Barclays said they owe me money but I am not entitled to it. HELP!

redux

Actually, despite the number of thanks on some other posts on this thread, I think the OP has an interesting position.

If the interest had been less, the debt would have been less. But would the settlement figure have been the same anyway, which is perhaps the basis of the bank's reasoning now? When a bank is listening to a customer making a settlement offer, adding up income and expenditure to work out what they can truly afford, is the bank working towards a certain actual amount, or a certain percentage of the balance?

If there is only one debt maybe it makes little difference to affordability, but if there are several and someone is in a plan for a while making pro rata payments and then makes similar pro rata settlement offers to each, maybe this would have been settled at a lower level.

Consider a case where someone had a personal loan, to which PPI was added as a block premium at the start. After some time they run into problems after an injury keeps them off work for a while. A new repayment plan is agreed, and then some months later a chance remark leads someone at the bank to make a reduced settlement offer by single payment, which the debtor accepts and pays with help from their family. Years later, when all the kerfuffle about PPI occurs, is this person entitled to reclaim the PPI premiums even at all, and in full or only a proportion determined by the settlement ratio? If anyone says reduced or none, what about the other question: why had the PPI refused to cover payments while they had that injury? Is the reduced settlement discounting 6 months instalments after all in lieu of the refusal months earlier, or is it just saying pay two thirds of what you owe, because we write that much off in such cases?

slink85

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

To clear the debt completely you would need to pay off the full amount.
Would doing that have been a better plan for you?

A completely false statement.

A settlement made as a full and final settlement will fully pay off the debt, hence the name, full and final settlement, its to settle the debt in full at that time.

Any future refunds to the account for whatever reason will be the property of the account holder, because at the time of the refund there's a zero balance due to the debt being settled in full, albeit for a reduced sum.

It all comes down to the wording of the OPs settlement offer

DandelionPatrol

tomtontom wrote: »

A settlement means they'll stop pursuing you for your debt, it does not mean the debt no longer exists. You can't seriously think you have a right to anything from Barclays?

If it is a full and final settlement, then the debt no longer exists, even if the settlement was for less than the contracted amount.