Have read the CAG site now but thanks anyway.
This is looking quite interesting I believe they will try and justify the charges by stating that they ONLY employ a collections team because people go over the credit limit and/or miss payments. Therefore the charge is
(the cost of that team + all its equipment + office space) / an estimate of the number of people who will miss payments and/or go over the credit limit.
Amusing gems from the CAG site are comments that said company has already cited previous victories where the claiment failed to show up as cases it has 'won' to try and put people off.
At the moment, they have not settled (i.e. payed up) one single case. Two are in the process of going to court at the moment. I am issueing an N1* on Friday in any case. I just need to wait and see what they try to defend this with.
Scarlett.
* might need some help with the N1 if I can't even get the 2 character name of the form right
