There must be SOME legal guidance on whether they can do this... If the banking ombudsman would award 150pounds, then a judge would surely take a sterner view. I think it's necessary to make this difficult for Halifax to discourage such behaviour in future...

Must be some actual law that backs this up. Personally i think it impedes my right to argue with them on any point if they just close the account when I do so. Human rights act contravention?

Or anything else?

Please?

Excellent. That's using the banking code etc.

What i'd love is some case law that supports my position.

Anyone?

Hmmmm. Anyone?

Thanks for that alfwithhair. I am in the process of writing to them to find out what exactly they're up to. However, because I played 'hardball' and because I know how they think, I'm 99% sure they're getting rid of me because I stood up to them.

However, waiting to confirm that the account was closed would be a mistake. They would argue that it was tacit agreement on my part. At the very least my case would be weakened.

I remember seeing people making a claim against punitive closures in the press and on this site some years ago. I really need some guidance on how to deal with this sort of 'punishment closure'.

Many thanks

After a fairly long battle, Halifax agreed that a transaction which had been applied to my account was not fair and would be removed. After that I managed to get them to remove the charges they had unfairly placed on my account for non payment of the alleged debt.

When agreeing to remove these charges they also agreed that they would make good my bad credit record from this matter, restore my limit to 2500 (it had been dropped to 500 as punishment) and remove the block they had placed on the card.

3 days after being notified of this in a letter I received another letter in which I was told that my card was being closed for 'non usage'.

What is the legal remedy for this clearly punitive treatment and could someone perhaps post some links to appropriate articles or threads?

Many thanks

Mr Shed - I got assault and battery from the police handbook.

If I am holding a door shut, and the management agents are telling me that they are forcing entry it is assault and battery. For a number of reasons.

Forcing the door is violence (defined as unjustified force) and assault (putting someone in fear of violence)

Violence against the person that causes damage is assault and battery, at least. Do you think someone who has this done to them is likely to be unchanged as a result, or might they be a little bit upset afterwards?

MY lettings agents visited when I asked them not to, even though I had repeatedly stated that it would be upsetting to my housemate.

When I said they only had permission to enter if I was there, unless it was an emergency, they said they would let themselves in if I was not there.

On the second occasion they turned up, I pointed out that I had told them I was ill and not to come. They waited outside for 1 hour and shouted through the door. I called the police non emergency line. After 1 hour they announced they were forcing entry and tried to force their way in. I had to call 999.

On a later occasion I caught them trying to let themselves in. I arrested them and called 999. On both occasions police came and did nothing; fobbing me off with lies about 'a civil offence'.

I have written to the police stating exactly what happened. Then I wrote to two borough commanders. Then I wrote to Iain Blair. The only reply I received was from one of the borough commanders assistants. TOTAL MALADMINISTRATION. Avoided issues and twisted what I had written.

Be aware that the police do not care. At all. What they will do is sound a bit concerned and then say it's a civil matter. This happened to me twice when I was young. Once I got beaten up (age 16) once knocked unconscious by a bit of wood (21). Each time the police took a report but nothing else happened. On BOTH occasions I knew who did it and had witnesses.

Even if someone is pushing your door in whilst shouting your first name whilst you are ill with flu and have asked them, by email, repeatedly, not to attend....it's a civil matter.

I've looked up the law and it's assault and battery. Perhaps more as the psychological damage from having to deal with these psychos is not fun.

The reality is that all public services now use a maladministration calculation to inform their work. Job Centre does it. Local council does it. All utility companies do it. And the reason? It's cheaper to give an appaling service and get sued occasionally than to give a good service.

I'm beyond asking for help. I haven't received any benefits for over a year and I survive on loans from family. All dignity gone now.

I've written to local councillors , MPs and Lords. MPs reply but can't be bothered. No one else does.

I'd rather die than enter the job centre again. I wouldn't trust myself to stay sane if I did. I've applied for IS twice now. No reply. The second time I handed a application for IB to the JC I asked for a receipt. They refused saying 'not our policy'. When I tried to apply for a crisis loan on paper they broke the law and refused. they make you use a phone syytem which is permanently engaged.

If you tell the GP about this they give you anti-depressants. At a push you get a councillor who listens and then says 'what do you want me to do about it?'

I asked someone on here for some some personal help. People are busy though. And I really struggle to deal with the administration.

This started as a rant and has turned into a plea and I am crying. I'm sorry for hijacking the thread.

Is there a definition of 'household' that is different to that of living within the same dwelling.

For example, if Bill Gates is my flatmate, why should it affect my income. He doesn't give me any money.

This sounds like a flawed rule unless household means family group.

Is there any definitive advice on what needs to happen for the courts to order the LL to pay the 3x penalty.

Some people seem to think that if that the LL fails to inform the tenant of his obligations within 14 days, the penalty applies. In Hansard, the Lords seem to suggest (Tenancy Deposit Order 2007) that the penalty only applies if the LL refuses to protect the deposit after the court has asked. But the HA seems to suggest swomething slightly different.

Can someone clear up the reality for me?

My deposit was not protected within 14 days, but it was protected afterwards. I was not given any information until I asked the scheme for it, months later.

Many thanks

If you house is unfit for habitation, then no rent is due. I'm fairly confident that this is the case.

The deposit protection may not be valid if it was not done within 14 days of the initial receipt of the deposit by the Landlord. The LL would also have had to provide details within that time.

I seem to remember reading that if someone is served with a notice that is 'incorrect', they can either ignore it, or act on it. If they act on it, it should be assumed that it was valid if the tenant chooses to 'rely' on it. Can someone confirm this?

I'm glad yoo've found some sort of resolution Phat. Sorry we couldn't get her off your back.

If you choose bankruptcy it can mean a nice clean break. Hopefully things will get better.

This landlord thing sounds so dodgy. If you call the Inland Revenue (the tax authorities) they may be interested. I would imagine that THEY WILL get stuff done against the landlady which isn't really what you wanted but might feel nice. You could tell them about all the texts etc. It would also make society a better place because this whole arrangement sounds very criminal. But you must do what you think best for you.

Well done for surviving so far!

Any progress as yet Adridude?

I've no idea what he knew. I just know that every private landlord I get involved with is very friendly to begin with but ends up trying to rip me off.

I agree with your points SSE. I was thinking of something, carefully worded, about maladministration. Basically meaning that DWP, in every sphere, routinely break the rules to their own advantage.

When you read the rules about Social Security they do seem reasonable, but I am willing to bet that in both your case and that of Millenia they will have acted improperly. No one reigns them in though.

Social security decisions are usually not the direct result of a law but more to do with guidance that the law gives on decisions. The DWP then makes a decision that is unjust because there is no law forbidding it. It is then up to the claimant to appeal and if and when the DWP are proven wrong they suffer zero punishment.

Maladministration needs to become a more serious offence in my opinion as it hides things like fraud and recklessness. I am willing to bet that if an impartial legal adviser looked at Millenia's case they would see that the DWP have acted wrongly.

Ok, seems like they did the Deposit Protection properly. So now it's just the £45. Have you looked into mediation using your scheme?

From what I remember, the lost case could have been won if the claimant had known what to argue. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Good luck Grid!

I know this is a long shot but Frank Field used to be actively involved in social security. Maybe we could write a collective letter to ask him to ask a question in commons. Let me know what you think. It would need to be a concise letter initially.

I have written to a few lords about my own situation but none have replied as yet.

Yep....which means that you can claim for 3xdeposit. He should have protected it!

On which date was the most recent occasion that you signed a contract for a new tenancy agreement? Allowing the tenancy to lapse into a periodic does not count.

If you moved in on 18th Nov 2006, how long was the fixed term? Did you sign a further agreement?

I need to know:

i) on what date you paid the deposit.

ii) from which date it was protected.

iii) On what date you were shown proof of the protection.

Regards deposit resolution, whatever is not disputed is paid back anyway; so the scheme will arbitrate over the disputed £45.

Ok?

SSE, IF you want to get this resolved you need to start ignoring most of what they say. Just try and follow the proceedure for appeals and try to insist on an oral appeal if they refuse to pay.

Ultimately, they can just do nothing and you may have to take legal action. Try and find a lawyer who specialises in welfare benefits on the CLS website.

Good Luck

You would need to make a small claim to get the money back. This is apparently not that difficult and the judge will take into account the fact that you are not legally qualified.

You will need N1 claim forms.

More importantly, was the deposit protected in a scheme? If they didn't do everything properly you could take them to court for a lot more.

Let me know about the deposit and I can advise you.

I think you have made a good decision. If he wants the cash, let him try and take it!