workingmum: I would send it to whichever department sent you the letter, as it is most likely the case that they will deal with your complaint directly. Head office might be an option at a later point. You can request time limits when demanding certain types of information but for a general response I would just add "ASAP" or something to that effect - you can always send another ('further to my previous correspondence') letter after 7 days or so if you haven't received a reply.

workingmum: In respect to silverfox's advice, I would make the first letter polite but to the point. State that the charges are wholly unreasonable and, therefore, contrary to the terms of service. Also request a refund. Keeping it short and to the point is, in most cases, the best way to start. On the point of what agreement was or wasn't signed, be careful here as you most likely accepted their specific terms of service upon sign up - and their service charge policy is highlighted in bold on the document I found. The fact that you didn't physically sign a document is largely irrelevant (unless you didn't accept any kind of agreement whatsoever, which would be somewhat bizarre).

workingmum: So the service charges cost you around 50% on top of your standard repayments? There would be little justification for the catalogue to apply such extortionate charges - I suggest that you contact them in writing and demand that the service charges you have paid for to date are deducted from the outstanding balance. That being said, Studio appear to include the following terms in their contract: Assuming that you have been making regular payments to the catalogue, the 50% (approx) service charge would appear unreasonable. Write to them.

Hi workingmum, It largely depends on what you signed up for and how the information was presented to you. By service charge, the catalogue presumably means interest on the existing outstanding balance? Whilst 44% APR is high for a catalogue agreement, if the terms were clearly expressed to you on sign up then they are not invalid. Whether or not they are extortionate is another matter. My advice would be to call them and explain that you are having difficulties keeping up repayments with such high APR. They may offer to terminate your account and freeze interest on the outstanding balance. At this early stage, communication is imperative.

You highlighted a major exception to Pinnel's Case in respect to the earlier repayment date but that's only because consideration is deemed to be provided in the form of performance. I only raised this issue because contract law will not extinguish the debt unless consideration for the remainder has been shown or some kind of equitable exception can be argued. In practical terms, I agree that most creditors will not chase the remainder where a reduced repayment offer has been accepted. That being said, they would still be legally entitled to do so. The equitable exceptions (promissory estoppel, estoppel by convention, etc.) would be difficult to argue in the context of an outstanding debt - they are more often applied in land law cases (tenancy, rent, etc.). So, as to your question, yes, the creditor can come back a few months later and demand the remainder - but they probably won't.

bedlington83: In practice, if you take an offer from a creditor that will probably be the last you hear of it. However, in contract law the debt is not satisfied until it is fully paid off - or, more specifically, consideration must be shown for the remainder. I don't remember all the case law developments from uni but the main cases you want to research are Pinnel's and Williams and Roffey. The overriding point is that a promise to accept part payment does not involve the requisite consideration (money) on the part of the debtor, so the remainder is not extinguished in contract law. There are some exceptions, though, as I mentioned: estoppel and equitable releases. These usually kick in where the debtor has relied on the creditor's promise to their detriment.

I'd just like to reiterate that I don't intend to offend anyone - just hung up on the aforementioned issue. Yesterday I managed to upset an individual whose son had been caught speeding, so maybe it's just me

robjam: The issue of whether or not to sign up with TXTLoan resulted in my arrival on this forum, so it's not a question of searching for other lenders. As much as I can sympathise with mightyroyals (we have all been in tricky financial situations), I don't understand the basis of his or her argument, which is why I have probed the issue further. Perhaps this is not in the spirit of CAG, as the so-called prejudice I encountered can be more aptly described as a two-camp situation: either you are on the side of the debtor or you are a troll. I'm content to leave the point as it is and not cause any undue stress to mightyroyals, but the reason for my asking is that either the company in question waited until the full amount of charges could be applied to the account before attempting to withdraw the outstanding balance or it attempted to take the £110 on the 8th day but no funds were available in mightyroyal's bank account. The difference is important because if the former example is true then the FSA can become involved, which would obviously be of benefit to mightyroyals, whereas if the latter example is true then, unfortunately, the whole argument comes crashing down. What I don't understand is that TXTLoan were able to take money out on the 46th day but apparently not any earlier - for people interested in such issues, it is worth finding out. Wouldn't you agree?

Hi Charley, I picked up this thread somewhere towards the middle, so maybe I have missed something but I thought you required the DCA's bank details in order to proceed with the Garnishee Order? If you have the details already, then forget my comment fletchy

mightyroyals: Sorry if I have caused you any offence. I'm not trolling and my connection to TXTLoan involves little more than a general interest and subsequent search on Google. So far, most of the comments I have read about the company have been negative, but I'm just trying to understand your particular situation. During my short spell on this forum I have encountered an unfortunate prejudice against any kind of different opinion, which isn't exactly encouraging. I am intrigued by your situation because it doesn't make any sense. You claim that your card was stolen but your bank account had sufficient funds to pay for the TXTLoan debt on days 7, 8, 9, 10 and all subsequent days. So why didn't or couldn't TXTLoan take the amount on the 8th day but somehow managed it a month or so later? It's a reasonable enough question and I think it resides at the heart of the argument - as you are clearly aggrieved by the company's actions, I'm sure you can easily answer it rather than resorting to "get off my thread" comments, which hardly help anybody.

Why not just call the DCA in question and ask for their bank details in order to make a payment?

mightyroyals: Out of interest, how was it that you couldn't repay on the 7th day but TXTLoan was able to take the payment anyway? I checked the TXTLoan website and in their help section I found this: So presumably TXTLoan tried to take the £110 from your account on the 8th day but you had insufficient funds? Because if your card was stolen and then a month passed, it doesn't make any sense that TXTLoan would then be able to take £246 from you, as surely the card details would be different? Or are you saying that TXTLoan waited until a month had elapsed before taking any kind of payment from you? I also found this, which suggests your debt had been passed to a collections agency: robjam1969: I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate. I probably won't sign up to TXTLoan as I don't need the money that urgently but I don't see any other reason not to do so. Yes, circumstances change, but over a 7 day period? If finances are that tight and unpredictable surely it's best not to take out a short term loan in the first place??

"Contact the creditor and offer them payment of 40% in full and final settlement on condition that the account is not sold on and all adverse credit markers are permanently removed." As a warning to anybody who follows such advice, a partial repayment that is accepted by a creditor does not amount to satisfaction of the debt in contract law. Unless detrimental reliance (estoppel) can be shown by the debtor.

summerbreeze: Sorry to muscle in again, but it would be a positive step to plead your son's case to the magistrate in writing. It won't help sway a guilty or not guilty decision but it may influence the outcome of a particular case in terms of a ban or fine. I wouldn't take anything for granted, though.

summerbreeze: I did read your original comment. As your primary aim is to ensure that your son is not given a driving ban of any description, the fine or fee options are your only routes. My previous comment was intended to help you realise that pleading not guilty can come at a price if your son is prosecuted. itstheone: The original poster asked how best she could help her son and, in my opinion, I provided a reasonable answer.