Are you being harassed on the telephone by your bank or by debt collectors?

[rosierose]

Conn v Sunderland City Council - [2007] All ER (D) 99 (Nov) [2007] Court of Appeal, Civil Division
7 November 2007
Claimant claiming former employer vicariously liable for harassment by foreman - Whether facts found by recorder amounting to harassment - Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1967 provides, so far as material, as follows: '(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct-- (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other ...' Section 2 provides, so far as material, as follows: '(1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1(1) or (1A) is guilty of an offence ... ' Section 3 provides, so far as material, as follows: '(1) An actual or apprehended breach of section 1(1) may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question.'
The claimant was employed as a paver by the defendant local authority until his employment was terminated in 2005.
He commenced proceedings against the local authority under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, claiming that the local authority was vicariously liable for harassment inflicted on him by his foreman. He alleged five separate incidents of harassment. The recorder found that only two of the incidents had been proved. In the first incident, the foreman had asked the claimant and two others to give him the names of those who had left the site early. When they had refused, the foreman had lost his temper and had threatened to smash the window of the portakabin with his fists.
He had also threatened to report them to the personnel department. The two other men present stated that they had not been bothered by the foreman's behaviour. In the second incident, the foreman asked the claimant why he was silent.
The claimant replied that he would only talk to the foreman about work. That led the foreman to lose his temper and threaten to 'give him a good hiding' even if it would lead to the foreman being dismissed. The recorder held that the two incidents constituted a course of conduct amounting to harassment for the purposes of the 1997 Act. He found for the claimant. The local authority appealed.
It submitted that the two incidents, on the facts found by the recorder, could not constitute harassment for the purposes of the 1997 Act.
The appeal would be allowed.
Harassment was left deliberately wide by the statute. A civil claim could only arise as a remedy for conduct amounting to a breach of s 1 of the Act, which by s 2 would also amount to a criminal offence. What constituted the boundary between unattractive and unreasonable conduct, and oppressive and unacceptable conduct might well depend on the context in which the conduct occurred. The touchstone was whether the conduct was of such gravity as to justify the sanction of criminal law.
In the instant case, the recorder was wrong to find, on the facts found by him, that the conduct amounted to harassment.
The first incident did not cross the line between unacceptable and unnattractive conduct, and oppressive and unacceptable conduct. It might have been unpleasant, but there was no threat of violence against the claimant, only a threat to damage property. The two other people involved in the incident were not bothered by it. The incident had been well below the line at which criminal sanctions would have been justified. It followed that the recorder had been wrong to find that the two incidents sufficed to constitute a course of conduct.

Well, I'm sure someone with a better understanding will provide a more lucid analysis, but to me the judgement would seem obliterate any other part of the act than putting one in fear of violence. Please tell me I'm wrong?! <-- told

[bed32]

Originally Posted by rosierose

Well, I'm sure someone with a better understanding will provide a more lucid analysis, but to me the judgement would seem obliterate any other part of the act than putting one in fear of violence. Please tell me I'm wrong?!

On a very quick reading, it seems that he could only prove two incidents - and if one of those was not deemed as unacceptable he is only left with one - and the act requires a "series" - i.e. two or more separate events.

It seems that the court took into consideration the reactions of the other people present as to whether one of the incidents was unacceptable.

However the standard "the conduct was of such gravity as to justify the sanction of the criminal law" seems to be the wrong standard to apply to one of a series of incidents that cause harassment. Surely the whole nature of harassment is that a series of actions can amount to more than the sum of the parts.

[bed32]

Originally Posted by ODC

....or if you deem it to be harrassment or it causes you anxiety or distress

In that case I can bring an action against you for harassment

You have responded to my posts questioning my opinions - I assert that that causes me considerable distress and so you are guilty of a criminal act.

Okay - that is a bit far-fetched but you get the idea...

[chazza1984]

hi everyone has anyone ever heard of a compant called active kapital cause apparantly i owe them money but i have never heard of them. i tried looking for them online but all i got was put onto this which is makin me think they are not a real company. can someone please help

[ODC]

They are very real. They are Debt Collectors. NEVER SPEAK TO THEM ON THE PHONE.

Start your own thread and you will get loads of help in dealing with them

[PaulW922]

Aktiv Capital are a debt purchase company. They will have bought up a debt from someone else and will now be trying to enforce it against you. You need to be a pretty low form of human being to be in this business in the first place, and AK fulfill that description well.

[zazen.warrior]

After nine days of blissful silence Lloyds TSB have suddenly started calling me again, had to be a day when I was off with flu so I could take the call. I just hung up, couldn't motivate myself to advise them they were law breakers...

[The GodMother]

nice one zazen. you dont need this when you are healthy let alone when you are full of flu.

Chrissi

[renegotiation]

Please post here if you have sent off an official telephone harassment letter template, it has been respected and you are no longer being telephoned. Please state what organisation you sent the letter off to. Thanks.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...respected.html


Please post here if you have sent off an official telephone harassment letter template, it has not been respected and you are still being telephoned. Please state what organisation you sent the letter off to. Thanks.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...tters-not.html



If you are being harassed, but haven't yet sent off a letter, then please do. More responses are definitely needed. I want to let this post fester for a couple of months and then see what's what. I have a couple of good ideas on what to do next.

The telephone harassment letter can be found here:

Harassment by telephone - Consumer Wiki

[Givuzagame]

Lloyds telephone using their annoying Robot!
I refuse to answer or respond to such. If they can't use a person, then tough.

[The GodMother]

oh l ove the robots. I confuse them and they then say do not compute must get agent.

LOL

[ODC]

Even the 'real' DCA employees sound like robots.

[The GodMother]

yeah well we cant help it if they are reading from a script and they dont understand the law.

[ODC]

They read from a DCA SILLYSCRIPT and talk fluent MERDE

[ghost48]

Hi,has any one heard of ;a Hunter Forrester & Co and ;b IQOR ,We are being called from 0800 to 2100 every day in ref to a debt to the Halifax which we,along with loads of others have taken them to court over(the overdraft charges etc) has any one heard of these idiots and what can we do to stop them giving us greif until the high cout tells every one what the law is in relation to over draft charges .thanks