I'm no expert on this, but I've been checking out news reports (such as in the Guardian on 13th March) of an interesting case (from the point of view of many THRP readers) with regard to harassment law. It's all about a ruling which was delivered early in March to virtually no publicity.(posted 8424 days ago)There may be something here for many people to mull over, especially anyone who has ever received more than one written threat of court (which was not acted upon) from a lender or their agents.
A judge has held that, under the Protection Against Harassment Act 1997, a woman who had two [allegedly disparaging] articles published about her by the Sun was entitled to sue the paper on the grounds that it had harassed her. This is because the two articles constituted 'a course of conduct' [crucially, the judge ruled that just one published article would not have been enough to constitute a course of conduct] and that the conduct had caused the victim 'alarm or distress'. The judge ruled that just because the defendant was a newspaper, with a right to freedom of speech, it did not exclude it from the terms of the Act. The judge said, '...in my judgement the Act does give the claimant a right to protection from harassment from all the world including the press'.
This of course implies that lenders and their agents who publish letters which make threats which distress people are certainly not exempt from the Act.
I think it is inevitable that people on the receiving end of lenders' shortfall letters threatening court, bankruptcy etc, will be alarmed and distressed. More than one letter presumably constitutes a 'course of conduct'.
The Sun is to take the case to the Court of Appeal later this year, and the case may well go all the way to the Lords. But it may nevertheless be a useful precedent for THRP readers to consider, as it would effectively be a brand new course of action, especially if the lender has already stuffed its case against you by (a) messing up its documentary evidence by disposing of key material; and/or (b) being contemptuous of Civil Procedure Rules by refusing to document its case to you adequately.
The harassment case in question was held at Lambeth county court. The woman's name is Esther Thomas and her solicitor is Geoffrey Bindman. The judge is senior Judge Roger Cox.
From reading this Q&A board I know of a few of you who have received a number of letters from the lender or their agents/solicitors which threaten various distressing actions, but which are then not acted upon. Some of these communications have gone to work addresses, when your home addresses have been known to the lender.
I wonder if there could be some mileage in this route? But, like I said at the beginning of this post, it's just a non-expert idea, thrown up for discussion.