Advice on legal position re Barclaycard required

[Chandler99]

I don't know if anyone can help - but advice would be appreciated. Like many others I recently received a letter from Barclaycard cancelling my card - even though I had recently paid off a substantial amount on the balance. But my credit rating is on the floor so I just assumed this was the banks reducing their risky lending and thought not much more about it.

However, having sold some assets to try and reduce my debts I thought I would try a different strategy with Barclaycard.

I sent them a letter offering payment of 80% of the outstanding balance. In the letter I made it clear that this was an offer of "full and final payment". I said the offer was made in "good faith" and that I was enclosing a cheque. I also said that I would consider the act of cashing the cheque as "acceptance" of my offer - otherwise, if they didn't agree I would continue to make minimum payments.

They cashed the cheque - so I wrote and asked could they confirm that the account was now closed with nothing owing. They didn't reply.

Of course they have now sent a new statement with the the remaining 20% - plus interest showing as outstanding. I phoned and queried it.

Their stance is that they made no offer of full and final payment - my stance is that I made the offer and they accepted - plus consideration was present in the form of the cheque and subsequent payment.

My contract law is more that rusty - it's archaic - but I recall that offer, acceptance and consideration always used to form the basis of an agreement - but who knows these days? Different rules seem to apply to banks.

[leclerc]

Re: Advice on legal position re Barclaycard required

Legal Beagles Consumer Forum - View Single Post - Sainsbury's Bank Plc(HBOS) And Four Debt Collection Companies Against An Individual
The above quote relates to F&F settlements.

[Garlok]

Re: Advice on legal position re Barclaycard required

Sorry Chandler99, I am now fairly seasoned in battling Barclays and Barclaycard. But in this case I'm afraid that it is you who have the wrong end of the stick. The mechanism for f & f's is deceptively simple and elegant, the underpinning law is not. You have moved from a regulated agreement area into common law - contract which is a minefield for the unqualified and unwary. I would NEVER advise anyone to tackle F & F's on their own, it is essential that you have professional help and let them handle it. It costs about three solicitors letters, makes the thing watertight and will result in a much lower settlement than you have already paid. But you must follow a procedure to achieve this even with sols in place.

The underpinning case law goes all the way back to 1602 in the infamous Pinnel case and throughout there is no hard and fast rule which you can apply, every case stands or falls by its own merits. As we have had a recent "success" at 10% with Barclays bank. I was trying to get a bit of a write up together to put up on here for discussion but there is some information on here if you look around. Cetelco did a good write up.

If you take a look at the websites of Addleshaw Goddard solicitors and Gannons London solicitors you will find some good information as to the advice given to creditors and what their obligations are in these matters. It gives good insight in what you are letting yourself in for.

A good reference case in the Appeal Court was Stour Valley Builderspresided over by Lord Justice Lloyd. Lloyd LJ also made a distinction between settlements made directly between client/creditor and those handled by lawyers.

Sorry I can't provide more comfort and barclaycard are probably the worst people to deal with anyway.

best regards
Garlok

[Chandler99]

Re: Advice on legal position re Barclaycard required

Many thanks for the excellent (if not very encouraging) responses and advice. Re leClerc's reference to Bracken v Billinghurst [2003], I'm slightly encouraged by the fact that my letter also made it very clear that if Barclaycard did not accept the offer , they should return the cheque - which, of course, they did not.

After they cashed the cheque, I wrote again asking them to confirm that they accepted the offer and that the account was now settled. This was over a month ago and since then, I have heard nothing from them other than the normal statement on the account. So I guess, to some extent, since they haven't formally responded to my offer, time is on my side.

Re Garlok's point, I fully realise that a more formal approach to pleading a "hardship" case might have been preferable but, since I had had to sell my house to pay my debts, I wasn't in a position to plead absolute poverty - just poverty!. I also wasn't against paying a reasonable percentage of the debt. It was, after all, my debt. It's just that I figured, after the punitive charges and aggressive behaviour of the lender - plus the fact that they had summarily cancelled the contract, that 80% seemed a much more equitable figure.

I realise I might well have to pay the remainder if it comes to a legal battle - but it would seem the longer they leave it, the less likely they are to be able to recover it. Judging by other postings on this thread, it would seem they are clearing out ALL their risky debt - presumably, they may well then sell that debt on to recovery agencies. I'm sure they would get less than 80% there!

Since I had also alerted them to my change of circumstances and, therefore, hardship, there is also the matter of the statutory requirement on the lender to respond on that basis - which they haven't! At the very least they are in breach of their own code.