Tracey,(posted 7760 days ago)Your case does seem complex, I think you should really seek advice from a lawyer. However, I have been given a few pointers ,and questions you should consider which I hope will help:
Do the monthly payments that you made amount to payments in respect of the debt? If you were denying liability all the time , could it be argued that they were 'ex gratia' payments? If you were completely denying liability for the debt it is arguable that this is the case. It may be, however, looking at your denial 'in the round', that it amounted to a dispute about the amount of the debt rather than a denial of any liability. If this is the case, it could be argued that perhaps that they were only payments in respect of limited liability.
It's possible, however, that they would be taken as payments in respect of the debt and thus have restarted time.
The full and final payment is certainly a payment in respect of the debt unless it was specifically stated that it was being made in spite of a complete denial of liability - if this was the case, it is arguable that it was ex gratia ( I don't admit I owe you anything but I will pay you something anyway).
If the full and final was not expressed in these terms, the £500 will have been a payment in respect of the debt and will have restarted time running afresh against the ex-husband, and they'll have another 12 years to get him for the full balance owing £28,900. If he acknowledges or pays, yes , that'll start another 12 years.
CML 'amnesty' or agreement - when was the date of sale? If there has been no contact by the lender with the H within 6 years of the date of sale, they should not pursue him, ragardless of contact with or payment by W. This might apply to H.
Hope this helps, Mark.