Brighthouse family harassment

Flyboy152

I really have to worry about people's interpretations of the title and purpose of this forum. :wall:

wealdroam

Flyboy152 wrote: »

No, they should not be contacting these people at all.

Flyboy, can you please explain just what this list of people is for?

arcon5

Flyboy152 wrote: »

This is nothing to do with the OP's payment history, it is to do with the harassment by Brighthouse.

BH contacted a named contact in order to get hold of op, whether they attempted to contacted op first or not aside, do you honestly class this as harassment?

Flyboy152 wrote: »

No, they should not be contacting these people at all.

Its already been mentioned they ensure the customer has permission of the namee.
If these people agree the customer can put them down as a contact then whats the problem with them contacting them?


On the back page of your passpot you have to write down contact details of somebody you know or knows you. If somebody found my passport would they have no right to ring that other person?

My bank was trying to contact me a few months ago to discuss recent activity in my account. They couldn't get hold of me so rung my parents address -- is this harassment?
When I gave them an alternative contact number they knew it was for my family home, didn't ask if they had permission, didn't write them a letter asking their permission. Is this equally wrong?


Where does the line between trying to contact somebody and harassing smebody start and end?


If you was one of these contact numbers and repeatedly told BH you no longer wish to be named or no longer have contact with op and they persisted in calling you then they would have a case for harassment. They should remove the named contact and request op provides another contact from some other participant.


I can't decide whether you really do have a warped definition of 'harassment' or just too stubborn to admin defeat

shaun_from_Africa

So, now the OP is a liar? What do you have to support that assumption?

Your choice.
You can either post where I accused or even implied that the OP was lying, or you can post an apology for posting something that isn't true.
(and to be honest, I would be very surprised if you do either)

Just because the OP said that they didn't bother, doesn't mean that they didn't try

I stated that they may have tried to contact the OP.
Just because the OP wasn't there to get the call, doesn't prove that Brighthouse didn't try calling does it? They may not have an answerphone, or someone may have taken a message and not passed it on.
I often get people trying to call me on my mobile but because I am not allowed to have it turned on whilst at work, the person making the call can't speak to me. Does this mean that they didn't try?

Because I am not here to educate you. I have pointed you in the general direction; I hear google is a wonderful learning tool.

In other words, no such legislation exists or you would be very eager to post it.
It's easy to make claims that are total rubbish, far harder to provide proof to back these claims up isn't it?
Go on, prove me wrong. One simple link to a page showing UK legislation
to prove that it was illegal for brighthouse to ask someone else if they knew how they could contact the OP isn't too much to ask is it?

Flyboy152

wealdroam wrote: »

Flyboy, can you please explain just what this list of people is for?

You know what, that is a great question, because I cannot imagine, in any sense, that they have any entitlement to have these names.

However, I assume that the reason why the compnay insist on having these names is an attempt to either, extract money from them, to pay any debts their customers have, or to embarrass them into paying.

Flyboy152

arcon5 wrote: »

BH contacted a named contact in order to get hold of op, whether they attempted to contacted op first or not aside, do you honestly class this as harassment?

Yes.

Its already been mentioned they ensure the customer has permission of the namee.

No it hasn't.

If these people agree the customer can put them down as a contact then whats the problem with them contacting them?

But they have no relevance to the loan.

On the back page of your passpot you have to write down contact details of somebody you know or knows you. If somebody found my passport would they have no right to ring that other person?

No you don't.

My bank was trying to contact me a few months ago to discuss recent activity in my account. They couldn't get hold of me so rung my parents address -- is this harassment?

No, because they weren't calling them to extract money from them or you.

When I gave them an alternative contact number they knew it was for my family home, didn't ask if they had permission, didn't write them a letter asking their permission. Is this equally wrong?

No, because the data held was appropriate and relevant.

Where does the line between trying to contact somebody and harassing smebody start and end?

When the finance company start to call people to disclose personal data.

If you was one of these contact numbers and repeatedly told BH you no longer wish to be named or no longer have contact with op and they persisted in calling you then they would have a case for harassment. They should remove the named contact and request op provides another contact from some other participant.

No, because I would have explained to them that neither did they have my permission, they had no right, to hold any of my details on their database and by calling me it was harassment.

I can't decide whether you really do have a warped definition of 'harassment' or just too stubborn to admin defeat

I can't decide if you know anything about the DPA, or what it means to be harassed.

P.S Harassment is behaviour that is alarming and distressing.

arcon5

Flyboy152 wrote: »

You know what, that is a great question, because I cannot imagine, in any sense, that they have any entitlement to have these names.

However, I assume that the reason why the compnay insist on having these names is an attempt to either, [STRIKE]extract money from them, to pay any debts their customers have[/STRIKE], or to embarrass them into paying.

Thats why.

Doesn't make it illegal though.

"Its XXX from BH, i've been trying & unable to get in touch with YY with regards to a missed payment -- can you please ask them to get in touch with us?"

I'm guessing the type of people to default are also the type of people to not answer their phone or switch it off because they know whoes calling & why. I bet this soon gets their !!!! into gear!

Flyboy152

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Your choice.
You can either post where I accused or even implied that the OP was lying, or you can post an apology for posting something that isn't true.
(and to be honest, I would be very surprised if you do either)



I stated that they may have tried to contact the OP.
Just because the OP wasn't there to get the call, doesn't prove that Brighthouse didn't try calling does it? They may not have an answerphone, or someone may have taken a message and not passed it on.
I often get people trying to call me on my mobile but because I am not allowed to have it turned on whilst at work, the person making the call can't speak to me. Does this mean that they didn't try?




In other words, no such legislation exists or you would be very eager to post it.
It's easy to make claims that are total rubbish, far harder to provide proof to back these claims up isn't it?
Go on, prove me wrong. One simple link to a page showing UK legislation
to prove that it was illegal for brighthouse to ask someone else if they knew how they could contact the OP isn't too much to ask is it?

And your reluctance to search it out shows that you really know that your are writing rubbish. Go figure.

All data held must be appropriate and relevant. What relevance have these people to the loan taken out by the OP and how is it appropriate to the case at hand?

Flyboy152

arcon5 wrote: »

Thats why.

Doesn't make it illegal though.

"Its XXX from BH, i've been trying & unable to get in touch with YY with regards to a missed payment -- can you please ask them to get in touch with us?"

I'm guessing the type of people to default are also the type of people to not answer their phone or switch it off because they know whoes calling & why. I bet this soon gets their !!!! into gear!

It most certainly does. Because they are disclosing information to someone who is not entitled to have it, that is one of the most basic principles of the Data Protection Act.

arcon5

BH aren't calling the contacts to extort money.

How is the bank holding my families telephone number any more or less relevant and appropriate than BH holding other contact details to be used to contact op if necessary?

At what point has the finance company disclosed personal data to the contacts?

I can't decide if you know anything about the DPA, or what it means to be harassed.

P.S Harassment is behaviour that is alarming and distressing.

They could send a letter saying your behind x weeks, yet op could still find this to be distressing. Should they never send them a letter after that?

My first electricity bill at my last property was £450 because we left storage heaters on -- I found that distressing & alarming, was EON harassing me?