We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Help I signed as a guarantor 6 years ago
Options
Comments
-
But if the amount owed was £80,000 and the in-laws only intended paying their half, i.e. £40,000 there would have been no need for any "negotiations" or solicitors involved, as that WAS half the outstanding amount. The negotiations themselves surely prove that this was a F&F settlement for the entire outstanding balance.
If it was 6 years or more since this F&F settlement, wouldn't the balance be statute barred by now anyway?DMP Mutual Support Thread member 244
Quit smoking 13/05/2013
Joined Slimming World 02/12/13. Loss so far = 60lb in 28 weeks :j 18lb to go0 -
But if theyve chased the Inlaws for £80k, but accepted £40k in Full and Final, the fact they came for £80k means, IMO, they were after the whole lot.
£40k in Full and Final if they were only coming for the in laws half is hardly a great settlement.0 -
But if theyve chased the Inlaws for £80k, but accepted £40k in Full and Final, the fact they came for £80k means, IMO, they were after the whole lot.
£40k in Full and Final if they were only coming for the in laws half is hardly a great settlement.
Its a good settlement for the inlaws as tehy could have been liable for the lot.0 -
Put some dates to the story.
Without them any advice is useless.Be happy...;)0 -
skintandscared wrote: »But if the amount owed was £80,000 and the in-laws only intended paying their half, i.e. £40,000 there would have been no need for any "negotiations" or solicitors involved, as that WAS half the outstanding amount. The negotiations themselves surely prove that this was a F&F settlement for the entire outstanding balance.
If it was 6 years or more since this F&F settlement, wouldn't the balance be statute barred by now anyway?
You need to see a copy of the F&F agreement urgently.
The agreement only binds the stated parties - so if the F&F names only the creditor and the inlaws, then the creditor is still able to pursue the other debtors who were not a party to the F&F. Of course they would only be able to pursue them for the remaining balance. So it is imperative that the F&F agreement expressly states that the payment is in full and final settlement of the debt owed by [name/name/name/ and name].
It is simple contract law, an agreement between two parties cannot and does not bind persons who are not a party to the contract.
So if the F&F covers only the inlaws, then the creditor can continue to chase the remaining two for the balance.
So your starting point is the F&F agreement.
If that doesn't help, then you need to check out the 'statute barred' position which will depend on when the debt was last acknowledged.I'm a retired employment solicitor. Hopefully some of my comments might be useful, but they are only my opinion and not intended as legal advice.0 -
Speak to your inlaws, if they went to court, surely they know what the agreement was ?0
-
they then chased my inlaws who have lots of assets and property
I dont quite follow. If someone was a guarantor and had lots of assets.
Why would a bank accept 50% ?
Why do people not like paying debts back.0 -
zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »Y.....
If that doesn't help, then you need to check out the 'statute barred' position which will depend on when the debt was last acknowledged.
National Debtline says;
If you think your joint debt might be statute barred, you need to check if the other person has made any payments. If they have made a payment within the limitation period, this means the time limit restarts again for both of you.
http://www.bdl.org.uk/images/25_EW_NDL_Liability%20for%20debts%20and%20the%20limitations%20act.pdf
Presumably therefore, the date of the F&F agreement would be crucial.0 -
superbigal36 wrote: »Why do people not like paying debts back.
Sorry this if off topic but
Because people don't like to pay off things they bought they didn't need in the first place. It leaves them with less money to buy things they don't need in the first place, obviously.Debt-Free day 30th September 20140 -
2004 loan taken out, uptill 2006, that was peak of the market, two years trading in that market should of cleared the loan?
the loan taken out was 80k, how come after 2 years there was still 80k owing?
how come the when OP "lost their house" the proceeds did not cover this loan?
or was it 80k secured against the home, interest only, guarantor required becasue the equity was not there?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards