NCO Europe KEEP calling!

[Movingon]

Originally Posted by loverboy

harrsament has to be know to likely cause some one distress, simply calling someone, like kncoking on a door is not legal harrasment , actually, and yes pay your bills and stop looking for excuses

As per the rules of access to this site, do you have permission from the admins to be here?

You would think that if you're going to come here and say things against the people you're affecting, day in, day out with your harassment, that you would come informed about the issues; that you would have researched the effects that your behaviour has on people, and that you would know why people CANNOT simply "pay their bills" sometimes. Don't forget also that your company add unlawful charges and interest to the accounts of people they are trying to recover cash from, quite apart from the harrassment issue.

For completeness, here is Section 1 and some of Section 2 of the Protection From Harrassment Act 1997:

1. - (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.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows-

• (a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

• (b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

• (c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

Offence of harassment. 2. - (1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.

[ncf355]

Well said SL

As said above, educate yourself before you start spouting garbage

[loverboy]

dont be so silly, acts of pariliment are not open to interpretation, harrasment has to have a clear and set parameter.
Sction 7 of the act defines as conduct which includes alarming the person or causing distress, must at least involve two occasions. Thomas v News Group Newspapers. Further to this S1 (3) provides a valid defence when the conduct was pursued for the purpose of detecting crime, any legal requirement or reasonable valid pursuent ie contract !!!
Add to this the test of harrasment is an objective one, s1(2) the defendant or accussed will only be guilty if its shown that a a resonable person in possesion of the same information would think the conduct amounted to harrasment. It is not straitforward and is mainly used in Tort the remedy being injuction.

By the way I dont work for NCO but i put the argument that debtors are themselves in breach of contract and law. NCO is legally recovering under common law and that is not harrasment in any court.
Read up on it, please!!!

[Janet-M]

Just a reminder that anyone being abusive to other users is against the forum rules and the post will be edited or removed

[loverboy]

section 3 dude, section 1 does not apply, if pursuing lawful business like common law protection under contract for breach of contract. Entitled to recover and pursue.
Read up

[loverboy]

yes im recieving abuse, people saying talking garbage etc

[Janet-M]

Originally Posted by loverboy

yes im recieving abuse, people saying talking garbage etc

maybe they believe you are .. but as a law student you should know that is not personal abuse

[noomill060]

Its half term- you can tell, cant you?

[noomill060]

"NCO is legally recovering under common law and that is not harrasment in any court."

That assumes there is any debt to recover, doesnt it?
If the alleged debtor disputes that there is, the creditor is obliged to investigate- NCO dont.



Read up on it, please!!!

[Movingon]

Originally Posted by loverboy

section 3 dude, section 1 does not apply, if pursuing lawful business like common law protection under contract for breach of contract. Entitled to recover and pursue.
Read up

So you might like to advise us (a) what contractural obligation the OP (who has no debt) has to NCO Europe? (b) what contractural obligation ANY debtor has to NCO Europe, where the paperwork for the alleged debt simply does not exist?

You are actually talking utter nonsense; and anyone who is genuinely a Law student would have a considerably better grasp of the English Language than you appear to have.

[give_me_it_back]

[loverboy]

let me explain,
A company like NCO are employed/contracted to the creditor thus giving them legal authority and recognition to act on thier behalf.
If there is no record/evidence of the debt then obviously it can not be pursued, that is common sense.
You see in my view, the problem with the majority of people on this site, so far seems to be that you all have a irrational sense of injustice. Nothing in this world or indeed law is free, if you borrow someones money, have a service or contract with some one for one of the previous then it is an exchange of promises (quid pro quo) . You have to honour your promise as they have yours, that is how fundementally the law of contract works. Exchange of promise for promise, agreement for agreement. If you fail to carry out your obligation then you are in breach of contract and indeed fall foul of common law.
In fact such companies as NCO are trying to avoid taking litigation against persons who breach thier contracts by trying to work away forward. Do you seriously believe people should just be able to say, oh well I cant afford to carry out my promise, I should not have to pay, you are harrasing me by asking me to do so??
where would these leave the economic market, insurance prices??

[ODC]

Originally Posted by ncf355

Well said SL

As said above, educate yourself before you start spouting garbage

I dont know where you are studying law. If a person feels distressed then that is all the proof a court needs.

[noomill060]

"let me explain,
A company like NCO are employed/contracted to the creditor thus giving them legal authority and recognition to act on thier behalf.
If there is no record/evidence of the debt then obviously it can not be pursued, that is common sense."

In which case, NCO's lack of common sense is going to cost them an awful lot of money.

[noomill060]

In many cases, DCAs act outside the law and the OFT's guidelines.

This site is all about forcing these companies, which give the impression of being above the law, to act within it, or pay the price.

If anyone here wished to run away from their debts, the simplest way is bankrupcy and a two fingered salute.

[noomill060]

**first year student, second term syndrome**

You'll soon learn that life is far more complex than you could possibly imagine.