Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Any thoughts on this? Is everyone hanging fire until someone else takes the plunge first and sees how it pans out? If so, I'll be happy to start a small claim against Halifax for a few charges since I last claimed before the test case if there's plenty of advice available to hone my claim.
Is there a more up to date Prelim letter that accounts for the final Supreme Court ruling? The current one mentions the earlier High Court ruling.
I'm planning two claims against Halifax:
The first is for charges levied since November 2007.
The second is for the interest charged on charges between Feb 2003 to May 2007 when they refunded charges. At the time, like a lot of people here, I never claimed for the interest so I'm planning on claiming it now.
I want to get the ball rolling straight away with these, but I don't want to start until I know the letters are accurate.
I've been through my records and I've noticed that the charges incurred since Nov 2007 have been from them paying a debit card transaction when insufficient cash was in the account. Does this count as unfair because they have decided to honour the transaction and make £30 a time rather than reject the transaction and make nothing. I suspect this would fall under Reg.5
Personally, I think that they are liable for prosecution under section 4-(1) of the Fraud Act 2006;
1) A person is in breach of this section if he— a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person, b) dishonestly abuses that position, and c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position— i) to make a gain for himself or another, or 2) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
The only tricky bit is b) showing that they abused their position dishonestly.