Roberts v Bank of Scotland - Harassment Case Won

[Still Waving]

Following the recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Roberts v Bank of Scotland there are some key points that creditors should take away from the decision.
The outcome of this case is likely to have ramifications for creditors who are attempting to contact their customers in relation to defaults on their account. The appeal was made by the Bank of Scotland, following a decision against them that their conduct amounted to harassment and intimidation of their customer, with the Judge awarding damages to the customer as a result of the bank’s conduct.
Bank of Scotland appealed the decision, but their appeal was dismissed.

Read more here: - http://talkingfinance.gateleyuk.com/...t-your-debtor/

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Who are you going to call? Not your Debtor…

Well its about time!

Some interesting points from the article:

"After the first few calls, the customer requested that Bank of Scotland stop making calls to her.

However, Bank of Scotland operated an automatic dialling system to contact defaulting customers. This led to over 547 calls being made to the customer in a little over a one year period."

So a key point for a debtor to take away from this is to make sure you send the creditor a letter stating you do not wished to be contacted by telephone!

BoS clearly ignored this request at their own peril (and cost!). I don't think anyone, anywhere, would have said that 547 calls being made over a year is acceptable!

Another key point for a debtor is to always ensure that you log the calls by date and time so that you have a record of such conduct of harassment. Even record it in your UE diaries if that makes it easier!

"The customer therefore issued a claim for damages for harassment, which the court upheld and awarded damages against Bank of Scotland in the sum of £7,500"

Damn right - and I hope that the damages are more than the debt that was owed. I am tired of seeing numerous stories every year of people who see no other way out than to take their own lives as a result of this sort of harassment by creditors.

"In dismissing the appeal, the court confirmed the following:-
(a) that the content and the frequency of the calls to the customer (despite noting that Bank of Scotland staff remained polite throughout), after she had told Bank of Scotland to stop calling her, amounted to harassment and intimidation, and could have been prosecuted in the criminal courts;"

My view is they SHOULD have been prosecuted in the criminal courts. This was criminal activity and should have been treated as such.

(b) that the Bank of Scotland should have realised its conduct was harassing;

No they DO realize - they just chose to conduct themselves in this manner anyway. If BoS executives actually faced criminal charges then perhaps this 'realization' may dawn a little quicker.

But hang on a minute, isn't fixing market rates, committing acts of fraud etc ALSO criminal acts? How many bankers have been hauled before the courts over that? I detect a pattern emerging here.....

"(c) that after hearing evidence from the customer, it was obvious that the distress she had suffered as a result of the actions of the Bank of Scotland, was genuine."

Anyone who is subjected to the bombardment of calls from these companies is going to suffer genuine distress. You only have to see the posts on consumer forums for people desperate and pleading for someone to help them deal with the stress.

I do not deny these companies the right to make a REASONABLE number of calls to try to contact a debtor, but if someone is unable to pay their arrears on a Monday, calling them back the same afternoon or the following day is not going to change that situation!

[Riz]

Re: Who are you going to call? Not your Debtor…

Also comment by someone we know here: Roberts v Bank of Scotland plc and another appeal [2013] All ER (D) 88 | Paul at Watsons Solicitors of Llandudno

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Who are you going to call? Not your Debtor…

All England Reporter/2013/June/Roberts v Bank of Scotland plc and another appeal - [2013] All ER (D) 88 (Jun)

Roberts v Bank of Scotland plc and another appeal

Court of Appeal, Civil Division

Arden, Jackson and McCombe LJJ (judgment delivered extempore)

11 June 2013

Tort - Harassment - Prohibition of harassment - Damages - Claimant's accounts with defendant bank being overdrawn - Bank inundating claimant with telephone calls - Claimant bringing proceedings seeking damages for harassment - Judge finding bank's actions amounting to harassment - Bank appealing - Whether judge erring.

Abstract
Tort - Harassment. The defendant bank made or attempted to make over 500 telephone calls to the claimant in respect of her accounts with the bank. The claimant brought proceedings against the bank seeking damages for harassment. The judge found that the calls had amounted to harassment and awarded £7,500 in damages. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the bank's appeal on the basis that the judge had been right to characterise the calls as intimidation and there was no possible ground for interfering with the judge's assessment of damages.

Digest

The claimant was an account holder with the defendant bank (the bank). The bank wanted to speak to her as she had exceeded her overdraft or credit limit on one or more of her respective accounts with the bank. The claimant did not want to speak to the bank and requested that they desist from calling her. The bank refused to do so and continued to call or attempt to call the claimant. Between December 2007 and May 2008, the bank made or attempted to make 547 telephone calls to the claimant regarding her accounts. In April 2010, the claimant issued proceedings in the county court seeking damages for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The bank denied harassment and counterclaimed for outstanding charges on the claimant's accounts totalling just over £10,000. The claimant did not contest the counterclaim. Shortly after the bank had filed its defence and counterclaim, it made a 'drop hands' offer of settlement to the claimant (the offer). That was the second such offer that the bank had made and it also included a confidentiality clause. The claimant did not respond to the offer. At a hearing in February 2012, the judge held that the bank's conduct had amounted to harassment and awarded the claimant £7,500 in damages. The counterclaim also succeeded. Both parties applied for their costs in the claim. The judge concluded that the claimant was entitled to her costs up to the date of the expiry of the offer, from which point each party would bear their own costs. The bank appealed against the findings on liability and quantum in respect of the harassment claim, and against the decision on costs.

In respect of the harassment appeal, the principal issues that fell to be determined were whether the judge had erred in: (i) failing to take into account the context of the calls, in particular that the bank had had a good reason to contact the claimant; and (ii) assessing damages at £7,500. In respect of the costs appeal, the bank submitted, inter alia, that the judge's decision on costs had been perverse.

The appeals would be dismissed.

(1) The existence of a debt did not give a lender the right to bombard the debtor with calls. It was for the debtor to decide whether they wanted to discuss the matter with the creditor.

In respect of the harassment appeal, the claimant had made it perfectly clear that she had not wanted to speak to the bank, and she had been perfectly entitled to do so. Once the bank had phoned a few times, it had been clear that no progress was to be made. Further calls had been futile and should have been stopped. The judge had been right to characterise the calls as intimidation and they had been wholly unjustified. In respect of quantum, there was no possible ground for interfering with the judge's assessment of damages.

Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2003] IRLR 102 considered; Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust [2006] 4 All ER 395 considered; Conn v Sunderland City Council [2008] IRLR 324 considered; Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] 3 All ER 304 considered; Da'Bell v National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children [2010] IRLR 19 considered.

(2) In respect of the costs appeal, the order which the judge had crafted had been one which he had been entitled to come to in the exercise of his discretion.

The claimant appeared in person.

James Counsell (instructed by DLA Piper UK LLP) for the bank.

Jeremy Howe Barrister.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Who are you going to call? Not your Debtor…

Also comment by someone we know here: Roberts v Bank of Scotland plc and another appeal [2013] All ER (D) 88 | Paul at Watsons Solicitors of Llandudno

And our friend Harrison is mentioned

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Who are you going to call? Not your Debtor…

Shortly after the bank had filed its defence and counterclaim, it made a 'drop hands' offer of settlement to the claimant (the offer). That was the second such offer that the bank had made and it also included a confidentiality clause.

This is very interesting. So BoS offered a confidentiality clause to shut the claimant up.

In other words it KNEW its actions amounted to harassment and did not want a judgement against it to this affect.

Personally I think this blows things wide open in the favour of debtors who are being harassed in this way.

Shop Direct (as an example) are one of the worst creditors for harassing debtors by telephone and if people were made aware of this case then maybe we would see more creditors being sued for damages.

(1) The existence of a debt did not give a lender the right to bombard the debtor with calls. It was for the debtor to decide whether they wanted to discuss the matter with the creditor.

This is also an interesting comment. Creditors always claim that they have a right to call debtors regardless of their wishes.

However this would seem to clearly state that it is for the debtor to decide whether they want to discuss the matter.

I think this case may be useful for reference in the second template letter for telephone harassment (when a creditor has ignored the first).

[SA Gold]

Re: Who are you going to call? Not your Debtor…

Very interesting indeed.
Lets hope this sets a marker for all the other pirates in the finance world: "don't keep calling my f****** phone"!

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Who are you going to call? Not your Debtor…

Very interesting indeed.
Lets hope this sets a marker for all the other pirates in the finance world: "don't keep calling my f****** phone"!

I reached breaking point when Amex called me at 9:20pm one evening despite having being told numerous times I couldn't make payments.

I just screamed F@*K *%F and slammed the phone down.

6 days later I got a Default Notice

It was at that point I decided to change my home phone number. I now never give this number to anyone other than family and close friends.

Problem with Shop Direct (who I mentioned earlier are particularly bad) is that if you have several accounts with them then you will get the calls for each individual account.

So if you have 5 accounts and they choose to call 4 times a day then you'll get 20 phone calls.

I had one woman actually state that 'the phone calls will never stop until you pay us'.

In light of the above judgement I have no doubt this would now be construed as intimidation and harassment. If only I knew then what I know now!!

[SA Gold]

Re: Who are you going to call? Not your Debtor…

So if you have 5 accounts and they choose to call 4 times a day then you'll get 20 phone calls.

I had one woman actually state that 'the phone calls will never stop until you pay us'.

Thats crazy and hopefully they will (if not already) get their trousers pulled down for this type of behavior soon.

[lookingforward]

Re: Who are you going to call? Not your Debtor…

My OH is currently late paying her Very (Shop Direct) A/C, they have phoned her mobile 14 times today alone. She isn't answering btw.
1st call 8.27 am the every 30mins until mid-day. Then 5.10, 5.59, 6.56, 7.39, 8.19, & 8.43.

They must have a siesta from noon until 5pm

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Roberts v Bank of Scotland - Harassment Case Won

Very very good judgment that will be sending shivers down the spines of creditors luvly juberly niddy I take it the templates will now be updated

[roomtobreathe]

Re: Roberts v Bank of Scotland - Harassment Case Won

I have a letter from MKRR stating that 'Until we reach an agreement... we will continue to contact you by telephone or letter'. Have to send them a Confirming No CCA letter so an updated one would warm the cockles of my heart!

[lookingforward]

Re: Who are you going to call? Not your Debtor…

My OH is currently late paying her Very (Shop Direct) A/C, they have phoned her mobile 14 times today alone. She isn't answering btw.
1st call 8.27 am the every 30mins until mid-day. Then 5.10, 5.59, 6.56, 7.39, 8.19, & 8.43.

They must have a siesta from noon until 5pm

They're slipping as she's only had 11 calls today

Don't suppose anyone's got an email address for the relevent Dept so she can send an email to ask them to stop ringing ?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Who are you going to call? Not your Debtor…

They're slipping as she's only had 11 calls today

Don't suppose anyone's got an email address for the relevent Dept so she can send an email to ask them to stop ringing ?

You would need to do it in writing really, to their main complaint dept and quote Harrison and Roberts in your request.....

[EvilChris]

Re: Roberts v Bank of Scotland - Harassment Case Won

The OFT guidance for harrassment is very vague but 547 calls in 6 months is surely taking the piss..
Admittedly it only equates to 2 calls a day which sounds reasonable until you see the fact that it went on for SIX months!
We have to question the dialling strategy that was put in place and the obvious lack of controls around call history and analysis of it,
As for the 14 calls per day, I don't doubt that this is happening but I would doubt the sanity of anyone who put those redial rules in their dialler, its likely to be very inefficient and would alaso fall foul of the OFCOM regs around answering machine detect etc...
Pity we can't do an FOI on these people for their strategy and regulated OFCOM reporting...