Help I signed as a guarantor 6 years ago

skintandscared_2

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?

Haviton

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.

ILW

Haviton wrote: »

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.

spacey2012

Put some dates to the story.
Without them any advice is useless.

zzzLazyDaisy

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.

meer53

Speak to your inlaws, if they went to court, surely they know what the agreement was ?

superbigal36

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.

antrobus

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.

Moneymash

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.

Russe11

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?