s) down completely, making that the end of the matter and ensuring there was no further comeback and dealing with the CC issues separately which we had in the hands of specialist litigation solicitors anyway. I just did not need the hassle any longer and needed to tick at least one box.

 

The first thing that came out was that the legal mechanism for F & Fs is deceptively elegant and simple, can I just emphasise the word deceptively. The underlying, and underpinning law is definitely not, in fact you have stepped away from the relatively simple arena of CCA Law into the absolute minefield of the Common Law of Contract which carries the baggage of very expensive litigation if things go wrong.

 

Case law, which is often quoted and goes back to the infamous Pinnel case of 1602, does NOT provide any hard and fast rules, which you can use to guide your thinking. Every case appears to stand or fall on its own particular merits should you, heaven forbid, end up in a court of law. I tackled my studies perhaps a little differently from the norm by taking a look first at what the obligations of a creditor are in these circumstances, what he may or may not do and what the consequences are for those actions. I found a couple of legal websites to start with, which provided fairly comprehensive answers to my mind’s questions.

 

Firstly for those interested in the Pinnel (1602) case (aka Penny v Cole) Sir Edward Coke opined that a debt could NEVER be discharged by a partial settlement. There is much case law since and a source of reference is “wikipaedia” putting “Pinnel’s case” into the “wiki” search engine and a whole raft of reference source material comes up.

 

However more recent material came to light from the two websites I mentioned and a repeat of the quotes I have made elsewhere might be useful.

 

Quote 1.

 

“The first thing to look at is whether the cheque comes from the debtor itself, or from some other person (e.g. a director, a group company). If it comes from a third party then you must not cash the cheque unless you really are going to accept it in settlement. Doing so would make an agreement with the third party which will be binding on you.

Assuming that the cheque does in fact come from the debtor, the question if you cash it will be whether there was in fact any agreement between you and the debtor that you were accepting the cheque in settlement. You can therefore pay the cheque in provided that at the same time you make clear to the debtor that you are not accepting it in full and final settlement.

You should do this immediately the cheque is received - holding it for a time could be taken as agreement to the terms. It is not necessary to tell the debtor before you actually pay it in. It is enough if you write at the same time, so that it is clear afterwards that you were never intending to settle the debt. The letter should make clear that you do not accept the cheque in full and final settlement but that you are paying it in as a part payment of the debt, and you expect to receive the balance.

If there are claims of breach of contract the position could be different. Assuming there is no dispute as to the amount due, then there is no dispute which needs settling - paying in the cheque could not count against you. However, it would still be prudent to use the procedure outlined above.”

Quote 2

“If there is to be accord and satisfaction the debtor must prove that there was agreement between the parties as to settlement. This requirement for 'agreement' is overridden somewhat once time has passed. Lloyd LJ stated that , "what matters is not what the creditor himself intends, but what, by his words and conduct, he has led the [debtor] to believe" (7).

In Stour Valley there was some disagreement over the amount outstanding after some building works had been carried out. The customer decided to send a cheque for a lower amount than that claimed by the builders and stated in his letter that the amount was in full and final settlement of all claims. The cheque arrived on day 1. The builders cashed the cheque and it cleared on day 5. On day 7 the builders spoke to the customer and told him that the amount could not be accepted in full and final settlement. This delay of seven days was not considered fatal and it was held that the builders were entitled to treat the cheque as a payment on account.

Lloyd LJ considered that cashing the cheque would always be strong evidence of acceptance, especially where an immediate rejection of the offer is not forthcoming. As far as a creditor is concerned, therefore, the communication of the rejection must occur "within a few days" for it to be valid. In this case a delay of one week fell within this band. In another case a delay of seven weeks (8) was found to be too long and accord and satisfaction was established. It appears, therefore, that the correct question to ask is whether the creditor's conduct caused the debtor to think that the money was accepted in satisfaction.”

 

It should be remembered that these two quotes are based on advice given to creditors as to the consequences of any actions they take. Lloyd LJ also made reference to settlements made directly between client/creditor and those made by “lawyers”. I do not understand quite the distinction in law but my humble opinion on this is that more weight would attached by the courts to settlements dealt with by lawyers in the debtors favour.

 

Cases referred to by the above quotes were:-

Croft v Lumley (1858)

Upfield v Marshall (1976)

Bracken v Billingshurst (2003)

The Commissioners of the Inland Revenue v Fry (2001)

Joinery Plus Ltd v Laing (2005)

Stour Valley Builders V Stuart (1993)

Day v McLea (1889)

 

My conclusions after all this and more:-

 

* It is not necessary for a dispute to be in place prior to making an offer of F & F.

* There is a definite distinction between a debtors own cheques and those of a third party.

* Timing is of the absolute essence, a delay of a few days by the creditor after cashing F & F cheques is usually not fatal to his case, a delay of two weeks or more usually is fatal to his case, although seven weeks is on surer ground.

* Delay by the creditor in informing the debtor (if the cheques are the debtors own) of his refusal to accept the offer is fatal to his case as above.

* If this is attempted by the debtor acting alone then they must be prepared to “lose” the money offered in F & F as only monies taken on account, the remainder of the debt still being owed and shall we say enforceable now or in the future. The question to ask yourself is really can you afford to have this money taken as only monies on account and still continue making payment as before or have the debt still outstanding

* Third party cheques are essential components of succeeding with F & Fs below the actual figure of the original debt. If they are then cashed by the creditor then there exists a fully legally binding agreement between the creditor and the third party benefactor NOT the debtor.

* It is not entirely necessary to establish “accord” with the creditor prior to the F & F offer being made.

* The covering correspondence must state exactly the terms and conditions under which the creditor may cash the cheques.

* The correspondence must give the creditor the opportunity to refuse the offer and return the cheques uncashed.

* It would be a wise move to state that a friend/relative/benefactor was prepared to make an ex-gratia payment to settle your debt on your behalf.

* Insist that no adverse entry is made on any credit reference file i.e. settled in full or satisfied. Nothing else will suffice

* Insist that the debt is settled and that no one will pursue this matter (OC, DCA, assignee or other agent) now or in the future (when you die think of your estate).

 

 

It became my opinion after all of the research that it would be unwise to tackle this problem alone particularly if significant sums are involved (see 5 above). This is not relatively simple Statute Law and has all of the complexities of a Common Law of Contract issue and all of the pitfalls that go with that. Every case stands or falls on its own merits. Hence our decision to ask our solicitors if they could take it up on our behalf. I would have thought a higher offer would be required but it was their decision that the opening offer only be 10% in total. If they wanted more then the bank would have to return the cheques and ask for a higher figure. To deal with this all only three letters were required.

 

It is my feeling that many successful F & Fs have little to do with the law, they are rather more to do with endemic systems failure and a weak management structure within these large sophisticated financial institutions. They only wake up to what has happened far too late, accord and satisfaction have been established as per Lloyd LJ. They have concerns about bringing actions under Contract Law. a failure would be embarrassing and could be disastrous for the other institutions as well.

 

One final point is that it is essential that you keep “proof” on a daily basis. Once those cheques have been cashed it will only take a few days before you will not be able to access all of your statements on line. Ours were cut off to the day postdating the day of the cheques being cleared. We could access nothing previous including th cashing of the cheques (but we had hard copy)/ Therefore it is wise counsel to print down your on-line statements on a daily basis until you have your “proofs”. If you are dealing with solicitors, they WILL require this proof as well as a copy statement from your benefactor which can have all else blocked out except the relevant transactions of the cheques clearing their account. It is most unlikely that you will receive any further hard copy statements from your creditor once this has gone through.

 

I thinks that it, much of it is old hat but relevant. Pick the bones. Sorry about the length of it.

 

Hope that it helps people to make clearer decisions.

 

Best regards

Garlok.

[panther12]

Just a little update, I think they are playing silly beggers as they have sent the exact same letter as the one I posted above on 4th June.

 

We have received your payment of £5. We note that you have expressed this to be a payment made in “Full and final settlement”. Please note that we have no agreement with you to accept such a payment on a full and final basis and we have therefore accepted the payment simply as an instalment with regard to the outstanding balance.

 

If you object to this course of action please let us know by the 23rd June 2011 and we will return your payment provided that it has cleared our account.

 

The only difference is that this one is dated 16th June and says if I object to let them know by the 23rd June. I think I will simply refer them to the reply I gave on the 6th June posted above.

[Bigdebtor]

Yes - I would ensure you send it Recorded Delivery - and post it off ASAP - and point out they gave you only a week to reply - including both postage delays!

 

BD

[panther12]

The previous one was sent RD with proof of receipt. Was thinking of sending something along the lines of

 

Dear Sirs,

 

RE: Full and Final Settlement Agreement

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated 16th June 2011 sent via second class post and received by me on the 20th June 2011, the contents therein are noted and I respond to the same.

 

The contents of your letter are a duplication of your previous letter to me dated 27th May 2011, received by me on 4th June 2011, and met with my written reply of 5th June 2011 which you received 09:28am on the 7th June 2011.

 

From receipt of my previous correspondence dated 5th June 2011, it has taken you a further two weeks to reply, albeit with duplicate contents of your previous letter, that letter being received three and a half (3.5) weeks after you had taken receipt of said offer and said cheque.

 

For your perusal I enclose a copy of my previous correspondence to you dated 5th June 2011 and once again respectfully request that you honour your obligations to said settlement agreement concluded between the parties and return the file on this account to you client, your written confirmation as to the same will be required by return, since I consider this concludes closure to the entirety of all matters relating to this account.

 

Yours faithfully

[the_shadow]

Its probably surpless to requirements but I would change the sentence "after you had taken receipt of said offer and said cheque.", and add in the fact they cashed the cheque in accordance with your terms.

 

S.

[panther12]

Another little update.

Received what appears to be a standard template letter from Moorcroft. They fail to address any previous correspondence or the F&F and have sent a "Important Information - Possible Litigation".

 

Basically just saying that if no contact is made folowing receipt of this letter they will assume that you are avoiding payment and recommend to their clients to issue legal action. Then they list some figures of how the debt will be increased if legal action is necessary. Pretty much standard bumf from moroncroft. Strange they are spewing out such nonsense in light of their previous letter of 16th May when they said it's nothing to do with them anymore as they have passed it back to their client!

 

I write in relation to the recent correspondence sent to this office.

Unfortunately Moorcroft is no longer responsible for collection activity on this account. The control of the account has been returned to our clients and we would ask that you refer all future correspondence directly to them.

If you have any specific queries in relation to our involvement on your account, please contact us on the above number.

[the_shadow]

These firms tend to ignore any sensible replies... they only want your cash not your comments

 

I've yet to see a single complaint properly investigated with all collection activity postponed whilst they investigate.

 

S.

[panther12]

I might splash out on one more reply (2nd Class) then ignore the delusional fools until such time as anything of real substance drops through the post. I doubt their client has any idea regarding the F&F that Moorcroft accepted on their behalf – should get rather interesting if another DCA comes along.

[johnnymitch]

Hi Panther ,

 

You could enclose a copy of their letter , saying ... you've told me you've got nowt to do with me any more , so why are you demanding money from me ?

 

Or , as shadow says , treat it as an aberration of their system .. i.e. template letters which come at a certain time ... no matter what ... LOL

 

Personally , I would let them stew ... if they did go to court (which they never will!) you've got the letter to prove Moorcroft've got no right to collect anything .. by their own admission ....

[panther12]

Decided it’s not worthy of a reply and hopefully they will do what they say and recommend to their client that instructions to issue legal action be given.

[Bigdebtor]

I might be tempted to do a very short letter - along lines of "I'm now confused - this account was settled when you accepted cheque no XXXXX dated XX May 2011 in F&F settlement (by banking the cheque on or around XX May 2011) as per the terms attached in my accompanying letter of XX May (and also written on the cheque?) - don't tell them the amount - let them dig back to see if they've perhaps missed something. You also confirmed on XX June that you were no longer dealing with this matter".

 

That way IF it goes to Court, the Judge will see THEY have ignored all of your correspondence - but YOU have done your "best" to ensure the matter was settled out of court. In any case I very much doubt that the OC (who is the only person who can sue you in this case) will do so - especially once they see how Moroncroft have screwed it up!

 

Good luck!

 

BD

[Tingy]

OK - a neat little trick in this notoriously difficult area, but first a little bit of information. Creditors are advised by the legal institutions that if they receive payments like yours, to cash them on account, and almost immediately send you, the debtor a letter saying they have done so. This is what is happening with you.

 

If the account is disputed, then creditors are advised not to cash the cheque at all.

 

One of the frequently cited cases against F&F's is the one where I think Barclays cashed a cheque and said it was on account, even though the letter had been sent several weeks previous. They were able to prove that letters are separated from cheques on receipt, so the letter and cheque had become separate items.

 

So, if you send a third party cheque in full and final, with your name and address only on the letter, they have to read the correspondence in order to pay it into the correct account, so cannot plead that bit.

 

Personally I would always get a settlement in writing FIRST, and say payment can be made within 28 days / 14 days / what have you.

 

It is nigh on impossible to get a F&F totally watertight, so in my opinion getting them to agree to terms in writing first is the best idea.

[Bigdebtor]

Tingy

 

I agree with most of what you say - but recollect from some other threads that the length of time taken by the DCA to reply saying they have taken it as a payment on account is crucial - a few days is OK for them to get away with claiming this - but "several weeks" is regarded as too long. I think Panther could get away with it - especially since he has a letter sent several weeks later which did NOT give him time to reply before their self-imposed deadline.

 

The point you make in para 4 is well made - and the Very Learned Mould explained (in this or a similar thread) how crucial it is NOT to put account details etc. on the cheque - so forcing them to read the letter.

 

I don't think any DCA would agree to a £5 F&F if your final tactic was used - so using a 3rd party cheque for £5 - but without anything on it other than a reference to the accompanying letter - is a beter way to try to dupe them into "accepting" it as F&F. It won't even start the SB clock running again - as they must give the 3rd party the option to have the money repaid if not accepting the F&F deal.

 

If I were Panther I would let them go to court - as it is Small Claims and so very low risk. I feel the OC may well not do this - but just pass it round various other DCA's or even write it off due to how badly Moroncroft have mishandled it.

 

BD