In the agreement, what do they say about when they will vary the rate? They have to detail why it will be varied

No one else targeted, not aware of a personal guarantee but will check

Thanks PT! Any comment on this though? -

I think the mileage may be justified - their head office to my location would result in a round trip in excess of 170 miles However, I will be asking for proof of the acting officers address, as he if he lives more locally to me I somehow doubt he travels back to base each time? Notice of seizure - I thought this might be the case and had already noted this to bring to the judges attention

Oh - does the action being against my Ltd Co affect the SAR?

Cheers folks SAR going off Monday!

As the judge at County Court has ruled they can have costs for the assessment hearing, how would I be able to claim these back? I also dont get how he can rule that when the whole point of asking for the costs hearing is to judge whether their costs are fair??!!

I have not sent a SAR, as detailed I did send a CPR disclosure request that they refused stating it was not reasonable

Hi, This was my POC: The Claimant claims the return of unlawful charges made upon himself by a representative of the Defendant. The Claimant states that the charges that are legally chargeable in the execution of the Defendants business (enforcement of High Court writs) are defined by law within Schedule 3 of Regulation 13 of The High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004 (copied at annex A) and do not make allowance for the level and type of charges made upon the Claimant. The High Court writ was enforced in person by the Defendants representative during which time he issued documents detailing the amounts alleged to be owed and that should be paid if the Claimant was to avoid further enforcement action (documents are copied at annex B). Claimant states that the maximum amounts chargeable by the Defendants representative were: a) Cost of execution at £50 b) £2 for seizure of goods c) 2.5% of the original county court debt (2.5% of £1150.39) = £28.76 d) Mileage at 29.2p/mile, with a maximum of £50 e) A sum of £2 for any expenses reasonably incurred by way of telephone calls, postage, etc The above amounts are justified via the details shown in Annex A Therefore, given that the total sum of the above can only be a maximum of £132.76, and then allowing VAT of 15% on the services (giving a VAT amount of £19.91) and interest incurred of £6.31 gives a total chargeable by the Defendants representative of £158.98 plus the original judgment amount of £1150 giving £1308.98. This means the amount charged on the date of 30th June 2009 exceeded the legally allowed sum by £807.57 and it is this amount the Claimant seeks the return of.

Hi, costs in their favour for the detailed costs hearing, not for the small claims

Hi all, as some are no doubt aware I started a claim against a HCEO in the Small Claims to claim unlawfully charged costs from them (amounts charged other than those allowed by HCEO regs) The defended claiming Regulation 12, despite the fact the costs claimed were not allowed for in the Writ of Fieri Facias I then applied for disclosure as they had refused to make the details available to me, and the judge assigned a hearing for this Shortly after, they applied to strike out the claim, have it transferred before a senior costs judge and for me to pay the costs of that hearing The judge has allowed this! What can I do about this, if anything? And what's the recommended next move?

Fred Wouldnt advise the change to your home address The onus would be on you to prove goods in the garden, cars in the driveway etc belonged to you and not the company In my case they assumed both my wifes and mothers car belonged to the Ltd Co and clamped them My mum could prove the car was hers, so they unclamped it but he also climbed into the garden and started threatening to take a hot tub (because that would belong to a Ltd Co, wouldnt it!) I'd get a breakdown of the £700 though

EB, you will be able to challenge this I'm assuming (from rough calcs) that you took the loan out in Jan 2006(ish)? THIS came into force 31st May 2005 and its quite freankly staggering that IF you took the loan out in 2006 they are trying to apply rule of 78 Though I have to say, for you to pay £500 less than if you went the full term it sounds unlikely they used 78 I believe the rough calculation is they are entitled to 1 months extra interest? What APR was your agreement? Can you give the total figures? (amount borrowed, monthly payments, amount paid to settle at 23 of 4 8

I disagree DX100! I would have thought that unless BC can show a link between the original credit agreement, and an agreement allowing data to be processed they are screwed and the OP could contact the ICO to complain

Now THAT sounds like the way forward! "We, the undersigned...." ?

Hi IAOAD, very glad to see you are getting support you require here I can offer no advice for this area but send you my best, it disgusts me that people can treat a young mum in this manner (especially with the visits issue - this is disgusting!) Take care NcF

As shown in the example above, amount extra of 20k (example only) on top of the standard owed balance of 48k is purely due to the one term which I believe is unfair

Sounds like a complaint to the ICO is in order?

Really, no one?

Actually scratch that, buried in there is "3 month libor" Though its still wrong..................

I received a ltter today from my lovely fluffy mortgage company telling me that my rate had increased to 2.25% Now, I'm a little curious about this as its based on Libor + 1.5% and the rates are supposed to be based on the rates as at: 1st March 1st June 1st Sept 1st Dec So, as this one is based on 1st March rates, the Libor rates at 1st March were: 1 month: 0.228% 3 month: 0.252% Overnight: 0.175% and none of the above + 1.5% would result in 2.25%? Anyone care to shed any light on how their calculation might have been reached? Also, having gone over the agreement, it seems they dont actually state WHICH libor rate applies, and whilst I am of the impression the norm is 3 month, I seem to remember when you have a statement that is unclear the clarity must alwways go in favour of the consumer? Be glad of any input! Cheers NcF

Yes, I feel sorry for them, they must have had to cut down to 10 magnums of Cristal per night poor things

LOL, This is a great idea BF - do we have examples of each letter?

Hi, looking at taking action against a creditor for an unfair term related to early settlement and Rule of 78 Am I correct in the assumption that if the term is unfair, it is unfair full stop and thus ANY monies paid in respect of that term should be claimed So, say the balance is currently £48k, but the Rule of 78 calculation gives a total settlement of 68k, then the 20k (68k - 48k) should be claimed?