Bank employees causing customer stress: H&SW Act 1974

[Apoplectic]

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.

[Apoplectic]

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.

[phatram]

I shall point this out to the phone drones when they call !

Thanks for the info.

[Spiceskull]

Subbing to what could be a very interesting thread...possibly...

[Apoplectic]

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.

[5layer]

Just think, we may have a way to fight back??

 

Considering how most of us if not all off us have been treated by the banks and the like, if this holds up we have a formidable weapon.

 

Carry on the good work Apoplectic.

[loz]

This sounds like a good angle to add to my complaint about Alliance + Leicester

[42man]

This is excellent Apop....i'm subbing to this...

[Apoplectic]

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.

[questioning]

This is very interesting, after I got called "A Thief & various other things along the same lines" on the phone from a man from Cap 1 bank, it was about two years ago or more and after this particular call I was reduced to tears, I have never stolen a thing in my life.

I had to proceed to the school to collect my kids straight after that call and it was obvious to all that i had just been upset. That call affected me quite badly for a long while,

This same man called me a few times and was always nasty & threatening.

At the time I couldn't deal with it, & didn't know how to deal with it, But i bloody well could now.

Enough of my ramblings, I'll be watching this thread for any updates and although its a bit late for my past experiences if i can point it out to others then its very worth while.

Thanks for the info!

[cashins]

Inovation!!!

 

Good one Apop.

 

David

[Mrs_Ryan]

This is very interesting, after I got called "A Thief & various other things along the same lines" on the phone from a man from Cap 1 bank, it was about two years ago or more and after this particular call I was reduced to tears, I have never stolen a thing in my life.

I had to proceed to the school to collect my kids straight after that call and it was obvious to all that i had just been upset. That call affected me quite badly for a long while,

This same man called me a few times and was always nasty & threatening.

At the time I couldn't deal with it, & didn't know how to deal with it, But i bloody well could now.

Enough of my ramblings, I'll be watching this thread for any updates and although its a bit late for my past experiences if i can point it out to others then its very worth while.

Thanks for the info!

 

thats terrible

 

i worked for Cap1 in their specialist support unit and the pressure on us was so great that I had to leave due to beng told by my doctor 'I was days away from being in a diabetic coma due to my blood sugar levels being too low due to stress.'

 

It would seem our friends at Cap1 need putting in the picture :o

[questioning]

thats terrible

 

i worked for Cap1 in their specialist support unit and the pressure on us was so great that I had to leave due to beng told by my doctor 'I was days away from being in a diabetic coma due to my blood sugar levels being too low due to stress.'

 

It would seem our friends at Cap1 need putting in the picture :o

 

It was very bad, perhaps this guy was put under pressure he certainly would have been if he had shown his face near my husband at that time, this is the sort of crap that leads people to take there own lives.

i will never forget that, the damn banks are insured for there losses, and at the time that this happened to me I had missed two payments and was trying to get it together to make these up.

[angel_1]

Wow thanks for this

 

im off work with stress and depression and have been wanting to write a letter to my creditors to tell them this and inform them to write to me and i will respond to them in writing back, to cease their phonecalls as its causing me distress.

 

Can i somehow word into a letter something along the above Apopletic has advised.

 

I am willing to send out a letter as a trial letter, as i need to send something to the bank of scotland and halifax as they are now asking me to call them and i feel under durress to do so, but have already written to all my creditors with my offers and have paid for the past 2 months the payments.

 

Ive seen the harrasement by telephone letter but wanted to send them a clear guidance on my health and im under a consultant at the moment too.

 

This would be brilliant if someone would be happy to put a quick letter together for me, forgive me im a bit slow in thinking clearly at the moment.

 

I'll add anything else and then post here for others to view before i send out, and then i can update you all of the kind of response i get if any.

 

Would be truely helpful to me - will subscribe to this thread today.

 

Ive had some great help already on this issue but cant get my words right on the letter this week.

 

Ciao for now MAZ

[gni03349]

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 . . .

 

The last thing I want to do is throw a spanner in the works , as it were, but...

 

... those last two little letters "at work".

 

 

Does this mean...

 

- while the person who could have possibly breached the H&S act was at work... or,

- it only covers those people who work alongside him in the workplace?

 

Sorry to make it a "downer" post, but wording is all important within an Act of Parliament.

 

As for the ripples.. anybody have a surfboard? . It's certainly started some debate anyway.

[SteveH2508]

The last thing I want to do is throw a spanner in the works , as it were, but...

 

... those last two little letters "at work".

 

 

Does this mean...

 

- while the person who could have possibly breached the H&S act was at work... or,

- it only covers those people who work alongside him in the workplace?

 

Sorry to make it a "downer" post, but wording is all important within an Act of Parliament.

 

As for the ripples.. anybody have a surfboard? . It's certainly started some debate anyway.

 

IMHO it means that it covers acts or omissions by the person whilst they are at work. Think back to the Stockwell shooting - the police were at work - the victim was was not a colleague of theirs - just a person going about their daily business. If a builder on a building site drops a brick on you as you walk past, the builder would be liable under HASAW74.

[questioning]

The last thing I want to do is throw a spanner in the works , as it were, but...

 

... those last two little letters "at work".

 

 

Does this mean...

 

- while the person who could have possibly breached the H&S act was at work... or,

- it only covers those people who work alongside him in the workplace?

 

Sorry to make it a "downer" post, but wording is all important within an Act of Parliament.

 

As for the ripples.. anybody have a surfboard? . It's certainly started some debate anyway.

 

It does look like this I think, "at work" Sorry just got my good eyes on & can now see it clearly says "The Customer"

As for the builder dropping a brick on your head that would be an accident and covered by public liability insurance, so is really something totally different.

Sorry I'm probably wrong but this poster has got me thinking along the same lines as him. (but hey what do I know)

[SteveH2508]

It does look like this I think, "at work"

As for the builder dropping a brick on your head that would be an accident and covered by public liability insurance, so is really something totally different.

Sorry I'm probably wrong but this poster has got me thinking along the same lines as him. (but hey what do I know)

 

If the builder or the company have not taken reasonable precautions (e.g. netting to stop stuff falling off the side of scaffolding) then they could be liable under HASAW. Any organisation who has contact with the public has to conduct their operation with due regard to the Health and Safety of ALL people - not just their employees.

[cashins]

What if the brick was thrown at, not dropped,as in shot at, not accidentlly shot..

[phatram]

I will ask my wifes uncle about some of these things, he works as a solicitor specialising in employment law.

[phatram]

Hi Paul,

Just wondering if you could give us” CAGERS” (consumer action group)any help with the following?

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.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/word-banks/142808-bank-employees-causing-customer.html#post1505539

 

I will of course post when I get a reply.

[questioning]

If the builder or the company have not taken reasonable precautions (e.g. netting to stop stuff falling off the side of scaffolding) then they could be liable under HASAW. Any organisation who has contact with the public has to conduct their operation with due regard to the Health and Safety of ALL people - not just their employees.

 

Ok thats great, like I said " Hey what do I know"

Oh I have just read the part that says "the customer" sorry didn't have my contacts in, got sore eyes at the mo.

So clearly it says the customer, GREAT NEWS,

The punishment would have to fit the crime of course,( I bet it ends up with smacked wrists & not much more)

It would be brilliant to find some cases relating to this.

[gni03349]

You have to remember that the H&S Act acts like an "umbrella" if you like (apart from what I call the basics of it), with a zillion different sets of regulations that may have to be referred to for any particular instance of a possible breach. Of course, if something could be proved from just the main act then great, but there would have to be a lot of scrutinisation of all of the various regulations. Having said that, I can't see which, if any, of the regulations might apply, so you might have to rely on the main act only. Since my previous post, theree's already been some discussion as to what "at work" means, so there seems to be some ambiguity anyway. It's all in the interpretation of it.

 

SteveH - I'm not so sure that your agrument would stand up (re: your example using the Stockwell shooting). Again, it depends on interpretation. The police were working, yes, but IMO, I don't think they were AT work (which would be their cop-shop), and I think other regulations would apply, but it all adds to the discussion, and any and all ideas should be dicussed. I'm not disagreeing with what you said. However, you would have to convince me "beyond all reasonable doubt", which is what the courts would demand anyway...

 

Regards to everybody.. well, most of you... I don't know everybody!

[butty_a]

Looking after your business - Roles and responsibilities

 

this link which is an extract from the HASAW 1974 says it is the employers and the workers responsibility for health and safety of customers etc. the physical where abouts of the customer is irrelavant, i work on aircraft and should one pile in due to my negligence then i would be done for corperate manslaughter for the crew, passengers and people on the ground who died, just because it wasn't in the airfield doesn't mean i am not responsable so the same should apply to everyone. people would need to prove that they have stress though and the cause of it i.e the bank/banker bullying/threatening etc rather than the fact your stressed over your debt. I think this is a good angle to look at things though.

 

ps the HASAW 1974 is for all places where work is being carried out, be they a fixed residence or temperory one which is why stockwell is covered and belive it or not so are mobile fun fares but i know who i would trust with my life and it doesn't involve waltzers lol

[Lastlaugh]

Hi, this is interesting. I recently contacted the H&S Exec asking why our children are not protected in School with ref to the weight of their school bags. Teachers are! first time I got nowhere the second time I pushed and was told that section 3 of this act makes the school responsible for its pupils and any others on its site! I think this law can be applied but does it cover telephone calls?