I would say that your calculations are correct, and you should certainly be pushing for a much higher settlement on Loan 1 then they have made.

Numerous posts have been removed from this thread due to being "off-topic", please ensure that future posts on this thread relate to the discussion of issues regarding the test case as outlined by the opening poster.

May not get you anywhere, but have you tried Trading Standards?

Companies do not "close down" discussions. If a thread is closed then it is closed by the site team for a reason. Either it is because there is a potential legal issue that needs investigating - in which case the closure MAY be temporary. Otherwise it is because there has been a breach (or possible breach) of site rules. If CAG closed down every thread simply because a company demanded it, then I can assure you we would see many more threads closed. At the same time it is important to remember that we have legal duty to remove any defamatory content in an "expedient" manner, as soon as we become aware of it's presence. That therefore means we have to remove and review - rather than the other way round.

The thread was temporarily closed whilst it was reviewed by site admin. As you only emailed admin at 5.33pm to ask why it was closed, it would have perhaps been more polite to wait more than 10 minutes for a response before accusing the site of censorship.

The best "why I should receive a free CAG mug" story competition hasn't started yet - but I am sure your entry will be given full consideration.

Just in case you feel guilty about claiming. - The Consumer Forums

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/131250-dca-creditor-harassment-telephone.html

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/222449-great-cag-slogan-mug.html

We have decided to launch two great competitions. Firstly, we need your help to find a slogan to use for a CAG mug. Once we have a good batch of suggestions we will decide on the one we think is the best, and the winner will receive the first mug when they have been printed. The second competition will be for when the mugs have been produced, and that will be a photo competition for which we have not yet decided on the prize. But the winner will be the best photo of a CAG mug being used in a bank - or some other major financial institution. More details on this after we have the mugs!! Anyway - feel free to post your slogan suggestions below. Obviously we will not be able to consider anything that is likely to be considered obscene, or defamatory.

Console - I presume from what you say that you are working with consumer credit agreements (you mention "loans"), do you hold a consumer credit licence?

Hmm - my most recent letter was to an address in North London.

On the one hand I am disappointed - on the other hand the ball is now back in Derby City Council's court as I had expected it would be, and at least they are obliged to properly discuss the issue. The court have accepted the explanation of the bailiff - however I am shocked that the judge did not question the fact that he has only provided generic paperwork with his submission - and the statement he has made to the court contains several things that are at a considerable variance with our version of events. Clearly the judge has decided that my wife is a liar - and that Mr Warlow is a perfect human being that would never tell fibs. Since the judge has never met my wife, and has clearly decided he does not believe it to be necessary, I am at a loss to see how the Form 4 complaints process is supposed to be fair. I am also amazed that the bailiff has been allowed to completely ignore the issue of the excessive fees in his response. The only reference to the charges was made in the submission by Marston's, and even that did not mention the amounts, it just noted that the fees were in line with legislation and that since the Warrant had been sent back to the court it was no longer an issue anyway. Clearly the Form 4 system is geared in favour of the bailiff, since it does not have any process by which you can cross-examine the response that is made to court. The judge simply looks at the hundred, or so, words that you send in on the Form 4 - then he looks at the 100, or so, pages submitted by the bailiff and his employers. It would seem then, that the only way of bringing these people to book is to ensure that the court gets swamped with complaints. It is only when they see a pattern emerging that there is any likelihood that a judge will treat your complaint seriously. One final postscript - we have never denied that the offence took place, and we have never said that we are trying to avoid payment - just that we need time to pay, and wish to be able to discuss that with the Authority concerned as Marston's made it clear from day one that they would not agree to instalments. Yet the bailiff claimed that I had stated I should not have to pay this fine - and Marston's enclosed a copy of the above post as evidence of my admission that the offence had occurred. What this had to do with the bailiffs behaviour I don't know, but Marston's seem to be very well prepared for Form 4 complaints - just a shame that cannot put more time and resources into ensuring their bailiffs keep to the rules in the first place.

If the reason your account was closed was down to issues arising from charging then complain to the FOS. Some members have been awarded compensation - generally not very much, but if they have been unreasonable then make them pay. If you decide to do that however, please can you start another thread.

...and it was a phone call from BankFodder that drew my attention to it. LOL

BBC NEWS | Business | RBS-NatWest slash overdraft fees

That's a very good point - I have noticed that very often when a customer asks if an item will arrive the next day, the reply really pushes that first class is not a guaranteed service and the only way to be sure that it will arrive the next day is by paying for special delivery. Coincidence - I think not. Seems that DCA's and banks are not the only places that provide their staff with scripts?

But all you get back is the premium - if you got consequential loss, or compensation for all the phone calls and hassle that the delay caused then I could see some value in it. Here's another analogy. I will "guarantee" to send you the name of the winner for the 2.30pm at Haydock for a mere £20 - and what's more, if it does not win then I will give you the £20 back. A few hundred punters taking that offer would leave me with a very nice sum - and all I need to do is send a different named horse in rotation. Regardless of how many of the £20's I have to give back I am going to be in profit. Forget the fact that the poor punters that were not lucky enough to be sent the name of the actual winner had probably lost loads of cash on the duff tip.

Another missed deadline for me - it is becoming a regular occurrence these days. Royal Mail are really taking the wotsit with Special Delivery. I have to say that it is a total rip-off when you actually look at what this "service" provides. Before the days of Special Delivery we had a postal service which, when you put a first class stamp on an item, would do its utmost to ensure it would arrive before 9am the next day. Royal Mail then introduces a service where you pay extra money to guarantee that your item will arrive before a certain time, and if it does not then you will get your money back. To me that is not a guarantee - it is the same as going in to Ladbrokes and placing a bet on a horse, but if the horse loses then Ladbrokes keeps your money, but if it wins then you only get your stake money back!!! For many years nobody really had to bother with Special Delivery though, as First Class Recorded was so reliable - but of course Royal Mail had a cunning plan and reduced the number of postmen and the quality of service to a level that meant you could no longer be sure that a letter would arrive before 9am the next day - indeed for many you are lucky if your post arrives before lunchtime, if at all. Okay, I have a £12.65 refund due to me for the missed delivery from last week - a package for delivery before 9am which arrived an hour late causing real hassle for the recipient. The person on the phone could not really care less - in fact I believe she thought she was playing her part in some great public service by quickly dealing with my refund request, rather than actually having to admit that Royal Mail had reneged on yet another commitment!! "Guaranteed Service" - I don't think so!!!!!

I think this is a key point to argue - the government forget that the present system allows for a high level of personal care at a very cheap price. If the TRUE cost of the care we give was to be quantified I am sure this dreadful Green Paper would be consigned to the waste paper basket very quickly.

Yes - it says "Amount due (including court fee and any adjudication costs) £80.00" It has been issued, and was authorised on 3rd July. As I noted above, it was not received until Tuesday (1st Sept). I have now attached an edited copy of the warrant. Warrant.pdf

Will do - cheers - although I have sent them a copy of the Warrant with the N245.

Some interesting developments. Firstly, just to say that a Form 4 complaint was filed over this with Birmingham Civil Court. This was acknowledged on 10th August, so Mr Warlow had to respond to the court by 24th August. So far Marston's have failed to respond to this complaint - apart from an acknowledgement that they have received it and will reply when they have completed their investigations. Very strange then, that yesterday morning a "Warrant of Execution" arrived by second class post - whilst it is undated, the postmark on the envelope is Walsall 28/8/09, so it was clearly posted by Marston's. The Warrant gives the "Amount due (including court fee and any adjudication costs)" as £80. It makes no mention of the charges that have been levied by Marston's, and Mr Warlow. So, the question has to be asked as to why they have suddenly decided to send this Warrant out. Also, since they only served this on my wife (by second class post) last Friday - surely any sums that they have levied BEFORE the warrant was deemed served, cannot stand. Of course, that is notwithstanding the issues over the amount of the charges levied, and the question about whether a "visit" has ever actually taken place. Having said that, there is a further question about the service of the Warrant. County Court procedure clearly states that service of documents should be at least by First Class mail - so technically it may not even have reached us yet! Anyway, yesterday an application went off to Northampton to have the Warrant suspended, and a request to pay by instalments. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Provided that you have not made a payment, or acknowledged the debt in writing during the last 6 years, then it is statute barred - provided it is not mortgage capital which has a 12 year limitation. However, please can you start your own thread on this in the following forum: Debt Collection Industry - The Consumer Forums

Excellent forum for discussing consumer issues: Portal