We are in the process of buying a property and business. We approached ASC in Hove , having been directed to them as our local office even though we are in North West Surrey and there is a branch in Weybridge. The first thing they wanted was a £750 fee payable to Greenbridges Ltd before they would start looking for loans for us. Nothing seemed to happen for months then they came back and said that Fincorp would be providing the finance but we would have to pay a valuation fee of £2,700. By lucky chance we had a contact with a Director of Fincorp and we said we weren't happy that it was taking so long to get bridging finance arranged. He knew of ASC and said that they occasionally did business with them but he was able to confirm that after 4 months, no approach had been made by ASC on our behalf and no valuation had been ordered. We immediately cancelled our deal with ASC as they had been totally incompetent and had achieved nothing. We asked for our money back and after much chasing sent a cheque made out to us personally and not to the company and in the wrong amount having deducted 20% for VAT. There then followed a lot of chasing, further cheques for the wrong amount and we are still waiting for the balance of £540 plus the £750 advance fee. I have given them until next Friday to pay up or we issue a Court summons. I would never recommend anybody to deal with ASC. We subsequently found a local broker who got the commercial finance sorted out and agreed in a week. 6 months of this year has been wasted with ASC which so far has cost us £300k in lost income. The only thing that concerns me is that with the new lenders, we had to spilt the deal into a commercial and residential parts and the residential part is being placed with Lancashire Mortgage, who, from this, sound as bad as Swift Advances with whom I have also had dealings.

About 4 years ago, we had some financial problems and GE Money tried to repossess our house. The matter went to Court and we got the Warrant suspended on payment of the monthly payment plus an amount off the arrears calculated by the Judge on the Norgren principle. Since then we have not missed a payment and the arrears are decreasing. At the end of October, GE Money started calling to say that there was no payment arrangement in place and they want the payment to be increased because the total debt was increasing because they had not declared the actuarial fee account in Court. The Judge had asked for full details in Court before passing his ruling and only the Mortgage amount and the Arrears were declared by their Solicitor. The Solicitor declared that was the total debt owed. GE Money have 3 phone number for me, Home, Mobile and Business number and started calling all numbers up to 6 times a day. So far they have made over 1,100 calls I have reported them to the FSA and the OFT for harassment. The Information Commissioner's Office were useless as they only deal with cold-calling for sales. The FSA surprised me by taking the matter seriously and said that they had asked the OFT to prepare a full report for them with a view to taking action. I have told GE countless times that there is a Court Order in place which is a legally binding agreement on both parties. They have now started adding £40 monthly charges to the account as they say there is no payment agreement in place. Are they in financial difficulties as they seem desperate to wring a few more pounds a month out of me. They are certainly not making much if a lot of people have the same terms as us as our contracted rate is 2.19% over BoE bank rate. Who can I approach to get the calling to stop?

The Actuarial Account is the one that Swift and the other seedy lenders don't want you to see. It is the one where they add all the additional fees and charges and charge interest on them which over the period of the loan can add up to many times the amount that you borrowed. Their hope is that you will never be able to pay off the loan so somewhere along the line they can get possession of the property. Basically they run two accounts for a borrower, the loan account, which has the initial borrowing and the broker's fee (which is normally well above the limits recommended by the FSA) and to which the interest is added and payments made. The Actuarial account holds all the fees and charges, the fees they charge for taking the matter to Court (which technically should be awarded by the Court but they charge more that they would get awarded at Court). They then add the interest on to this amount. In Court they do not make any reference to this account except to include the amount in the total. The Court may make an order to pay the monthly installment plus an amount off the arrears, the arrears being the ones showing on the Loan Account. Generally the Court will settle for an amount calculated under the Norgren principle, which is an amount that will ensure the arrears are paid off over the remaining period of the loan. Of course, as they haven't declared the Actuarial balance nothing is being paid off that, so it continues to grow with management charges and interest being added. If the loan is interest only, then one will find that the settlement figure is not just the borrowed amount but an outstanding balance many times the size of the amount borrowed.. This is why you will find many cases on here of people who have borrowed, say £30,000, miss a payment early on and later when they come to settle the loan they find that they still owe almost the full amount or even more. The Actuarial Account has been sitting there, undeclared, having charges and interest added and not being reduced at all because it was not taken into consideration during the calculation in Court, because they deliberately withheld the information. It might even prove possible to bring criminal charges against them for taking a Pecuniary Advantage.

The thing that anybody dealing with Swift has to watch is that they do not produce the Actuarial Accounts in Court. We had problems a few years back and Swift tried to repossess. Luckily our situation stabilised and we were able to make an offer of payment of the monthly installment plus an amount off the arrears agreed in Court, which we have maintained for several years now. However according to the Credit Reference Agencies the outstanding amount is increasing by a much faster rate than the amount being paid off on the arrears. Twice I have got the Judge to demand that they produce the Actuarial Account in Court so he can look at their charges and consider them under the UTCCC Regulations and twice they have refused to make the accounts available. After the last review I asked to approach the Judge and pointed out that they had failed to produce the actuarial accounts yet again and he said if they fail to produce them again he will consider ordering that the debt is unenforceable as they have failed to produce the required and requested documents in Court. It will be interesting to see what happens but there is no date set at the moment. Incidently after yet another complaint to Swift they wrote to me and stated that there may have been some charges added to the account which were not allowed following the FSA investigation into Swift 1st and they offered to refund one month's payment in full and final settlement of my complaint. Needless to say I did not accept because I think there is a can of worms under this company and perhaps HMRC will follow this web of companies and the dealings and transfer of loans between other companies in the group, no doubt for tax avoidance. Now the Channel Islands have been dragged into the tax system the parent LLP in Guernsey may come under scrutiny.

Firstly, I think that there should be proper procedure in issuing High Court Enforcement Orders with notification from the Court and the option to present a case before the Court before Bailiffs are allowed to take action. 2. Bailiff fees are excessive. To reduce this, a local Bailiff should always be used. I have recently had a problem with South East Water and we went to the County Court and presented the case that as an old age pensioner I was happy to pay on reasonable installments. South East Water had refused to set up a Direct Debit for payment on three separate occasions as there were arrears on the account which they insisted had to be brought up to date first. Agreement was reached with their solicitor, account details were provided, they didn't take any payments and Marston's arrived on the doorstep with a High Court Enforcement Order - a scrappy photocopy on their letterhead. Was this even a genuine Order? At any rate they had come down from the West Midlands to Surrey in a car and two vans and added a huge charge to the outstanding balance, and they were unable to take anything away as I had an agreement in writing that SEWater would accept a monthly payment.. 3. I understand that where things like Council Tax are involved, Bailiffs can be instructed at a flat fee of £28.50 for a first visit and £18 for a subsequent visit. Other charges for removal of goods, and sale are also controlled. Why should High Court Bailiffs be any different when they are dealing with similar size debts? 4. In the revision to the Consumer Credit Act, I believe that loans of up to £500,000 are now covered. Should it not be the case that the High Court Enforcement should only apply to debts above that amount to bring the various regulations into line. The County Court is perfectly capable of dealing with cases that involve a lesser amount. 5. The other thing that I hope will end is that Bailiffs charge a fee for accepting payments by Debit Card. Since last June it has been against EU law to charge a fee on Debit Card payments. 6. I see no logic for having a sliding scale or charges as a percentage of the debt. The work that a bailiff has to do is much the same regardless of the size of the debt. I would say a flat fee for a first visit. If they have to attend a second time then a further flat fee plus an allowance for additional vehicles. No bailiffs should be employed if they are located more than 35 miles from the defendant's location to minimise expenses.

My wife has just received a Statutory Demand for an alleged debt on a Capital One credit card accompanied by a letter from Hamptons Solicitors (a division of Lowell Financial). As far as I am aware there is no debt outstanding as my wife entered into a debt consolidation program with a loan from Alliance & Leicester to pay off all her credit cards. The last payment on the loan will be made next month (March 2011). I have had problems with being harrassed by this company before when the pursued me for two years over a "debt" on an HSBC Current Account despite my informing them that I have never banked with HSBC. I reported them to the OFT for that incident when they could provide me with no evidence of the existance of the "debt". The process server who delivered the Statutory Demand told me that his business has just received hundreds of these SDs to serve, all from Lowell/Hamptons and all originating from alleged Capital One debts. Apparently several of them have already been found to have been paid and the funds were sitting in a Capital One suspense account. The issue of Statutory Demands seems to be a heavy handed approach particularly as we have had no notification from Captial One of any assignment of any debt or any letters from Lowell other than a statement of account in January with no information on the source of the amount shown. The statement had no air of authenticity as it was printed on copy paper on a colour inkjet printer. As Old Age Pensioners, these sorts of demands are very disturbing.