Thank you for that information. If it is not illegal, then it ought to be!! In my book it is a corrupt practice.

Update My elderly relative (who is in a care home) received 4 letters yesterday from Chester. The contents make it clear to me that previous correspondence had not been read. Two of the letters were from the McGrath 'person' (does he exist? see another thread). I contacted Cheshire police a couple of weeks ago about possible harassment by this 'person' and will now be in touch with them again, but at a higher level.

The HSE does not seem to be able to see beyond its use in an industrial accident scenario, but to me the wording is unambiguous. It seems to me it could also be used in relation to bullying at work, and teachers/head teachers doing nothing about bullying in their schools. ALL employees (and self-employed). No exceptions (unless Crown immunity). Very, very powerful. But needs test cases.

I've had a reply from the HSE which I haven't got time at the mo to absorb. In the meantime get your minds around this . . . We've drifted off my elderly rel probs with the clowns of Cheshire. It seems his problems are over now, however. He has just received a letter from them offering to lend him more money!!!!!!

I have received a reply from the HSE which at first glance ducks the issue, but haven't got the time to go through it in detail. I'll post an update asap.

I have now made contact with the Health and Safety Executive seeking to clarify a number of points about the application of these two sections, but if I was employed in putting my name to letters demanding money, or pestering phone calls, I think I would be quite concerned.

I have now contacted the Health and Safety Executive via its website and asked a number of questions about S7 H&SAW 1974 and expect a reply within 10 days. Watch this space.

Fred - I also have drunk a few pints at Charing X, waiting for Loop Line train. BRW - If I mention Rolling Stone you'll know where I went to school with Mick. Now I live where the peasants are grossly obese due to centuries of in-breeding and there's more Polish than English spoken in Tescos. The Early Pilgrim Fathers came this way but wisely moved on quickly after a short spell in clink. And King John did NOT lose any treasure (a myth) but might have got a bit wet. That's your starter for 10.

Two of my grandfathers rolled up a trouser leg on a regular basis and both achieved modest rank in the publicly acknowledged part of the brotherhood (ie that part which is reasonably honest and relatively harmless.) One of them seriously fell out with them but lived to a good age, the other achieved a position of some power in Greenwich, where he was able to give out work when there wasn't much of it around. But every six weeks or so he went on a bender and gran had go and retrieve him from under a train seat in Dartford Carriage sidings. Ah, they don't make 'em like that anymore!

A further quick thought. If you answer the next call, ask: What is your full name? Who is your employer? So you are an employee (self-employed) then? And you are actually at work now? And calling from the UK? So you'll know your duties (as an employee) towards me when I tell you that your call(s) are making me feel ill. You are aware of the duties placed on you towards me by Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 aren't you? You do of course realise that what you are doing now lays you open to what could possibly be an unlimited fine and may put your job and home at risk, even result in a criminal record. I think you should consult a lawyer. Goodbye. Terminate immediately if any 'wrong' answers spoil the script. All spoken in the most friendly, polite and ingratiating way, throwing in the odd 'dear' or 'mate' as appropriate. And captured on tape, posted on YouTube???

Hi BRW IMHO we must assume that certain parties, although giving every impression of arrogance, stupidity, and gross inefficiency, may possibly have thought of monitoring this site and although our identities may be disguised we cannot know whether or not certain parties have friends in high places who may have the ability to get into websites etc etc. (The gross lack of effective action by ‘regulatory authorities’ regarding activities well outside codes of practice, if nor the law, would indicate that they DO have FIHP. NB I have NOT used the word CORRUPTION.) It therefore may be best not to mention your lack of stress! The email I sent via the Cheshire Police website was along these lines (put your own words in the square brackets, removing the brackets afterwards!): [A brief statement of specific concerns about harassment re S1 of the Prevention from Harassment Act 1997] by [[name,]an employee of]] a large business based in your area in relation to an alleged debt. [The employee] [The company] has been told not to contact me many/several times, but continues to do so. A simple web search on the company’s name will reveal many links that suggest that this practice is widespread. I wish to place a short written outline of the situation, as a matter of record, with Cheshire Police and would be grateful for the contact details of any specialist officer or unit, if there is one. The company is [*******] Thank you, [Real name] Hope that’s not too confusing. I received a quick response with a ref number saying it had been passed on. I then got an email from a specific officer (PC, non specialist) asking for my phone number, which I supplied. He phoned back. I gave him the background. He said they did not have many complaints about the company mentioned but he listened and took it in. My position is not the same as yours. I personally have never done business with [*******]and am only (at this stage anyway) trying to protect a relative from letters. I think the telephone calls are much, much more serious and the more complaints to the police that are received the greater the likelihood that at some stage they will be investigated. It MAY, thinking about it, be worthwhile making the same approach to your local police. The more the merrier! I think I shall write to the officer I spoke to with a note of our conversation and copies of the relevant correspondence with the company employee. (? Copy to FSA?) The point is that all this stuff will remain on file somewhere, and when the spag hits the fan (as I am convinced it will) plod etc can’t say they weren’t warned. The more they receive the greater the possibility of digit removal from anal orifice by someone in authority. Finally, at no point was this site mentioned. At the mo I am ploughing through the H&SAW Act '74 line by line!!!!!

I've just had a long and interesting chat with an officer from Cheshire Police relating to harassment and a specific employee of a certain finance company based in the county. Not a lot of joy but a record of my info will be on their file and I have a ref. no. for it. It is my belief that should this and similar companies eventually find themselves having to answer in a criminal court for some of the very dubious practices revealed on this site and others it may be important that law enforcement agencies have as much info in their systems against that day. Cheshire Police have a very good website with an email contact point. My email was answered very quickly. I'm afraid I do not have time to go into more detail at present but hope to be able to do so later.

I would be very interested to know from bank and other finance industry employees if they are personally aware, or have been made aware by their employers, of Sections 7 and 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974. Sect 7 - It shall be the duty of every employee while at work (a) to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work . . . Sect 37 - Where an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who is purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Employees therefore have personal liability (over and above any liability on their employer) and in the event of a successful prosecution under Section 7, which is a fine of up to £5000 in a Magistrates Court or an unlimited fine if dealt with in a Crown Court. All employees of any kind, at any level in any organisation however small (except, perhaps, those covered by Crown Immunity) are in this position. My guess is that the vast majority don’t know it. Stress is a recognised health condition. If anything an employee writes, speaks or initiates can be shown to have caused stress to a customer (or indeed a co-worker, anyone), quite clearly that employee is in trouble. Even more so if that employee has been previously informed that the third party suffers stress. I merely throw this small pebble into the pond to see if there are any ripples. (My emphasis throughout) I do not work for a bank.

No, no, there is no threat. One is merely trying to be helpful by supplying a reminder about information that is in the public domain which every employed individual is required to know and act on, with additional material that may be of interest to those working in the finance industry. Making employees aware of their obligations under S1 H&SAW 1974 is a valuable public service and may well prevent them being saddled with debt, loose their homes or gain a criminal record due to making a careless, but avoidable, mistake at work.

It might be useful to add this to the suggested text in my previous post, and I would welcome comments on whether the whole thing, if used, should be presented as an attachment and headed ‘without prejudice’ “Additionally, before replying to, or actioning, [the following] [the attached] letter you will presumably take into account any personal responsibilities and obligations you may have in relation to the Prevention from Harassment Act 1997, and the Administration of Justice Act 1970, especially in regard to Section 40.”

More thoughts on S7 and S37 H&SAW etc Act 1974 With the caveat that use of the following is entirely at your own risk and liability, I suggest the following text, perhaps as heading on, or stapled to, any letter. “PLEASE READ THIS FIRST If you are tasked with reading and/or actioning this letter [the attached letter] in any way, in whole or in part, and you are an EMPLOYEE of any status of any employer (not necessarily the organisation to which the letter is addressed) you will, of course, be aware of your responsibilities under Section 7 of the Heath and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 which states (in part, added emphasis): It shall be the duty of every employee while at work (a) to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work . . . You will also be aware of your personal liability (over and above any liability on your employer)in the event of a successful prosecution under Section 7, which is a fine of up to £5000 in a Magistrates Court or an unlimited fine if dealt with in a Crown Court. You will, obviously, have obtained independent legal advice in relation to the above mentioned Act prior to entering your present employment , and have been trained by your employer to recognise that the contents of the following [attached] letter is likely to be causing, or has caused, stress (a recognised health issue) to the writer and that any reply which you send or in which you are involved in any way may exacerbate this condition (if it exists) or create it. You may, therefore, wish to ensure that you are able, should it be necessary, to justify your actions in a court of law. No doubt your employer will be able to advise further, as directors and other officers of all companies/corporate bodies will have before them, at all times, Section 37 of the above mentioned Act, which states: Where an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who is purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.“

Thinking about it but perhaps getting carried away a bit, the implication of S7 & S37, taken to the extreme (and why not?) surely means that before writing or phoning any EMPLOYEE or DIRECTOR must make a judgment as to the effect any letter, call or action they initiate, directly or indirectly, and of any nature, will have on the health (mental or otherwise) of the recipient whether or not they are aware of a pre-existing condition, and perhaps be able to demonstrate in court that they had done so. The possibilities are endless! But none of this tested in court, I fancy.

It also creates and sustains lots of quangojobs and thereby helps our ailing nation. You know it makes sense.

I think that an honest statement that the calls (in particular) are making you feel unwell through stress (or, if true, as in my relative's case, that he had had a stroke and therefore in danger of another if stressed) together with the quote from Sec 7 would be sufficient, if the calls continued, to inform the HSE. My policy in dealing with people like our friends: go for the jugular, no prisoners.

You read it here first!!! I have always thought that the H&SAW 1974 a very powerful instrument. Lord Robens, the former National Coal Board chief and probably the best Labour Prime Minister Britain Never Had (which may not be saying much) was its prime mover. I knew him. I used it with dramatic effect in an issue with a complacent NHS Trust director. He was refusing to sanction installation of air-conditioning in a particular part of a very large hospital on grounds of cost, but the heat in the area on hot summer days was causing distress to nurses and patients. The situation had gone on for years. But when I wrote out a series of scenarios that could result in injuries, and reminded the responsible director that, having received them he was now aware of the dangers and therefore under these sections he had personal liability if they actually occurred, and he had done nothing, the equipment was installed within 10 days. I believe that somewhere in the act there is a requirement that any one in employment has the responsibility to be aware of its provisions. That may not be true, but a passing suggestion of it in correspondence generally has some effect!

Thanks for that. I am now confident that a charging order is not possible in the present circumstances and, having been through some additional documents I’ve just found among my relative’s papers, that our friends will not be able to produce a CCA in the necessary format. We’ll see. I would like to throw into the arena sections 7 and 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974: Sect 7 - It shall be the duty of every employee while at work (a) to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work . . . (my emphasis) Sect 37 - Where an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who is purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly I would suggest that any written communication with our friends alluding to harassment by phone or mail might usefully refer to these clauses. Stress is taken seriously by the HSE (whose powers appear to be draconian) and I would suggest that anyone suffering stress should try to obtain a medical diagnosis to that effect and inform Chester HQ or any individual employee they may be writing to or speaking with. If an employee or officer of the company is aware that their actions (in constantly phoning/writing) are causing, or contributing to, an illness AND THEY PERSIST, then there is, I believe, an offence under these clauses and that, in the Crown Court, there can be unlimited personal as well as corporate liability. Sure as God made little apples 99.9 percent of employees in the finance/debt industry don’t know that. Worth checking out?

Does anyone have any hard evidence that one 'Matthew McGrath', supposedly Head of Customer Assistance with our friends in Chester, is a real person? Template letters purporting to be from this 'person', but with only a scanned signature, keep arriving at my 87-year-old relative's present address (a care home) in spite of many letters from me to this 'McGrath' outlining the situation and telling him to write to me (our friends having received signed authority from my relative to do so.) The most recent letter invites my relative to phone 'McGrath' in person. Has anyone actually done so? I anticipate discussing this matter with Cheshire police shortly in relation to S1 of the Prevention from Harassment Act 1997 and any assistance in this regard would be most welcome. What are the legal implications, if any, for our friends if 'McGrath' is fictitious?

BRW: Thanks for the time you have put in on this. I actually received a signed by hand letter from them today, addressed to me, referring to a previous letter and stating that my complaint was being investigated (I had not actually made one) and that I would receive a full response by 16 May. In the meantime I might like to contact the Customer Advocate Team on 01244 672628. As if! As for the harassment issue I am going to phone Cheshire police hq and see is they have an officer dealing with harassment and write them (or the Deputy Chief Con) I'm really fired up now. I've had run ins with intransigent institutions in the past and and have helped several senior NHS Trust execs to spend more time with their families, but these people I fear will a tougher nut to crack.

Thank you for your very valuable input Steven. The info on harassment is very useful, not only in this case but also for a friend of mine who is, I can see now, in terms of S1, being harassed by the sh*te who is the father of two of her children. My elderly rel has now signed a CCA request and I've sent it off Special Delivery. An SAR will go on Monday. Perhaps I'll contact the police (in writing) regarding the possible harassment. A state of war now exists between myself and certain parties in Chester, regardless of any dispute they may have with my relative.

Hi Guys. Don't mind the banter, and thanx for your help so far. I am now confident I can deal with the immediate problem but I really really do need some hard info on the question of the charging order possibility on a house the debtor does not own but his wife does. PS The OFT does not fill me with confidence (Northern Rock) (?MBNA next?) because of its inept handling of the Minorco/ Hanson/Cons Gold bids years ago.