Payment made in respect of FULL and FINAL settlement

[Stopthethieves]

most companies look for 80% of balance as a full+final and shows a amount o.s but also shows the company are not chasing for remainder, if its less than that its shows account settled with a p flag indicating amount o.s but a agreement was made between both parties and again remainder not been chased for hope this helps

 

All my settlements have been for 40%....near TRUE value...considering charges and interest.

 

Do you know this for FACT or guessing? My credit file shows a balance of #0 on the account entries so are they abiding by their obligations or is it goodwill?

 

Regards

[meagain]

So, onto page 4, can we have a potted summary?

 

Part-payment as F&F not binding apparently?

Is there enough here to also demonstrate criminality?

 

Primarily for those people who might lack the ability or desire to trawl through reams of legal wranglings.

[Bigmac versus]

great thread

[Stopthethieves]

This thread now only contains the messages relevant to

 

PAYMENT MADE IN RESPECT OF FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT.

[Rbphot]

Hi going back to a tread about full and final payment, and a post by ZOOTSCOOT, in which he said the following.

 

"If they have levied unlawful charges to your account it may well be that you in fact paid those charges. Banks generally make their charges a priority debt. ie your payments will go to discharge their fees before repaying any of the actual debt. If you still have the T & Cs have a look. If so the chances are what you have paid in full and final settlement or any monthly payment will have been their charges. The amount they let you off is likely to be the actual amount borrowed. They were not forced in to accepting the settlement and its likely that if the charges were not levied you may have been in a position to pay off the outstanding debt or would have offered a lower amount in F & F settlement."

 

I have a problem with a card company, and would be greatfull if some one can confirm what I think, that my claim is valid, based on that I actually paid the more than the amount I am claiming, and that their claim that as part of the F & F settlement they say they refunded the difference between the total amount and settlement, which included the charges so no refund to me.

 

If the above zootscoots statment in true, that so called refund will be the core debt, and I beleive they actually get there money through writing it of to tax.

 

here's my thread, would be greatfull for the advice.

 

Rbphot V CitiCards

 

Thanks

[Stopthethieves]

Hmmmm.. intresting thought, I will have to take another look at that post...

 

Regards

[Rbphot]

Well had a look at the company in questions T&C, and as some one rightly said they priortise charges first, see below.

 

9. All payments we receive from you will (unless otherwise required by law) be applied to your Account in the following order:

9.1 Citi Flex Payments Monthly Instalment (to be applied to each Citi Flex Payment facility in the order of creation);

9.2 other interest and Account Charges;

9.3 existing Promotional Balances that attract a lower rate – in the order in which they were debited to your Account as shown on the monthly statement;

9.4 existing Purchase balances and non-promotional Balance Transfers – in the order in which they were debited to your Account as shown on the monthly statement;

9.5 existing Cash balances shown on the last monthly and/or previous statements – in the order in which they were debited to your Account as shown on the monthly statement;

9.6 new Promotional Balances that attract a lower rate – in the order in which they were debited to your Account as shown on the monthly statement;

9.7 new Purchase balances and non-promotional Balance Transfers – in the order in which they were debited to your Account but not yet shown on the monthly statement;

9.8 new Cash balances – in the order in which they were debited to your Account but not yet shown on the monthly statement; and

9.9 the balance of each Citi Flex Payments facility (to be applied to each facility in the order of creation).

 

So where F&F settlement is agreed and you have paid them more than the charges you claim back as part of that total, including monthly payments, you should have grounds for the claim to proceed.

 

So my claim will be going ahead.

[too strong]

I have noticed that there hasn't been a post here for a while.

 

Has the Payment made in respect of FULL and FINAL settlement been finalised?

 

Is it true that an offer by the bank can not be chased up at a later date?

 

Myself and several other people are in the same boat regarding F+F settlement and would appreciate some discussion on the topic. (excluding DCA)

 

I have put excluding DCA but when I think about it would CITI have allowed me to go over my limit by £1300 (500-1800) and a DCA not be involved???

[willtheywontthey]

also interested in knowing whether F+F is something to pursue basically exc dca. Any further updates or conclusions to above?

[tifo]

i had a F&F settlement with HFC at 30% and the amount cleared included mostly charges.

 

i claimed these back and the bank made an offer, though not what i was asking.

 

at the FOS, they got to keep my refund towards their write off and i had to 'pay' an extra sum from compensation awarded to me for the bank's mistake (wrong default). So they made the error and got the money.

 

the bank even said they had taken off the charges at the time of settlement, but had declined to tell me (not true).

 

i argued that had the charges not been on the account, i would have paid less in my 30% settlement etc etc.

 

in the end, the bank has had a 100% payment from me for something that was settled at 30%.

 

so be careful ..... especially at the FOS as banks know how to manipulate them.

 

my thread is "Tifo vs Marbles".