MSE News: 'Bullying' bank ordered to pay up for harassing customer: Know your rights

Wywth

tifo wrote: »

I think what the poster meant is that they wanted some sympathy during a difficult time.

Perhaps, but it's certainly not that clear from the way the poster expressed themselves here

countrymusicfan wrote: »

... I explained bank charges are illegal, they disputed that and I told them I was newly widowed. They kept calling. I changed my number and they stopped.

Perhaps the poster was equally unclear in their communication with the bank, particularly at their time of grief. :cool:

staggered

Wywth wrote: »

How long was this torment going on for? Sounds like a rather long time.

I think as excutor you only have 6 months to get things sorted out, otherwise you may become personally liable for any undue delay.

About 4 months iirc. Nothing like as bad as the person who took them to court. I had maybe 20 letters and phone calls. But at the time it was very distressing and particularly annoying after I'd repeatedly explained the situation i.e. I didn't have probate, so I couldn't pay.

fermi

Judgment transcript ---> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/882.html

CKhalvashi

Wywth wrote: »

I think as excutor you only have 6 months to get things sorted out, otherwise you may become personally liable for any undue delay.

However in some cases, there won't be any undue delay, and things may go over this.

Whilst I appreciate in many cases this is relatively straightforward, in mine and OH's cases, when there are both large debts (all at 0%) and large balances, paired with the fact there are properties/shares involved in a number of countries, you can probably understand that in cases like this, things can get very complicated very quickly.

CK

matttye

The bank's appeal was rubbish, if the summary is a fair one.

'(1) The judge failed to take into account the context in which the calls were made, in particular the fact that the bank had good reason to telephone the claimant.'

- OFT guidance on debt collection says lenders should respect debtors' reasonable requests of when, where and how to contact them. ONE phone call should have been enough.

'(2) The staff who rang the claimant were civil and polite.'

- irrelevant when the debtor didnt want to speak to them.

'(3) The judge was selective in the extracts from phone call transcripts which he cited in his judgment.'

- the court has other cases to hear and wouldn't be able to refer to all of the calls. Besides that, not every single phone call would have to be deemed harassing for the overall conduct to be harassment, so picking limited calls is fine.

'(5) The judge failed to address the question of whether the bank knew or ought to have known that its conduct amounted to harassment.'

- only good point here, but if the judge had addressed that question, it would almost certainly have been negative for the bank, so really it's not such a good point after all!