[ Post New Message | Post Reply to this One | Send Private Email to Tim Heath | Help ]

Response to Harrassment (continued)

from Tim Heath (tim_n_heath@hotmail.com)
One of my legal texts (in my growing collection) defines harassment, among other things, as

" 2. it is an ofence im England to harass a person with demands for payment that are calculated to subject him or his household to alarm distress or humiliation or to pretend that criminal proceedings mignt be possible if payment is not made:Administration of Justice Act 1970"

I believe this definition to be pertint in this post. Although Andy's point is a good one I feel that, in view of the above, the lenders actions could clearly constitute harassment. The rule of thumb that is followed by the courts is "The defendent will be taken to know that his conduct amounts to harassment if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think that it amounted to harassment. A course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions and conduct includes speech."

Maybe its time to get the opinions of some independent people who would constitute "reasonable people in possession of the same information".

As a side thought even if the lenders say "We had every right to write to the shortfallee...." the a possible response could be that the lenders refusal to evidence their claim on more than one occasion could constitute harassment. If you have asked for evidence twice and they have failed to provide it, then this (in my opinion) constitutes a course of conduct that ignores the Civil Procedure Rules and clearly demonstrates the lenders intentions to persue the debt through intimidation of the shortfallee. This then constitutes a course of conduct that is calculated to subject him or his household to alarm distress. My case rests M'Lud.

Eager for any responses if anyone sees andy holes in my logic.

Regrads

Tim

(posted 8397 days ago)

[ Previous | Next ]