Moorcroft Debt Recovery - Full and Final Query

I settled a debt with them that was £317 for £3.17 then sued the client for £25 when they demanded a copy of the same letter they already had and refused to pay my invoice.

Bottom line, they are muppets and can easily be maneuvered into accepting a good full and final cleverly worded with the correctly added decimal point.

Chance your arm with a £20 cheque and accompanying letter offering it only as full and final and see if they cash jt. If they do and don't come back disputing it then you're a good way clear to it being settled (yes there are other angles to cover) but a hurdle like this will give them further cause to hesitate in taking legal action against you and hopefully it will drop off at the 6 year mark before they get their act together.

You've offered to pay Moorcroft for the debt. Unfortunately, I can think of no reason why that wouldn't be seen as acknowledging the debt in writing. Why offer to pay the debt if it isn't yours? This will of course have re-started the clock. Although the default will fall off your file after the 6 years since it was put on, they now have another 6 year with which to chase you for the balance and obtain a CCJ.
Moorccroft would have bought the debt knowing the time was almost up, and trying to get details from people who don't know any better. As you've effectively admitted the debt is yours, and they know they have another 6 years, I doubt very much they will accept a F&F offer of only 10% of the debt.
Sorry if that sound harsh, but I imagine that it the reality of it now.

fatbelly wrote: »

A correctly worded letter would NOT constitute acknowledgement

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/24%20EW%20Full%20and%20final%20settlement%20offers/Page-04.aspx

Always head these letters 'without prejudice' - provided they genuinely contain an element of negotiation they cannot then be used as evidence in court.

A payment of course is unambiguous.

There is a famous HMRC case where skyshadow's method was not accepted by the courts (Inland Revenue v Fry).

In your situation, I'd follow post #2

This is very true as there are ways around full and final settlement cheque offers, a lot of it depends on the value of the debt. The smaller the value and the greater the costs of dealing with the recovery are a fine balance. Should the costs exceed the value then most will normally throw in the towel.

I stand by my methods that correctly worded this could create additional administrational costs that would act as sufficient arm twisting. To give you some background a SAR requesting all information to support this and exercising your legal right to have all audio calls transcribed into written format sends costs and manhours through the roof (I've worked in a Data Privacy Team before and got orders from senior managers that you have to provide calls in written format if pressed but to never admit that to a customer) as well as many other things which will tip the balance into costing more to recover than the value of the debt.

Others have suggested more straightforward ways, I just like giving the benefit of what has worked for me as an option to consider