Credit Default

Thrugelmir

Tixy wrote: »

I don't think a posted letter would have changed the situation in this case. However my understanding is that in court emails are still not viewed in the same way as posted mail.

No evidence of the originator also emails can be edited.

Whereas hard copy is signed and is definative.

sirwiggum

Tixy wrote: »

I don't think a posted letter would have changed the situation in this case. However my understanding is that in court emails are still not viewed in the same way as posted mail.

Good point, usually takes the courts a while to catch up with the world.

If the letter from the solicitor had had the correct wording/confirmation of them accepting the OPs offer then I believe there would have been better chance of forcing the alteration to the file with a written letter than with an email.

I'd also suspect that a written letter in reply from the creditor may have been worded differently to an email, although that is just a supposition.

Suppose, email can be seen as a little more 'informal' than mail.

Though I usually have a better success rate with emailing social media / complaints contacts at companies than writing to them 'lost in post'...

Thrugelmir wrote: »

No evidence of the originator also emails can be edited.

Whereas hard copy is signed and is definative.

This is what cracks me up. I could theoretically sit down today and create a letter, get a letterhead from a scanned previous letter / logo off the internet, scan a previous signature and have an official looking letter.

Yes an email can be edited, but so can a scanned and printed document.

Yes an email can originate from anywhere, but so can a letter.

An email system will have records of when and what was sent, from which machine, from which the login used can even be determined.