Oh that is SO not fair! lol Mine was just something my partner got for me for Xmas coz I whined lol It's only got a 1.3ghz, 512 RAM and 64mb on board graphics, and a 14" screen!!! Mind, I suppose you do have a DELL, I wouldn't touch those with a barge pole lol The external bay works fine with 2 other hdd's we have that we connect to it (a 20gig and 60gig). My partner would be forever greatful if I told him we could go to a computer fair - but my credit card wouldn't lmao Plus, we live in the sticks, in Wales, so it'd cost us a bomb in petrol to get to anywhere! I'm so negative and defeatist, aren't I? lol I hate having to wait on other people to make decisions, but I think that's what I'll have to do... Just a side thought - if it was only the motherboard and psu that had gone would IVal still have classed it as "beyond economical repair"?

Do you mean to get them back and not claim at all? Before we even thought of claiming on the house insurance my partner (being the computer geek he is) tested the hdd to see if they'd broken (if it was as simple as PSU we'd have just bought new ones, cheaper than our £50 excess!) but the hard drives, when put into an external hard drive bay and connected to the laptop were dead... So I guess we could only hope to recover the graphics cards???? We actually asked for our HDD back, whether broken or not - one person told us "yeah fine, the insurance people (meaning barclays) usually don't mind this, but ask them first". On a different call we asked again and were at first told no way, then were told we'd be charged £15 each to send them back to us! As we're pretty sure they're dead I don't see the point in spending £30 to put a hammer to them ourselves (I have thousands of my kids pictures and some video clips on mine (which are luckily backed up onto an external HDD) and don't like to think someone may have access to them) but they have assured us that they will be crushed in 8 weeks time... Ugh, all this hassle, I just want a computer instead of a stupid laptop, it's so hard to type on this thing lol (plus it's got rubbish graphics, 64mb onboard, so I can't play games etc!)

Thanks, that's what I wanted to hear After reading on this forum I am pretty confident that I'd have the knowledge to challenge any unfair claim

Good luck with the ins co and trying to get some sense out of the mess the TC have created nannamoon1! Please do let us know, it'll be interesting to know whether you can go your own route or if you have to follow theirs which takes SO long (by which time you've probably repaid the overpayment anyway!)

Thanks for replying No, we haven't... Most parts were bought online, and only the hard drives upgraded relatively recently. All in all, we've spent over £1000 on each computer, but I know we can't prove that... I was under the impression that receipts would only help the claim if something was stolen... But it's damaged "beyond economical repair", and they have the parts, so wouldn't the fact they have the parts in front of them make sure they'd have to pay out what it would cost to buy a computer to match EACH specification? For example, they could say "Well, the processor in this £299 computer is better than yours" But for that price you'd only get 512k RAM (our machines had 1024k) tiny hard drives, less than 100gb, and more than likely on board graphics with no dual heads... So although the processor would be marginally better (if it was a 64 bit or dual core) the rest of it would be completely useless to what we use the computers for.... I am just really worried that they'll want to pay out something stupid like £300 each (taking away the £50 excess) and even then the total for both wouldn't get us a computer to match the specs of just one of the ones we had I know, I'm impatient, and I should just wait and see what they say, but I do like to be prepared, and know what my rights are before I go make an idiot of myself on the phone....

It could be one way I suppose... But although I don't know the legal ins and outs of the court system etc (maybe someone else here does?) from what I've read, the judge could take a dim view of you as you haven't followed the correct procedures set in place (ie adjudicator, ombudsman)... I honestly don't know... Would your insurance cover you for a consultation with a solicitor to discuss it?

That's pretty much what I was going to say (apart from my #3 is is 1 years old!) You gave birth, you support that child! It doesn't matter what relationship you have with the father/grandmother - it's YOUR CHILD you should be thinking of!

I wonder if they've ever been taken to court? And if they lost? lol I wonder how they figure it out then, that if they're saying in one letter they're not taking it, but actually ARE taking it! I don't suppose that would look good on them in court either!

I hope that gets you somewhere! As far as I understand it, if the director has given you the final decision they will start to recover the overpayments, regardless of whether you went to the adjudicator or not.. I think I read that on the Adjudicator's website... Did they start to recover the overpayments before you got the director's decision?? If they did you should point that out to the adjudicator too... shows another of their failings! Before the final decision was made about my complaint I got a letter threatening legal action... the person in the director's office told me to call the tax credits helpline (never heard of a director's helpline?) and tell them. I did and they told me to call the finance dept (and gave me the no) and I did and they put a stop on the recovery for "a further 6 months for now", but I got my decision and the overpayment remitted about a month after I think!

I have been reading, and although don't know a lot of the technicalities in your case, perhaps you should make it clear in that letter above that aswell as the fact you cancelled the order you also did not receive any item to pay for. I hope you get a good result from this!

Sorry this is long, I want to try and explain fully! The actual question is at the bottom, in bold, if you don't want to read my essay lol I've not got a complaint (yet! well, I have but it's minor) just after a bit of info from anyone who knows how these things work. We have 2 desktop pc's (on laptop now) that went bang from what I'm thinking was a lightning strike in the storms last week (the router and 2 digital phones went too, but we're not claiming for them as they've already been replaced and it was pretty cheap, didn't want to complicate things). Anyway, Barclays put us through to a company called IVal and they arranged for our computers to be picked up. My partner called today and they said the computers are beyond economical repair and should contact us on Monday with a valuation and will offer us PC World vouchers. Now, my partner works at PC World, so other than the fact we know that should anything go wrong with the new computers we'd be totally fine, we know we could get much better computers for the same price elsewhere. I've done my reading though, and know that we have the right to be offered cash to the exact same value as the vouchers (I hope I'm right in thinking that, I got it from another post on here). Anyway, that's not what I'm worrying about. Our computers although not that high spec compared to some new ones, did have certain specifications we were fussy about. They're custom built (my partner built them) and we've spent a lot of money over the years (although not so much recently because of the kids now). To name a couple specs - the graphics cards in them - they were DEDICATED graphics, with dual heads, because we both run two screens on the computers. This is because my partner does a lot of web designing and 3D graphics, and I do some photo and video editing, and two screens make this easier (yes, we're computer nerds, him more so than I am lol ) Also, they were NVidia graphics cards, and my partner requires this graphics card because they offer open GL support (not that I know what that is) and no other does. Another is the fact that one had a 250gb HDD (mine) and the other a 400gb HDD (his). Another is that although the processors weren't that new (2.5+ and 2.6+) they were Athlon processors, not the crappy Celeron, which in real terms, even if they say the same mhz speed, don't perform the same (anyone who knows about computers will tell you this). What I want to know is: Will their valuation have to take into account ALL the specifications, including the dual heads, Nvidia, decicated graphics, Athlon not Celeron, hard drive size etc? As the computer is custom built it'd be hard to put a value on how much it would cost to replace it as you can't buy one with those specs. They could match hard drive but if they go on that alone and go with the cheapest computer with that size hard drive it will not have the dedicated and dual head graphics we require! Where do I stand with all of this? I know it's a lot of "what if's" right now, but I like to be prepared for anything they may throw at me!

Thanks Yes I do have Sky, and I do pay by DD. As yet, I've had no problems on that side as yet, although I do notice their payments can go out a day or two before they say they will (usually if payment date is on a Sat or Sun it will go out before the weekend) but luckily I keep a very close eye on the finances and do have a small overdraft facility that we do not use, "just incase". I find DD to be convenient as I don't have to do anything, I've got enough to do having to look after 3 kids lol The thing I HATE about Sky is the fact that their charges went up last year, and to explain this rise they said (words to the effect of) "It is to produce a better magazine". Now, I have 2 issues with this: 1. I don't want the stupid magazine! When it arrives each month it goes straight in the bin, I don't even open it, but I can't choose to opt out! 2. EVERYWHERE other than in the letter justifying the raise in charges, they claim it to be a "free" magazine. Now it's either one or the other - It's free, therefore they can't claim the raise in charges is to cover the cost of it - Or, they need to stop declaring it as free, if we have to pay more to cover the cost of it! Sorry, I went off on my own little rant there! I don't wish to take this on a tangent away from the issue in hand

Oh I know, as complicated as your situation is, I don't think it was your fault... Shame they don't employ me... these people seem to have left their common sense at the door! As far as the SAR... I only know what I do about it from this site. There is a template somewhere for it on this site. They legally have to comply to the request and if they refuse they will be prosecuted. Although it should come with it, I'd make sure to point out that you want a copy of all the calls you have made. In the case of the Adult Dependents Grant, you say you called them up and were told in no uncertain terms that you do not need to declare it. They have a record of that call. I believe I read somewhere in the COP29 that being given the incorrect information is part of a reason they cannot demand you pay back an overpayment, as it was their fault that over payment arose and as far as you knew, you'd told them all you need to and was told it was ok. The record of that call alone should cover that point! Have you had a final decision from the directors? I was under the impression that my second-to-last step was my last step, but I still had "the final" step to go. In my last letter, detailing everything and asking them to pull up ALL the records including telephone calls I also asked that before any decision was made, could they please telephone me as I understand how sometimes things on paper can be mis-read and I'd like the chance to speak to someone who has the power to deal with this situation in person. My suggestion to you is to get your SAR. If your next step is indeed to go to the Adjudicator, you need to re-write your complaint. What *I* personally would do is write your complaint as concise as you could, referencing to the SAR, perhaps highlighting it and writing a side mark ie "I refer to highlighted "Part 1" to support my claims, and so on. So when you get to the part about being told you do not need to declare the Grant, you'd say (I'm paraphrasing) "DATE, phone call, was told I didn't need to declare, pleae see "whatever you call your highlighted sections" for proof". Also, what I did in my final letter - after each point I wrote showed it was their mistake I always pointed out "Therefore you can see it was your mistake so according to your COP rules I am not liable to pay back any overpayment" or "Therefore it was more than reasonable for me to think my payments were correct at the time so according to your COP rules I am not liable to pay back any overpayment". Like I've said, I wish I had the SAR to refer back to in my complaints, as all I had was a hope that they'd actually check their system and pull the records, I had no "concrete" evidence! As far as the adjudicator being independent - they are. BUT I went to the Adjudicator's website and downloaded a PDF file. Reading that it sounded as though all they'd do is look at the file and determine whether or not the TC used the correct processes to rectify your complaint. If they did not they would tell them to do it again, correctly. If they did, they would rule against you and say that the TCO made a decision based on how their COP processes and their decision was right. Personally I was ready to go to the Ombudsman and my MP, I'd collected as much evidence as I possibly could. I wish you the best of luck! If anything I have said confuses you, or you just want a sympathetic ear (eyes? lol ) to listen I'll be here

Am reading and will follow your case I wish you the best of luck - these big companies need to be taken down a peg or two!

I'm sorry that you're having so much trouble with them. Your conversations with the various call centre idiots sound pretty much exactly the same as mine did! I would imagine that the SAR would go to the Preston address (can't remember it exactly even though I wrote it out so many times!). I hope that once you get that, you get some answers. Unfortunately, from what I have read, the Adjudicator will almost always rule the same as the Directors. Hopefully you won't have to go as far as the Ombudsman, but good luck with it all, keep us informed!

Hi. I'm sorry to hear of your current health problems and I hope you get better. I just found this link Multiple Sclerosis Society Website - Welcome to the MS Society - Critical illness I hope this helps to clear some things up for you. From what I read though, as you've not had a definite diagnosis from a neurologist yet it is unlikely at this time that the insurers will pay out.

Oh how I wish I found this site 2+ years ago and knew about, and knew I could request an S.A.R!!!!!!!!! Before I go on to write the essay of my problems with Tax Credits, I'd like to say that I DID WIN and got(albeit very little) compensation, so it IS possible! On 21st November 2004 my partner and I moved in together to the house we'd just bought together. Before this I was claiming income support and received tax credits as part of my weekly money. I called up the helpline a week before I moved to tell them that I would no longer be claiming as a single person from the 21/11/2004 but was told to call AFTER I'd moved. I did this (to stop any further single claim payments) and claimed jointly with my partner on the 24/11/2004. We started receiving some money for the joint claim (that was a polava and a half to get right with my partner having changed jobs half way through the year but that's not important...) About a week later I got a letter stating that I'd been overpaid almost £500 on my single claim. On examining the award closer I noticed they'd ended it on the 24/10 NOT the 24/11 as it should be. You think, wouldn't you, that a simple phone call to correct this would suffice? About a dozen phone calls later (and speaking to a dozen different people and being told, quite literally, a dozen different things) I was told the date had been changed and all was fine. A couple of weeks later, looking closer at the dates on all my awards I found that they had ended my single claim a month early, but BACKDATED my joint claim to that date! (which was worth less than my single claim, and we received a lump sum right after we claimed, which I thought was how they paid it when you got it 4 weekly (I used to get it weekly) - so for future reference, THAT is where the "reasonably think the payments were correct" come in). In January 05 I received another award stating exactly the same - I owed them almost £500 because my single claim ended blah blah... More phone calls, told to write to explain the situation - did as was told. I phoned them monthly for about 6 months to be told they'd not looked into it yet. Thought I'd leave it - I've explained that THEY got the dates wrong (changed the 11th month for the 10th) and explained how at the time it was more than reasonable for me to think the payments I was receiving was correct. After all, they were claiming I had an overpayment on my single claim by THEIR error with the dates which they could not / would not change! I thought that would be the end of that. December 2005 - here we go again. No answer to my letter (and I'd done exactly as I was told, filled the form etc) just a request for apparent overpayment. More phone calls, write dispute again. Stop put on the recovery of overpayment till decision was reached. No answer for months - Summer 06 came and I got an "these are our dates, you were over paid, pay it back" letter. More phone calls, more stress, more writing. At this point it was passed onto complaints I think (although evidently all they did was pass it back to overpayment team.) December 06 - answer to dispute - same as before - "these are our dates, you were over paid, pay it back" . Ok, more phone calls (how many is that now?). Kept getting told on the phone "I can't change anything, I know what has happened, I know we're in the wrong, this is your next step..... The next step WILL have the power to correct it, but I don't". This put a stop to the overpayment recovery once again. Onto about the 4th person that "definitely can sort this out" (who then tells me they don't have the power AGAIN) and I'm told my next step it to complain directly to the director - the furthest I can get in the complaints procedure with the Inland Revenue - next step Adjudicator, final step Ombudsman with MP. I was all prepared to go all the way, I KNEW I wasn't in the wrong, I'd got documents, bank statements, mortgage papers, solicitors letters, bank letters, utilities bills, benefits claims - you name it - to corroborate my dates. So I write my letter again, adressing every single detail and re-writing my letter about 20 times and getting a dozen different people to read it so that it did make sense and was to the point and explained it all fully. This time, I didn't just throw in a request that they listened to my phone calls, I DEMANDED it. (I had been told I could request to get them and all my info, but I'm an info hoarder and already have it all, but like I said, an S.A.R. would have been SO useful to me had I known about it!). Couple of letters, nothing major, we're looking into it blah blah... Then get a letter asking for the money or it'll be passed onto a Debt Collection Agency.... NOT ON YOUR NELLY MATEY! More phone calls, hurry this up, your time limit is up buster.... Put a stop to the recovery. Spoke with a bloke who was a little more helpful but wasn't dealing with the case - the woman who was was off work (typical!). About a week later I got a phone call from the woman who was dealing with it... not much sense from her but she'd read my letter and was AGAIN SENDING IT BACK TO OVERPAYMENT TEAM (here we go again I thought) but she was requesting that they pull every single phone call to listen to (HOORAY VICOTRY! Do you remember the phone call I made prior to the week I moved? ). Anyway, I didn't expect quick results, but it took a week for me to get a phone call. They were REMITTING the whole overpayment, appologised for the inconvenience (about bloody time!) and would consider a little compensation for the distress caused and phone charges incurred. A week later I got a letter telling me all she'd told me on the phone, and that I'd be getting £80 compensation (made up of £30, £30, £20 for distress, charges, and something else, can't remember) and the cheque would arrive in a couple of weeks. (taking it to May 2007 - 30 MONTHS! ) You have no idea how that felt, it was finally OVER! I know £500 is nothing like the thousands they say some of you owe, but if you're in the right then DO NOT sit down and take it! If you have done as they have asked then you are in the right and they have no right to reclaim money paid to you! Don't give up hope - although £500 is a lot to us (it quite literally means whether the mortgage will get paid that month or not) there were times I wanted to just pay up to get rid of all the bother... But I'm stubborn, and it paid off! Sorry for just a long post - I just wanted to offer my support, and my own experience to anyone dealing with the Tax Credits. It IS possible to beat them

Ah, ok. I understand what you're saying, it's plain common sense, but the benefits system doesn't work on it I'm afraid, they stick to tight rules as to who qualifies. It seems that it is not the wording that has changed. The original prosecution was for wrongly claiming income support. This prosecution is for wrongly claiming housing benefit and council tax. They are two totally seperate benefits that just go hand in hand with each other, which explains why you are being prosecuted again. In their eyes, regardless of whether you were actually receiving the cash in hand or not, you were being paid £70 a week for working. Because you failed to declare this I'm sure that means that your claim for income support and SEPERATE claim for housing benefit and council tax benefit become void. Which means you have to pay back the WHOLE amount of council tax and housing benefit for the period you were claiming while effectively earning £70 per week. I know this may not make sense, but it's just the way the system works. From what I know, they cannot go back and re-calculate on you earning £70 per week (regardless that you only saw £20 of it). To deal with a problem, you need to understand why that problem arose. I'm trying to help you figure out WHY you were in the wrong in the first place. I know I think you didn't know you were doing wrong - but unfortunately not knowing you were doing wrong doesn't mean you can't be prosecuted for it. Hindsight is a powerful thing. This was before Tax Credits came into force, wasn't it? What you should have done at the time is declare the £70 and claimed whatever was in place of Tax Credits (I think it was known as "Working Families Tax Credits" then). Because you didn't go this route - knowingly or not - ALL the claims you made at the time for any type of benefit are void and repayable, which is why you've been summonsed again. To answer what you said: You WOULD HAVE been entitled to the benefits had you claimed for the right ones and declared your income. Because you didn't declare this you were not entitled. It is obvious to most people that you couldn't live on £20 per week, but in the eyes of the benefit system you defrauded them so it wasn't/isn't their problem. I really wish I knew more of the law regarding all this but alas I don't. I can only try and help you understand why you are in the position you are, so you can get proper help to solve this. I think you need to get a solicitor who knows how the benefits system works. I only know what I know from having lived on benefits for a while myself and have read a LOT, and I like understanding how things work. If a solicitor has never dealt with benefit problems before then I doubt they'd be any more help than I would, to be honest.

Sorry, I got confused and thought you meant £70 + £20 cash in hand. So it's £50 rent and £20 cash in hand? OK. In which case, the way the benefits system sees it, it would still be the same. It's hard to explain fully, so I'll use an example - If you work and either pay childcare or say a personal pension straight through your employer, you technically don't have that money as it was never paid to you in cash - it's a "paper transaction". You still have to have the money deducted from your payslip included in your p60 as it is still earnings. The same goes for your "arrangement" while you were on benefits. Technically you didn't have the cash in your hand, but it was still a "paper transaction", and that is how the courts and the benefits system view it. Just like if I went to work now and my employer said, "I won't pay you in cash, I'll pay your mortgage instead." Do you get where I'm coming from? No matter what the "wage" was used for, it's still your income. I'm only saying this to try and help you understand why you were/are in trouble for doing this. I don't have any legal knowledge so don't know if there are any legislations/acts/whatever that could help you, there may be, there may not. But from what you say, I am completely baffled as to why you're in trouble again for the same crime. You had your tag for 16 weeks when you were convicted, and did as the courts said. How can they have you up in court for the same crime when you've already been convicted??? Is it the same people prosecuting this time? Really, only a solicitor can help you properly... And as I said, I do totally sympathise with the benefit thing - until a few years ago I was a single mum on benefits and know how hard it is to get by. The system is so complicated and it needn't be so.

I totally sympathise with you, the benefits system is so hard to understand. From the knowledge I have of it (which is personal, no professional knowledge) they are looking at the whole of the £90 per week you were paid, no matter what it was used for. In their eyes, you were paid £90 per week and chose to use £70 towards rent (which they will argue you needed to as you lived in a house too expensive, as housing benefit rates should cover the whole cost of what is "needed"). That being said, forgive me if I'm mis-reading or not understanding something... You've already been on tag years ago for this "crime", and it had all gone through court and you paid whatever you were told to at court, right? I'm no legal expert, but how on earth, after a court has ruled, can they now decide that you still owe them money? I thought a court decision is final, and the end of it? I know my post isn't of much help, I just wanted to offer my support and sympathy, and little knowledge of the benefit system. I think you need to see a solicitor ASAP and go through everything with a fine tooth comb to understand the ins and outs of it all. HUGS.

Thanks for replying As far as I can remember, it was by debit card. We still have the original receipt and original 5 year insurance certificate somewhere too. My partner (who works at PC World - don't say a word he's actually the exception to the rule in that place ) was the one on the phone to them this last time and phoned a few different numbers he was given (passed from pillar to post) and all they could say was "We have to have an engineer come to inspect it, before that we can do nothing". So the engineer came, confirmed it was the same parts broken (AGAIN!) but they still didn't replace it. I guess some blame lies on us as we didn't phone them up to chase them, I just wanted a dryer working! lol But I guess should it break down again (and I'm almost tempted to do what the engineer told me to - phone up and say its broken regardless, but knowing the dryer, it will certainly break anyway) I will demand a new dryer

In the Summer of 2004 we bought a Hotpoint tumble dryer, with the extended 5 year insurance thingy, which cost us about £50 extra. As we (then) had 2 children (we now have 3) I knew the dryer was going to be used a fair bit so I needed to know I'd have a working dryer and not have to fork out for a new one. All was fine for the first 18 months, but after that it was making noises, the timer running down 120 mins in 3 mins, the list goes on and on... A few weeks ago I called them out for the FIFTH time in less than 18 months, pretty much always the same parts (timer being the main one). The engineer has always been great, bless him, he does what he's told and I know he hasn't any clout to give me a replacement, only do his job and fix my machine (it's not his fault this dryer has known faults and the parts are $h1tE! ) All phone calls to them to try and get them to replace the machine have failed. The call centre tells me it's up to the engineer and the parts people, the engineer and the parts people tell me it's up to the call centre... Now, FIVE times I've had to accept a repair, and it's broken down each time. This last time there was a list as long as my arm needing fitting. I'm just waiting for the next time (or actually, the engineer told me to call them again in a few weeks regardless, as it'll be him that comes out - he TOTALLY sympathises with us ). I guess I just want to know where I stand with all this. Am I within my rights to ask (or demand) a replacement should it break down again? I'm thinking I am, as I did report the problem when the machine was 18 months old and as of yet, the fault keeps happening even with new parts. Also, if I get the fob off if I am entitled to a replacement (I still have 2 years left on the insurance by the way) how do I go about it? Everyone I speak to say they can't help me, and at those times the most important thing for me is to get a working dryer!!! Any help/suggestions is appreciated

*bump* Anyone? Are these companies supposed to return interest that was added to a loan if the loan is repaid early, or will this be in the individula t's & c's? In my case, 3.5 years of interest on a £10k loan....

I know that Freemans used to offer a "returns label" service where you stuck the label on the parcel, took it to the post office and sent back to freemans, free of charge. This is what I used to do with them all the time at my old address, when for the most part they did not offer courier delivery/collection (it was delivered by Royal Mail too). Perhaps give them a ring and ask if they can do that for you?

(I'm not sure I've posted this in the right place, if it's in the wrong place could someone move it for me please ) As I'm in the process of making a claim on my house insurance for 2 damaged computers I've been reading up all the (interesting!) information and cases on this site and it got me to thinking about something I've been stewing over for a while, but put it down to "well they did it that way, so obviously they're right".... In 2004 we bought our house and took out a tesco personal loan to cover some costs and consolidate debts. They had the best interest rate at the time. In May of 2006 our main car needed replacing so we took Tesco up on the offer of a "top-up" loan. It wasn't until after everything had been signed and moneys paid that I looked closely at all the figures. At the beginning of the original loan in 2004 the interest for the full term of the loan (5 years) was added to the loan amount. When we took the "top up" loan it was indeed a new loan, to cover the total amount of the original loan, including 5 years worth of interest - when we'd only had the loan out for around 18 months. I can't for the life of me remember exact figures (but do have every bit of paperwork in the house, I don't throw away a THING!) but it was something like a £10,000 original (2004) loan at an interest rate of 5.6%. I know a lot of time has passed now (just over a year from the date we took out the "top up" loan), but reading this site has got me intrigued. I don't tend to take things lying down and have had some successes with complaints with Tiscali (broadband) the Tax Credit office and various high street retailers. I know that my partner has had previous loans with other banks (mainly Barclays) and if he paid them off early, or took out a further loan from them they would refund the interest that was added to cover the remainder of the term of the original loan. Could someone tell me whether or not Tesco was right to charge us the full 5 years worth of interest when that loan was essentially paid off after just 18 months? I know that some companies have "early repayment" policies but 3.5 years worth of interest seems quite a lot! Thanks in advance for any help/suggestions