Help! Halifax threatening court over £300. All of which is charges.

jlb1986

I don't see how a single letter to the bank could cause problems. If there's no threat of legal action I am merely informing the bank of my personal opinion am I not?

A precedent would only be set if I took them to court, which I have no intention of doing until such a time as the legal arguments have been decided upon. I wouldn't want to get into a position where I couldn't argue my defence and agree that this could cause problems for others or a precedent.

Aside from this, the banks will all be too aware of what we're planning on using as our argument anyway so it wouldn't surprise me if others have already cited Section 5 as a reason for requesting a refund.

orc_2

Thanks and you have your view which I accept as perfectly valid and welcome. Especially as you have a major problem to deal with.

I feel that if the many people who offer advice on the various self help web sites start to help drafting letters on an adhoc basis, it very quickly snowballs. (remember, we need to refer to parameters). Please remember also that there are quite a few folk who have been through this from the start of the claims campaign or close to it. There have been several instances in the history of the campaign when a regrouping and rethinking is necessary.

I have seen problems arise in the past for claimants, when adhoc suggestions, given with the best of intent BTW, goes slightly off the rails.

Perhaps I'm getting a bit too cautious with age, but I think we need to all be definite in advice given.

Alternatively, remember that this is all about self help, so make your own value judgement. But, with that, take my best wishes.

wornoutmumoftwo

I got in a huge muddle with Bank of Scotland and despite a lot of my balance being charges I made an arrangement to clear the overdraft, they were ok as long as I kept to it, though our finances had improved by that point so I paid it off at £20 a week.

Premier_2

jlb1986 wrote: »

... many people on this site, including Martin Lewis, appear to believe are unlawful. ...

Best not to judge by the number of posts on MSE for or against something

Even if Martin thinks they are unfair, it is yet to be proven in a court of law. It is presumably for that reason Martin's article says "the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing".

Whilst Martin has employed a QC who he hopes will develop a valid case that he hopes the OFT will take up, as they promised to do last June when they were considering what to do should they lose the case which they ultimately did, the banks also have a QC who "ridiculed the OFT's concerns. He said they were part of a " developing saga" which he suggested had no basis in law. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8119057.stm

And that is why we have courts, judges, etc to decide who is right.