Jump to content


protection from harassment act 1997 DEFINITION


postggj
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3915 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

WE ALL HEAR ABOUT DCA HOUNDING PEOPLE AND SENDING THE PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT TEMPLATE.

 

SOME OF YOU WILL KNOW IME DOING A DIPLOMA ON THE EFFECTS OF EU LAW ON UK EMPLOYMENT LAW AND I THOUGHT I WOULD POST UP THE EXPLANATION OF HARASSMENT AS IT STATES IT IN UK LAW STATUTE

 

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

 

This Act makes it a criminal offence to harass another person or to cause a fear of violence. Unlike the Public Order Act there is no requirement to prove the offender intended their conduct to amount to harassment. Section 1 states that: a person must not pursue a course of conduct, which:

 

  • amounts to harassment of another, and
  • he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

Harassment is defined as causing alarm or causing distress and states that ‘a course of conduct’ must involve conduct on at least two occasions.

 

 

SATISFY THE ABOVE AND HAVE PROOF, GO FOR THE THROAT AND DO IT

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the same token, you would also need to take a common sense approach. If you are being hounded for a debt and used the above to your advantage, the company may then stop sending further notifications until you receive a court summons or even have bailiffs knocking at your door. May be best to seek advcie first before sending a letter regarding Harassment Act although with DCAs it probably woudl eb applicable. Note it cannot be used against a bailiff!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best thing to do is report the matter to Trading Standards, the Law's of the land are fickle at best, at least

Trading Standards can take an objective view on the situation. Blair, Oliver and Scott are dialing my landline using

'withheld', the thing the account is in dispute due to credit card charges, I've got to see the judge in DEC. The other thing is that they reconstructed the agreement, except the creditor should read different, so they can't even reconstruct a CCA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the aim must be to put them in a position where they can be in no doubt that their behaviour constitutes harassment, so that if they continue you can prove that they were aware that the behaviour was unacceptable. So, I put into letters a line to the effect that it has been made clear that the debtor will be happy to communicate with them, but only in writing, and that their persistent telephoning causes anxiety and distress.

 

Whilst the Act gives a definition of what constitutes harassment, what causes anxiety and distress, and what form the anxiety and distress takes will be different in every case. We already know from Ferguson v. British Gas Trading Ltd that a company cannot blame its systems, nor does it matter if they claim that they did not intend to harass; it is how the target perceives the behaviour that matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have advised until blue in the face colate and record create papertrail.When you consider the potential liability of the creditor/DCAlink3.gif for harassment, breaches of the Data Protection Act, defamation, unlawful registering of a Default Notice and that all this is made 10 times worse for them if the agreement is invalid, I don't see where risk comes into it. I do see a risk however, in relentlessly chasing the creditor/DCA having built no case against them, which significantly reduces any claim for damages you might have against them. At the very worst, if the agreement is valid, you'll only have a claim for harassment. But depending on the level of harassment this may significantly reduce or even rid you of the debt. These are matters which will vary from case to case, so it's impossible to give precise predictions as to the outcome. However, I would contend that the more issues you have to raise in respect of their conduct, the greater the opportunity for getting rid of the debt. If their behaviour cancels out your debt-great! If it reduces it, that's great also. In the end it is better that the matter goes to Court, for finality. If you are in some sort of reduced payment arrangement with the creditor/DCA, your credit rating will effectively be shot to pieces forever and a day! At least if the worst did happen and you got a CCJ, you know it will be over in 6yrs! That's why I say you really do have to consider the bigger picture and whether or not you actions are really doing you any favours. Court will bring matters to a conclusion, which really is the best thing. Who wants to live in constant fear of what the creditor might do next? By being proactive, in the sense of building your case, and preparing yourself and your case for Court, you have nothing to fear! Court action is threatened to get debtors to do what the creditor/DCA wants, it is a very effective leverage tool. My view however is that a change of attitude is required, away from feeling powerless, beholden and cowed by the prospect of Court.

Given the ever rising levels of personal debt in this country and also the recent credit crunch, creditors are prepared to issue Court claims much sooner than previously they would. They are also willing to issue claims where previously they wouldn't have considered it.

 

So anyone who has entered into some sort of pmt arrangement with an OC/DCAlink3.gif, shouldn't for a moment complacently believe that a Court claim won't be issued against them. The only loyalty an OC/DCA possesses is to the bottom line, which is profit and recouping debts one way or another! If making money/reducing losses gets harder and they have to do business in a more difficult financial climate, the first people they will go after are debtors, make no mistake. Anyone who isn't fulfilling their contractual obligation to pay, isn't protected from legal action by a pmt arrangement. Such agreements are not legally binding on the creditor and they can drop such an arrangement like a bad habit, if they are so inclined. This is happening more often and will continue to get worse, which is why it is absolutely imperative that everyone in this position starts collating evidence to use against an OC/DCA. The earlier this is commenced the better and for goodness sake don't delude yourself into thinking that it won't happen to you! There's a very good chance it will, so the better prepared you are, the greater chance you have of winning your case. Fighting back isn't daunting, acceding to the demands of creditors and DCA's, now that's scary!

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree.

 

It seems to me that the aim must be to put them in a position where they can be in no doubt that their behaviour constitutes harassment, so that if they continue you can prove that they were aware that the behaviour was unacceptable. So, I put into letters a line to the effect that it has been made clear that the debtor will be happy to communicate with them, but only in writing, and that their persistent telephoning causes anxiety and distress.

 

Whilst the Act gives a definition of what constitutes harassment, what causes anxiety and distress, and what form the anxiety and distress takes will be different in every case. We already know from Ferguson v. British Gas Trading Ltd that a company cannot blame its systems, nor does it matter if they claim that they did not intend to harass; it is how the target perceives the behaviour that matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...