Could MBNA get charging order?

[Apoplectic]

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.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Apoplectic!

 

...stating that my complaint was being investigated (I had not actually made one)

 

I have had one of those too, no idea which alleged Account it was about. The Letter gave me no clue as to what was being investigated!

 

I think that's their Buy-Time-Any-Old-How machine, that spews out unsigned vague Letters to give the impression that something is being done when they notice a serious looking Complaint. Some minion or other gets to Sign them. I think it's just designed to look good if/when anyone Official asks to inspect their Complaints Handling Records.

 

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.

 

Sadly, yes. Politicians and Financial Groups are so busy mutually self-serving themselves, that it is very hard to take any effective action against the latter, as the former protects them so well. It is obviously just a coincidence that most Politicians end up as banking executives when they leave Politics.

 

I'd like to see some of the Senior Executives who authorise this Harassment brought to Justice. It would be nice to see them spend time wearing suits with thicker stripes, desperately working out how to avoid playing "Hide the Soap" with Bubba in the Communal Showers.

 

Now there's a satisfying image!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[caro]

From the information I'm linking here from HMCS it would seem that the property needs to belong to the debtor, which in this case it doesn't. Charging Order

[Apoplectic]

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?

[Fred Bassett]

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 High 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?

 

That's an interesting line of attack. I shall watch with interest. It goes without saying that you have my best regards.

 

Fred

[steven4064]

Apoplectic, If you turn out to be right it could have far-reaching effects

[Apoplectic]

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!

[caro]

I'm only guessing, but I think the person being pursued would need to produce pretty strong medical evidence, including specialists reports etc.

[steven4064]

If every person in every company sending letters or making phone calls to members of the public had to consider the effects of that letter or call on the recipient's mental health... absolute revolution

[Apoplectic]

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.

[Apoplectic]

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

[Apoplectic]

If every person in every company sending letters or making phone calls to members of the public had to consider the effects of that letter or call on the recipient's mental health... absolute revolution

 

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.

[steven4064]

The possibilities are endless! But none of this tested in court, I fancy.

That much is certainly true

[Apoplectic]

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.“

[Apoplectic]

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.”

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Apoplectic!

 

Excellent work. This has made an otherwise miserable Monday morning significantly more fun.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[steven4064]

For symmetry you should quote the relevant sections of these 2 acts.

 

I don't think it needs to be headed 'without prejudice' as we would not be making an offr we might wish to retract (we are making a threat )

 

If possible the letter should be sent to a named individual - I always try and get first and last names of people that call.

[Apoplectic]

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.

[steven4064]

Sorry, forgot, we are all heart

[Apoplectic]

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.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Apoplectic!

 

I think I'll do the same soon, and email Cheshire Police as well.

 

You-know-who have been Calling us for the best part of four Months now, I think I have a Log of around 250 Calls I can say are either from them, or can reasonably be attributed to them from the close timing proximity of their Calls to each other around our various numbers. Whilst that only means around 2 Calls a Day, the reality is 1/2 of January was not logged, and some days they call a lot, others not at all.

 

I have a detailed Call Log, Dates, Times, CLI, plus WAV Files of any Messages they left, plus Images of the Call Log on Phone Displays and Mobile Phone Displays.

 

Over the last 9 Months, I've had three Family Members fall ill, which is more or less directly what caused some financial Cash Flow issues last Year. All more settled now, but one person is now Terminal, but comfortable and living with us in a single story flat we created from time we didn't have and money we could not afford to spend! Bath Lifts etc all cost money. Time driving to/from Hospitals 45 mins away, means time when you can't earn a living.

 

Anyway, I'm protecting my family from the worst of this nonsense, but these bankers are hounding us via any Telephone number they can find. My fear is they will find a vulnerable number and cause real distress. To combat that, all family numbers here are routed past my Desk first, and let through if I think they are safe.

 

But this takes time and effort, and I cannot be watching this all the time.

 

I never gave them my Mobile, so I think they may well have obtained that from, possibly, some dubious link between bankers, their mates the Credit Reference Agencies and their access to Mobile Phone Companies.

 

To put it all into perspective, I was not a bad Customer! Paid every Month for years and years, never more than a couple of Days late ever.

 

I got so fed up of their nonsese when one recent Payment was very late, that I just hit any and all of them with CCA Requests. Since then, Telephone Harassment has gone into orbit! Not unexpected, as it seems many are in a weak position in terms of being able to enforce the alleged Debts.

 

Nothing I can't handle.

 

But the evidence I have been gathering is very real and pretty damning. I'm no shrinking violet, so I'm not really phased by it, but I can imagine what this could do to someone less robust and/or vulnerable.

 

The fact that my Harassment Calls are clearly being rotated, and there are big gaps between rotation, suggests these people are flat out Harassing a great many people besides me. That does concern me greatly. They do not scare me, but I can imagine how badly they affect others.

 

One day, I will use this carefully collated Call Information. I'm still working out how best to do so! Unfortunately, if that is the correct word, I am not stressed. So, I feel I do not have a strong case that would be taken seriously. Indeed, I'd almost feel a little wimpy making a complaint about a few extra Telephone Calls.

 

I suppose it does affect my Wife, so perhaps that is the excuse I should use to ram home my complaint when I do.

 

I'm not yet confident that I have a knock-out attack ready for them, but it may be useful if others submit similar complaints to the same place, say, Cheshire Police HQ for example!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Apoplectic]

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!!!!!

[Apoplectic]

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???

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Apoplectic!

 

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.

 

My fears exactly.

 

I think CAG refers to the active ones as Trolls, and I believe that I have spotted at least one so far. That one was trying to be a little too clever, and I think its main aim was to harvest PMs from as many people as possible before being discovered. Only Today, I was trying to warn people against using PM without first being sure the PM'ee was safe.

 

However, the real worry is they may use less obvious methods. Sending a Troll here is a little low level. These people certainly have the resources to pay for some serious computing talent to harvest data via stealth. Anyway, we must balance the risk of being identified with the benefits of CAG. Provided reasonable steps are taken to mask identity, CAG is well worth the risks and is, for me at least, about the only tool I have at my disposal.

 

I'll be sending something to Cheshire Police in the not too distant future, although that could pose another potential leak! Senior Policemen and bankers are known to like joining clubs that demand funny handshakes, silly outfits and one touser leg rolled up!

 

People in glass houses should not throw stones, but I'm in my glass house already and they are throwing stones at me, so all I can do is throw'em back.

 

If you answer the next call...

 

Yes, good plan. So far, I have not actually answered any of their Calls, I let my machines do that. Often, my machine speaks to their machine.

 

But I have already planned to start taking some Calls, as I could do with knowing a sample of their names (all recorded, of course). I'll start doing that when ready to crank it up another notch. Right now it serves my purpose to just Log the Calls while I pin them down on the CCA front.

 

I think a spot of Bedtime reading is in order (H&SAW Act)!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Apoplectic]

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!