Issue with wording on a settlement letter

[Guest]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

Hi

Don't quite get Andy's comment above "they wouldn't" when I have shown proof that they would, and more importantly did!

However, the only thing that comes to mind is that by making it out of court "they" avoided the risk of possible precedent being set, should it end up at appeal in the higher courts (not to mention the publicity, which of course would have been obtained even at a lower county court had they lost)

As I've said before, this was some years ago and evidently they are somewhat more agressive in defending such actions nowadays

But as I've also said I still believe this offers all the proof needed that it's worth a try when negotiating a F and F - nothing ventured, nothing gained, surely?

They can only tell the person negotiating to take a hike!

It means quite simply that a creditor would not have any reason to remove credit markers because an agreement was found to be unenforceable, nor would they have any reason to return anything. (the exception to this being if there was security involved)

The problem with "evidence" such as you have provided is that it is not complete, it can give the wrong indication when bits are read out of context, so people looking at it can only surmise.
If you could state some reason why data can be removed or modified and back it up with relevant legislation or case law it may be worth considering.

If I was to guess from the slim evidence shown, I would guess that this was probably an action taken by you as the claimant, in such a case the defendant can offer,(or the court can order), to rescind the agreement, this means that it would be taken back to a situation before it was made, in such a case it is quite understandable that any records would be removed, it is a recognized equitable remedy. If this is the case it is a long way from the partial F and F settlement which is the subject of this thread.

[ncf355]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

It means quite simply that a creditor would not have any reason to remove credit markers because an agreement was found to be unenforceable, nor would they have any reason to return anything. (the exception to this being if there was security involved)

The problem with "evidence" such as you have provided is that it is not complete, it can give the wrong indication when bits are read out of context, so people looking at it can only surmise.
If you could state some reason why data can be removed or modified and back it up with relevant legislation or case law it may be worth considering.

If I was to guess from the slim evidence shown, I would guess that this was probably an action taken by you as the claimant, in such a case the defendant can offer,(or the court can order), to rescind the agreement, this means that it would be taken back to a situation before it was made, in such a case it is quite understandable that any records would be removed, it is a recognized equitable remedy. If this is the case it is a long way from the partial F and F settlement which is the subject of this thread.

Hi,

OK, looking at it from your POV, that seems like a fair assessment

However, surely you would agree that the Debtor has nothing to lose by attempting to gain the removal of all account data from CRA's in any settlement they are seeking to make?

The above at the least proves that they are more than willing to negotiate

[labman]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

I'm not sure on the legality of the Tomlin had the agreement been enforceable, but within the settlement they are stating they admit no liablility, ........

They are hardly going to write admitting full liability!

:beagle: :beagle: :beagle: