Has anyone actually reported a bank for harrassment?

climbgirl

Rachman wrote:

onespike, if someone owed you money, how hard would you chase it ? Or would you just agree to be restricted to writing to them ?

That's not the point. If you request communication in writing only, they are legally obliged to abide by that request. Report them to the FSA, they are very helpful and will tell you what you need to do. Try and police as well, don't imagine you'll get far but having a crime number might show the banks you're serious.

When they call just say 'I have requested you communicate only by writing to me, I will not respond to any other form of communication' and put the phone down.

If they still call, look into call barring options.

rog2

climbgirl wrote:

That's not the point. If you request communication in writing only, they are legally obliged to abide by that request. Report them to the FSA, they are very helpful and will tell you what you need to do. Try and police as well, don't imagine you'll get far but having a crime number might show the banks you're serious.

When they call just say 'I have requested you communicate only by writing to me, I will not respond to any other form of communication' and put the phone down.

If they still call, look into call barring options.

Totally agree with you cg. The ay that the Banks and other Financial Institutions harass their 'debtors' often charging for the privelege :rolleyes: is wrong, - this has been recognised by the law - otherwise there would be no 'legal guidelines'.
These guidelines and the law are there for the protection of everybody, including, ultimately, even the banks.

Tootsie_Roll

climbgirl wrote:

That's not the point. If you request communication in writing only, they are legally obliged to abide by that request.

No they aren't - nothing of the sort. It is just a mis-interpretation of the OFT guidlines on collecting debt and is often bandied about on this site.

You can request they only contact you in writing but they don't have to agree to it and why should they ? It is very difficult to prove harrassment - what one person thinks is harrassment isn't necessarliy the same as someone else (like the judge!) so it's very subjective.

I haven't heard of any cases that have even gone to court - let alone convictions.

Rachman_2

rog2 wrote:

Totally agree with you cg. The ay that the Banks and other Financial Institutions harass their 'debtors' often charging for the privelege :rolleyes: is wrong, - this has been recognised by the law - otherwise there would be no 'legal guidelines'.
These guidelines and the law are there for the protection of everybody, including, ultimately, even the banks.

Are you serious - of course they chase you for the money.... of course they put pressure on to get it back - what sort of lending body would they be if they did not ?

I can just see you with someone else - they owe you £10,000 and have noptpaid up in accordance with the terms agreed with you and ask you to communicate in writing only - I can draft your response, " Dear Sirs, Sod off - I will be chasing my money and haranguing/harrassing/chasing you for it every day - you owe it now pay up, yours faithfully...." - you cannot seriously be expecting to owe people money and for them to be after you Claude about it ? Can you ?

This is lending in arrears, not lending that's been kept up to date. the rules are different - you knew that when you took the debt on and then did not meet it - part of the problem is assuming that the system is there to protect you all the time - who from, the banks or ourselves ?

climbgirl

Rachman wrote:

Are you serious - of course they chase you for the money.... of course they put pressure on to get it back - what sort of lending body would they be if they did not ?

I can just see you with someone else - they owe you £10,000 and have noptpaid up in accordance with the terms agreed with you and ask you to communicate in writing only - I can draft your response, " Dear Sirs, Sod off - I will be chasing my money and haranguing/harrassing/chasing you for it every day - you owe it now pay up, yours faithfully...." - you cannot seriously be expecting to owe people money and for them to be after you Claude about it ? Can you ?

Of course not, they are entitled to chase it and I'd be damn sure I would chase it if someone owed me money! But there are limits and the banks/DCAs do cross the line - calling people non-stop for hours when they explain time and time again that they're in an IVA or are in proceedings to go bankrupt.

Calling someone 20+ times a day isn't going to produce any extra money for debt repayments from their budget.

Rachman_2

climbgirl wrote:

calling people non-stop for hours when they explain time and time again that they're in an IVA or are in proceedings to go bankrupt.

Calling someone 20+ times a day isn't going to produce any extra money for debt repayments from their budget.

No, but people lie and people are not particularly honest with banks and people in default are more likely to be less - let's be honest, how many of the people in debt DO communicate effectively with their lenders - if they did, they would often not be in part of the mess they are in - which is why they chase - I've been there as the person acting for the creditors in a bankruptcy hearing - the lies you hear week in week out make your cringe, people don't tell the truth when they owe money.....

[note I am not saying anyone here tells lies or is economical with the truth, just my experience...]

ZTD

Rachman wrote:

No, but people lie and people are not particularly honest with banks and people in default are more likely to be less - let's be honest, how many of the people in debt DO communicate effectively with their lenders - if they did, they would often not be in part of the mess they are in - which is why they chase - I've been there as the person acting for the creditors in a bankruptcy hearing - the lies you hear week in week out make your cringe, people don't tell the truth when they owe money.....

[note I am not saying anyone here tells lies or is economical with the truth, just my experience...]

And how would calling someone every "legal" hour for weeks upon end going to improve the "lying" situation? Is it done in order to "break" them and force a "confession"?

climbgirl

Rachman wrote:

No, but people lie and people are not particularly honest with banks and people in default are more likely to be less - let's be honest, how many of the people in debt DO communicate effectively with their lenders - if they did, they would often not be in part of the mess they are in - which is why they chase - I've been there as the person acting for the creditors in a bankruptcy hearing - the lies you hear week in week out make your cringe, people don't tell the truth when they owe money.....

[note I am not saying anyone here tells lies or is economical with the truth, just my experience...]

I'm sure people do lie, but DCAs lie as well. They lie to people about the laws regarding 6 year statue barring on debt, they lie about them not being required to provide proof of the debt. They're not exactly pure as the driven snow either...

I don't doubt that people lie about their debt, I'm sure some of them are as dishonest as it gets. But that's no excuse for a bank/DCA acting in a manner which could be interpreted as harrasment when a person is trying to be upfront and honest about it. There are often stories posted here about people who are in an IVA or going bankrupt or trying to sort their debt and the banks/DCAs just refuse to listen and take on board what's being said. To use your example, I know if someone owed me money and tried to negotiate a repayment plan I'd at least listen.

Like I said before, calling a person repeatedly to harrass them about debt isn't going to magically make money appear in their budget to pay it back. Not every single person is lying about their debt or ability to pay it back. And they have to be responsive to that.

Rachman_2

ZTD wrote:

And how would calling someone every "legal" hour for weeks upon end going to improve the "lying" situation? Is it done in order to "break" them and force a "confession"?

No, but it might encourage the people who are ignoring them and have some money to actually pay some debt off or get the others to talk to them instead of continuing to behave like an ostrich..... [again, not aimed at anyone here] - what happens when you talk to these people and try to agree payment and settlement - do they still chase as much - I doubt it [cue lots of people telling me they do]

THE_LONE_RANGER_4

Tootsie_Roll wrote:

No they aren't - nothing of the sort. It is just a mis-interpretation of the OFT guidlines on collecting debt and is often bandied about on this site.

You can request they only contact you in writing but they don't have to agree to it and why should they ? It is very difficult to prove harrassment - what one person thinks is harrassment isn't necessarliy the same as someone else (like the judge!) so it's very subjective.

I haven't heard of any cases that have even gone to court - let alone convictions.

correct the dca etc do not have to correspond in writing and niether does the debtor have to convers via phone but if they want it sorted then one has to budge as said earlier change phone number and dont talk via phone ,
as for harrassment when i was in debt i complained to the police on two occasions and it was acted upon i agree no prosection followed but they stopped harrassment draw your own conclusions.