Ok I will have to go over the documents this evening and get back to you. Thanks very much

On the agreement it states 13.9. The actual loan was 4503 but 150 was added for the title and 500 broker fee

Good evening DB I did try to use the calculator but I'm sure the result was wrong. Can you be kind enough to put the figures through to see what you come up with. The APR was 13.9 loan started January 2008 and settled in August 2008. 300 month term. 7 payments of 73.56 made. So starting balance 5153 settlement figure 7829. Loan ran for 8 months but so many additional charges were added. Let me know what you think or if you need more information for the final analysis. Thank you

Good morning I would love to see your views on my last post with the detail figures Dodgeball and any one eles. Thank you

Good evening, I did say i would post more information about the other loan, plus some indepth details. First the settlement figure of £19,343 in 2008 was an orginal loan taken out in January 2004 for the sum of £18,900, this was a 12 year loan. The APR was 15.29%Then in Janunary 2008 a secured loan of £4,503 was taken out. On top of this loan was £500 broker fee, £150 title insurance, so the opening loan was £5,153. The APR was 13.90%.This loan was settled in August 2008 settlement figure being £7,829, this included £1000 plus for collection costs and £395 for redemption fees etc. The collection cost for the larger loan was £195 but for the smaller loan it was £1000 plus. What was the difference in the way the loans were 'collected' and what was the process of the collection. I tried to challenge BF on all the charges and collection costs, plus the £55 x 3 for the settlement figure request and other letters in this regard on each loan. They claimed they can charge what they like under the agreement. The Rule 78 increased the larger loan and i was sent a formula in respect of how it was worked out and none of the number or symbols made any sense. Can anyone advise on the above in terms of any possible claims and clarify the terms of the larger loan as this was a 12 year loan, the way it was calculated. Thanks very much for your assistance.

Thank you Tawnyowl,Your so right, local people are needed for the industry and workforce and its not in anyones best interest to move people / families out of the area.I will have a look at your article: Rogers Stirk Harbour and i will let you know my views. I wonder if this concept would work, there could be a business case to put forward, I wonder how the logistics would work. If a 3 bed room house could be build via half the initial outlayi cant see why this would not be a good option. The land to build on would be a problem due to the cost. I understand it takes thoses with skill and experience to errect these buildings. This is what i call 'affordable housing' not a 2 bed flat from 400K - 600K. Yesterday i saw a 1 bed flat in Putney for 755K but it could bepurchased via the 'help to buy' scheme so that will make all the difference, I'm sure.

I often question the 'Affordable Housing' in London. 1 & 2 bed flats being sold off plan from between 450K - 800K. Which part of these prices are affordable? Even if they are brought via the help to buy scheme it's huge costs per month and large salaries are needed to keep up with the monthly expenses. The Housing Benefit cap has caused no end of problems as the private landlords are not getting the high rents as time before. I work in this area and it's pure evictions on a regular basis and families being told to move out of London where properties are cheaper to rent. This just causes isolation broken links and connections with adults and children alike. Flat pack housing is a good solution in many countries. Im not sure if it woukd take off in the UK as the interest will be on units which can have a mortgage on it. Plus im not sure what building control would have to say not to mention the planning departments. These issues are not an issue in Sweden and the homes are built to superb quality with long standing materials. I'm thinking of a completely different housing model of starter homes. I will write to Boris Johnson before he leaves his post.

Thank you all for the above information. It's fair to say the loan was taken out in 2004 so was regulated at the time. Looks like nothing can be challenged or a case brought forward. I do have one final loan with them to post on here taken out in 2007. Looking at posts and threads over the years many people have been hit by this company and its never in any positive light very negative. Individuals end up completely out of pocket. Even though the identity has changed I'm sure the framework is the same.

Does anyone have any knowledge in relation to my previous post?

Blemain Finance Unfair Charges & Redemption Figure Good Afternoon All, I wonder if I can draw on the experitse, knowledge and experience of those who have had dealings with BF. The details and concerns are as follows:Secured loan taken out in 2004 - £18900, settled in 2008 - £19,343. The breakdown of this is: £8,233 (rebate), costs & charges (£195), redemption admin fee (£395), default interest (£177), legal doc fee (£690). I did ask for the formula as to how these figures were reached and was sent some strange numbers from taken from the office of fair trading website. Rule 78 was used I believe. Is there any challenge in the way this loan was calculated, 4 years later the loan had increased over and above what was originally taken out. I tried to address these concerns with BF but obviously i just got pushed aside and a letter was sent to justify their actions but i want and need to challenge its fairness. Any views and opionions and quesrions on this would be grately appreciated. I believe that R78 was not used in settlement calculations from 2005 onwards. I'm pretty sure the OFT sent an advise out to lenders to tell them to cease using it. Does anyone know if this is the case and the legal framework around this.