A warning to debt collectors and their clients. *Ferguson V British Gas*

[freakyleaky]

A warning to debt collectors and their clients.

 

Ferguson V British Gas.

 

Debt collection can be harassment, rules court ? Channel Register

 

 

Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ 46 (10 February 2009)

[palomino]

This ruling is about British Gas which is a utility, not a debt collector.

[Viscount Stair]

But Ferguson v British Gas does establish two very important principles that apply equally to DCAs:

 

1. Although it is necessary to show that the harassment was grave, it is not necessary to prove the claim to the criminal standard. (However, as PT has pointed out, there is another Court of Appeal case from 2007, Conn v Sunderland, that decided that it was necessary to prove a criminal level of harassment.)

 

2. There can be corporate liability for harassment, not just liability against individuals.

[Viscount Stair]

I would argue that persistent breaches of the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines and/or the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations and/or (where it is relevant) the Disability Discrimination Act constitute a course of conduct of sufficient gravity to meet the test set out in Ferguson v BG.

 

On that basis, Ferguson v BG indicates that the claim can be brought against the creditor or the DCA, who are responsible for the acts of their employees and representatives under the principle of corporate liability for harassment.

[N.P]

This is all very interesting, but how on earth would the average Joe Soap be able to afford such a case?

 

Where do they get these figures from? Do they just think of a daft number and charge that?

[WelshMam2009]

This is all very interesting, but how on earth would the average Joe Soap be able to afford such a case?

 

Where do they get these figures from? Do they just think of a daft number and charge that?

 

 

Lisa Ferguson runs her own property investment business, but still took a risk nonetheless.

 

British Gas costs were £20,368.75 and Ferguson's costs £10,575....don't ask...just wishing I'd studied law when I was younger!!!

[N.P]

`A monster machine, out of control, running relentlessly forward`

 

I like that

[N.P]

That case could be quoted on a sod off letter to a DCA who is bustin` ya chops

[Viscount Stair]

It still has its uses. In an appropriate case, a PfHA counter-claim is now a much more runnable bargaining chip.

[tosh1]

subbing

[chauvesouris]

I've only just seen this so apologies for a late comment. I don't wish to pour cold water on this, but the Court of Appeal case does not answer the question of whether British Gas's conduct actually amounted to harrassment - it merely establishes that it might be harrassment but that a full hearing is needed.

 

British Gas were arguing that there was simply no case to answer. The CA disagreed. But that didn't (of itself) mean Mrs F won - it just meant she could have a hearing (except that BG apparently settled rather quickly when their bullying tactics failed).

 

There were lots of interesting points made in the judgment and I am encouraged by the criticisms of the defendant's position, but ultimately the only questions the judges were answering were 1. whether Mrs F had no real prospect of succeeding and 2. whether there was anything else about the case that meant it ought to go to trial. To put it another way, BG were trying to argue that no hearing was necessary because it was so obvious there was no case - the CA ruling just means that it was not obvious at all.

 

On the other hand, it does mean that anybody trying to establish harrassment like this is unlikely to get their case thrown out without a full hearing. So even though it doesn't really resolve anything, it is still good news!

[meursault22]

So how do you go about starting a case like this?

I've been on a hell of a ride from Anglian Water which definitely amounts to harassment. I've suffered a stroke as a result of their collection tactics and according to my doctor, I'm in severe danger of another. He points the finger directly at Anglian Water who are completly aware of this situation but obsessed with profits at any cost. They have sought orders for sale one after the other, based on their supposed legals costs alone and have lied and cheated constantly. My ideal aim would be to have their solicitors/dca have their licence removed.

[rebel11]

Basically a class action, say 100 consumers who are harrassed by a DCA in the same way, relentless phone calls, threatening letters, etc

Each consumer puts £300 in the kitty. That what be very scary for the DCA's.

 

This is all very interesting, but how on earth would the average Joe Soap be able to afford such a case?

 

Where do they get these figures from? Do they just think of a daft number and charge that?

[rdm2006]

I've only just seen this so apologies for a late comment. I don't wish to pour cold water on this, but the Court of Appeal case does not answer the question of whether British Gas's conduct actually amounted to harrassment - it merely establishes that it might be harrassment but that a full hearing is needed.

 

British Gas were arguing that there was simply no case to answer. The CA disagreed. But that didn't (of itself) mean Mrs F won - it just meant she could have a hearing (except that BG apparently settled rather quickly when their bullying tactics failed).

 

There were lots of interesting points made in the judgment and I am encouraged by the criticisms of the defendant's position, but ultimately the only questions the judges were answering were 1. whether Mrs F had no real prospect of succeeding and 2. whether there was anything else about the case that meant it ought to go to trial. To put it another way, BG were trying to argue that no hearing was necessary because it was so obvious there was no case - the CA ruling just means that it was not obvious at all.

 

On the other hand, it does mean that anybody trying to establish harrassment like this is unlikely to get their case thrown out without a full hearing. So even though it doesn't really resolve anything, it is still good news!

 

The judge did say (although no ruling was made) that there was also the requirement of "what ought to be known" and not just what is or was known and that Mrs F would "make it home" on that point.

 

The bit about BG not being exempt simply because it was (in so many words) an entity and not an individual was good too