Jump to content

Greenwoods, is this harrassment?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3952 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

I have just set up a DMP with Payplan (well it's nearly there anyway) and I have sent letters to all of the creditors addresses. I sent these yesterday so some will have received them by now and others won't. I have the mobile numbers of the doorstep loan agents that call at my home for payment so I thought it would be polite just to send then a text explaining my situation and that I am currently seeking advice for my debts and that I would be in touch with their head office to sort the matter out.

The agent for Greenwoods personal credit will not accept this.

Before I notified her of my circumstances, I missed 3 payments and didn't answer the door. I was a little worried and embarrassed tbh. So she has been constantly ringing my phone, texting, knocking on the door 4 times a day.

Anyway, I sent the text and she said that if she does not receive payments from me she will lose her job and that she will continue to knock at my door and demand payment and that she will not stop. She has been sending these text (some rather sarcastic ones) implying that I am lying but not saying as much and getting a bit nasty on them and the last one I got was 20 mins ago at 10.20pm and I have a baby here trying to sleep.

Does this count as harrassment and if so, what can I do about it?

Or does she have the right to keep hounding me because I signed the agreement. Oh and my circumstances changed dramatically after this, not before.

Sorry for rambling but I am getting scared to go to my front door or go out in case she is there.


Link to post
Share on other sites

tough luck if its true she'll loose her job , but it's actually rubbish


i would consider it harrassment.


i would also remind her that not once has greenwood/provident ever taken a punter to court and won where you defend as they dont want their incedible int rates discussed before a judge.


even if it went to court, the judge would prob advise a lower repayment offer than what you are currently offering anyhow.


stick by your plans


dont forget they have no legal powers so's dont fall for the idle threats of seizure etc etc.


they have been told what they'll get, they should honour your offer or advise you are more than prepared to go to court about the offer.


text back and clearly stating that you have asked for help from payplan whom will officially be contacting them by letter soon


any further personal calls/texts or home visits will be considered as harrassment and should cease immediately.

you are advised that all text msgs to/from you have been downloaded to my pc and will/could be used as evidence in an harrassmennt complaint with the relevent commissioners.



please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely incredible.....the lengths that some shallow poeple will go to to extort money from people.

The sole fact that you had to ask if anyone else thought it was harassment, is confirmation enough that it is.

40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors. E+W


(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he—


(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;


(b)falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;


©falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or


(d)utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.


(2)A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.


(3)Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose—


(a)of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or


(b)of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.


(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than £100, and on a second or subsequent conviction to a fine of not more than £400.



1 Prohibition of harassment. E+W


(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

©that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.



127Improper use of public electronic communications network E+W+S+N.I.


(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

©persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).



http://www.ofcom.org.uk/contact-us/ complain to them,


http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/contact and these also.



Greenwoods, a la Provident, a la Vanquis Bank.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!



Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...