The logical result of Guy's posting being reality would be no hesitation from lenders to rush to court and sue the pants off us. That this isn't happening and that most lenders seem willing to settle for much less than their claim suggests to me that they are by no means convinced they have a watertight case.(posted 7937 days ago)I still don't think you should fill in an I&E form unless ordered by a court to do so.
I still think until it is judged otherwise that a MIG payout arises out of a simple contract and is a simple not specialty debt.
Although my lender rejected this argument it was unable to justify it's statement by citing a definitive judgement, because there isn't one.
I still believe that the best way to proceed is to try to find flaws in the administration of the repossession and resale of one's property and engage in meticulous exploration of every aspect of the lenders behaviour.
The longer you can legitimately string this process out (bear in mind that there is no need to respond immediately to the lenders' letters - a week or so to think about it is fine) the more likely that the lender will eventually agree to settle for a 'reasonable' lump sum in full and final payment.
You say that your solicitors acknowledged the debt on your behalf. Presumably you have sought to refute this action in your communications with the lender. Have you tried making an offer in full and final settlement?