Hi, Thanks for the prompt reply. I don't think it's a different cause of action: it's the same car - they double counted some repayments and although the particulars of claim had the correct figure on it, in court (I wasn't there) they said there had been further repayments amount to the £1,800 and so the CCJ was issued £1,800 lower. Thanks.

Hi, I'd be grateful for any help on this issue. I bought a new car on a ballon payment finance scheme. By the time it came to pay the balloon payment of £8K I was out of work due to health issues and for about 18 months the solicitors acting for the finance company accepted informal repayments. Finally they applied for a suspended CCJ (to give their client some protection they said) with repayments by me at the rate of £300 cpm. I did not contest the CCJ as I saw it as reasonable in the circumstances. The CCJ was granted about a year ago and I have managed to keep the payments up. Recently, I discovered that the sum claimed by the solicitors on behalf of their client had in fact been £1,600 lower than it should have been, due to an error on the part of the solicitors. They are now pressing me for payment of the additional £1,800, just as I thought I was getting out of the woods. They are threatening further legal action. What can I / should I do? All help greatly appreciated.

Just to update: My access to the website was restored today; yesterdays emails were bounced back in seconds. Perhaps somebody from MiniCredit is reading this link! Balance of account now up to £701 after 21 days, amazing!!!

I too am in the you-know-what with PDLs and MiniCredit in particular. I borrowed £300, made one rollover payment of £99 and failed to pay up on 1 February. I have experienced the same as you guys in terms of non-response, threats etc. I sent them this email this afternoon: Thank you for your email of 20 February. Could you please: 1. Could you please reply to my email of 1 February requesting that charges and interest be frozen and further requesting that a repayment plan be arranged. 2. As at today’s date (20 February 2012) I am unable to access your website, and therefore my account. A requested new password does not work with my mobile number. I cannot therefore verify or check any of the data relating to my account. I am also unable to contact you via your preferred method (i.e. through your website). 3. Please explain how the outstanding balance of £678 is made up. To remind you, I borrowed £300. One month’s outstanding interest amounts to £99. I should be obliged to know how this sum could escalate by a further £279 in only 20 days. 4. I note your reference to “THE DOORSTEP COLLECTOR”, please be advised that under OFT rules you (or your representatives) can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make such an appointment with you or your representatives. There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and, if you do so, you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance. 5. I have previously advised you that any attempt to contact me must only be made in writing. 6. I note your threat to contact an employer. Any attempt to call a third party regarding this matter is in breach of OFT Guidance and will be reported as a complaint to the OFT.