A final demand offered up to 50% off, then one account offered about 64%

One borrower said credit-card debts and a personal loan connected to a family business in the Philippines had become overdue after the borrower moved overseas and the business developed cash-flow problems. The borrower wanted to step in and repay the obligations in a way that was affordable. A final demand described two possible arrangements. One was a one-time payment with a discount of up to 50%. The other was a zero-interest installment plan. The borrower said there were no upfront funds available and was unsure whether the maximum discount in the letter would actually be offered. In a reply on the same public thread, the borrower reported: one of the accounts had offered an approximately 64% discount, and the borrower accepted it. A separate same-author reply named EastWest and PNB, but did not say which account supplied that offer or disclose the original balance. What the update does not prove The public record says the offer was accepted. It does not show that the settlement amount was paid, that the payment posted as final settlement, that a certificate was issued or that the account closed. It also does not establish what happened to the other named account or the personal loan. Other commenters suggested waiting, not paying or negotiating further. Those opinions are not evidence of this borrower's account outcome. A similarly titled r/ola_harassment post belongs to a different borrower and is excluded. Where the story stood The written final demand had described a one-time discount of up to 50%. The same borrower later reported accepting an approximately 64% offer on one account, while the payment, closure and remaining-account outcomes were still not public.