Re: mbna cc cca
I'm not suggesting using the telephone to discuss anything relating to the account or alleged debt. In fact, if Tobyjug is refusing to answer security questions it should not be even getting that far.
But, in the unlikely event that this went to court, to establish harassment then Tobyjug would be better answering each call and informing MBNA each and every time that they do not wish to discuss anything by phone and that Tobyjug considers the constant phone calls distressing and harassment.
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 states the following:
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
(c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
Therefore each time that MBNA contact Tobyjug by phone, if they are informed that correspondence should be in writing only, and that their phone calls are causing distress then it could be argued that MBNA would be pursuing a course of conduct that they knew, or ought to knew, that it amounted to harassment.
So if they contact Tobyjug 8 times in a day and TobyJug answers the phone on each occasion, informs them they should write, and informs them that their phone calls are causing distress, it makes the argument for harassment a lot stronger.
Best
SnV
Originally posted by blueforyou
View Post
But, in the unlikely event that this went to court, to establish harassment then Tobyjug would be better answering each call and informing MBNA each and every time that they do not wish to discuss anything by phone and that Tobyjug considers the constant phone calls distressing and harassment.
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 states the following:
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
(c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
Therefore each time that MBNA contact Tobyjug by phone, if they are informed that correspondence should be in writing only, and that their phone calls are causing distress then it could be argued that MBNA would be pursuing a course of conduct that they knew, or ought to knew, that it amounted to harassment.
So if they contact Tobyjug 8 times in a day and TobyJug answers the phone on each occasion, informs them they should write, and informs them that their phone calls are causing distress, it makes the argument for harassment a lot stronger.
Best
SnV
Comment