I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit
under £100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns out that
they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it. (I'm afraid
that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told them that they
would just have to try harder!)
Over the space of a few days, they started to bombard me with
communications. These included threats that they would add money to the
bill and refer me to a debt collection agency. I received several
letters and emails over quite a short space of time.
Then they started to phone me. I have rather lost count of the number of calls. Some were to my mobile phone and some to the landline. I received
five calls on one day alone to my mobile phone, so I blocked the number,
but they started using a different one.
Does this seem like "a course of conduct ... which amounts to harassment"?
On 1/20/25 17:01, GB wrote:
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit
under £100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I
thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns
out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it.
(I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told
them that they would just have to try harder!)
Over the space of a few days, they started to bombard me with
communications. These included threats that they would add money to
the bill and refer me to a debt collection agency. I received several
letters and emails over quite a short space of time.
Then they started to phone me. I have rather lost count of the number
of calls. Some were to my mobile phone and some to the landline. I
received five calls on one day alone to my mobile phone, so I blocked
the number, but they started using a different one.
Does this seem like "a course of conduct ... which amounts to
harassment"?
I don't think so.
It is a valid debt. You aren't disputing it, are you?
They shouldn't phone you at unsociable hours or multiple times a day,
but otherwise it all sounds standard.
Why not pay the debt off, with a few pence extra, it probably won't mess
up their accounting system, but it might.
GB wrote:
they did phone 5 times on one day.
Did you answer any of the calls?
they did phone 5 times on one day.
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:vmlvh6$39meq$1@dont-email.me...
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit
under £100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I
thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns
out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it.
(I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told
them that they would just have to try harder!)
Surely most reasoinable people would assume that once a person
cancels a contract, as you did with your previous suppliers, then this somehow or other *automatically* cancels any DD arrangements in
place ? This would seem to be a very sensible measure.
The fact that you didn't realise this at the time, or subsequently failed
to acknowledge the fact - but "told them they would just have to try
harder"* simply lay you open to everything that subsequently happened,
given you did owe them the money
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit under 100 with
the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I thought they would just take the money
from my account, but it turns out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to
reinstate it. (I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told them
that they would just have to try harder!)
Over the space of a few days, they started to bombard me with communications. These
included threats that they would add money to the bill and refer me to a debt collection agency. I received several letters and emails over quite a short space of
time.
Then they started to phone me. I have rather lost count of the number of calls. Some
were to my mobile phone and some to the landline. I received five calls on one day
alone to my mobile phone, so I blocked the number, but they started using a different
one.
Does this seem like "a course of conduct ... which amounts to harassment"?
Surely most reasoinable people would assume that once a person
cancels a contract, as you did with your previous suppliers, then this somehow or other *automatically* cancels any DD arrangements in
place ?
On 2025-01-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vmlvh6$39meq$1@dont-email.me...
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit >>>under 100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I
thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns
out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it. >>>(I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told
them that they would just have to try harder!)
Surely most reasoinable people would assume that once a person
cancels a contract, as you did with your previous suppliers, then this
somehow or other *automatically* cancels any DD arrangements in
place ? This would seem to be a very sensible measure.
I don't know why "reasonable" people would assume that, given it isn't
true. And it quite obviously wouldn't be "very sensible" given it would
lead to exactly the problems described by GB.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvotcof.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vmlvh6$39meq$1@dont-email.me...
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit >>>>under £100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I >>>>thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns >>>>out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it. >>>>(I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told >>>>them that they would just have to try harder!)
Surely most reasoinable people would assume that once a person
cancels a contract, as you did with your previous suppliers, then this
somehow or other *automatically* cancels any DD arrangements in
place ? This would seem to be a very sensible measure.
I don't know why "reasonable" people would assume that, given it isn't
true. And it quite obviously wouldn't be "very sensible" given it would
lead to exactly the problems described by GB.
What benefits accrue, your view, in continuing direct debit arrangements
with parties with whom you no longer have a contractual arrangement ?
As to the "problems" described by GB.
The supplier explained that GB owed them £100.
A sum which he doesn't dispute
But rather than allow him to pay them by CC, bank transfer,
cheque, or postal order they were demanding payment in
what form exactly ?
Such that there were these "problems", of which you speak ?
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 17:01:25 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit
under £100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I thought >>they would just take the money from my account, but it turns out that
they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it. (I'm afraid >>that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told them that they >>would just have to try harder!)
Over the space of a few days, they started to bombard me with >>communications. These included threats that they would add money to the >>bill and refer me to a debt collection agency. I received several
letters and emails over quite a short space of time.
Then they started to phone me. I have rather lost count of the number of >>calls. Some were to my mobile phone and some to the landline. I received >>five calls on one day alone to my mobile phone, so I blocked the number, >>but they started using a different one.
Does this seem like "a course of conduct ... which amounts to harassment"?
If so, what would be a reasonable quantum of damages? (I intend to give
any damages to the local food bank, and I would like the energy supplier
to be as generous as possible.)
Mrs Ferguson claimed £5000 for harassment. The threats made against her >>were more serious (including cutting off her gas). On the other hand,
she wasn't telephoned multiple times a day.
If I do issue proceedings, is it possible to do so in such a way that
the matter is dealt with in the small claims track? Would it help if I >>claim a relatively modest amount of damages?
Let me get this right. You want to sue a company for harassment for
trying to collect a debt that you don't dispute that you owe them but
are being awkward about paying just because you are pee'd off with
them. Good luck with arguing that.
On 2025-01-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvotcof.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vmlvh6$39meq$1@dont-email.me...
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit >>>>>under 100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I >>>>>thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns >>>>>out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it. >>>>>(I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told >>>>>them that they would just have to try harder!)
Surely most reasoinable people would assume that once a person
cancels a contract, as you did with your previous suppliers, then this >>>> somehow or other *automatically* cancels any DD arrangements in
place ? This would seem to be a very sensible measure.
I don't know why "reasonable" people would assume that, given it isn't
true. And it quite obviously wouldn't be "very sensible" given it would
lead to exactly the problems described by GB.
What benefits accrue, your view, in continuing direct debit arrangements
with parties with whom you no longer have a contractual arrangement ?
Avoiding the problem described. As I already said.
As to the "problems" described by GB.
The supplier explained that GB owed them 100.
A sum which he doesn't dispute
But rather than allow him to pay them by CC, bank transfer,
cheque, or postal order they were demanding payment in
what form exactly ?
Such that there were these "problems", of which you speak ?
What on earth are you on about?
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 20:16:54 -0000, billy bookcase wrote...
Surely most reasoinable people would assume that once a person
cancels a contract, as you did with your previous suppliers, then this
somehow or other *automatically* cancels any DD arrangements in
place ?
On the contrary, whenever I've changed energy suppliers, they've always stressed that it is important *not* to cancel the DD, for exactly the
reason here. So AIUI, the OP didn't cancel it (but the supplier
themselves did).
I'd suggest that the next time a representative of the supplier calls,
the OP should ask to speak to their superviser and make a formal
complaint, explaining why this is their fault, not his. Then make an
offer: He will donate the amount outstanding to a charity of his
choosing if the supplier agrees to make a corresponding donation.
Chances of success: zero.
Chances of causing hassle and disruption at the supplier: very high.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvoti1v.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvotcof.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vmlvh6$39meq$1@dont-email.me...
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit >>>>>>under £100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I >>>>>>thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns >>>>>>out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it. >>>>>>(I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told >>>>>>them that they would just have to try harder!)
Surely most reasoinable people would assume that once a person
cancels a contract, as you did with your previous suppliers, then this >>>>> somehow or other *automatically* cancels any DD arrangements in
place ? This would seem to be a very sensible measure.
I don't know why "reasonable" people would assume that, given it isn't >>>> true. And it quite obviously wouldn't be "very sensible" given it would >>>> lead to exactly the problems described by GB.
What benefits accrue, your view, in continuing direct debit arrangements >>> with parties with whom you no longer have a contractual arrangement ?
Avoiding the problem described. As I already said.
As to the "problems" described by GB.
The supplier explained that GB owed them £100.
A sum which he doesn't dispute
But rather than allow him to pay them by CC, bank transfer,
cheque, or postal order they were demanding payment in
what form exactly ?
Such that there were these "problems", of which you speak ?
What on earth are you on about?
GB's only "problem" was all of his own making when having been
informed of the debt, rather than agreeing to pay it by any of the
methods mentioned or debit card
He doesn't need a great deal of luck given that the "five calls a day"
thing sounds like pretty straightforward harassment, and potentially criminal.
On 2025-01-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvoti1v.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvotcof.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vmlvh6$39meq$1@dont-email.me...
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit >>>>>>>under 100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I >>>>>>>thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns >>>>>>>out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it. >>>>>>>(I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told >>>>>>>them that they would just have to try harder!)
Surely most reasoinable people would assume that once a person
cancels a contract, as you did with your previous suppliers, then this >>>>>> somehow or other *automatically* cancels any DD arrangements in
place ? This would seem to be a very sensible measure.
I don't know why "reasonable" people would assume that, given it isn't >>>>> true. And it quite obviously wouldn't be "very sensible" given it would >>>>> lead to exactly the problems described by GB.
What benefits accrue, your view, in continuing direct debit arrangements >>>> with parties with whom you no longer have a contractual arrangement ?
Avoiding the problem described. As I already said.
As to the "problems" described by GB.
The supplier explained that GB owed them 100.
A sum which he doesn't dispute
But rather than allow him to pay them by CC, bank transfer,
cheque, or postal order they were demanding payment in
what form exactly ?
Such that there were these "problems", of which you speak ?
What on earth are you on about?
GB's only "problem" was all of his own making when having been
informed of the debt, rather than agreeing to pay it by any of the
methods mentioned or debit card
Ok so you somehow missed the bit right at the beginning where he
expected them to take the payment via the existing direct debit,
and they couldn't because they had for some inexplicable reason
cancelled it. If they hadn't have done that, none of the problems
would have occurred.
Does the company making an adminsitrative error somehow cancel the
debt or the debtor's obligation to pay it?
Problems ? There's more than one ?
The supplier made a mistake, which they readily admitted, at no
additional cost to GB.
So no problem
As a result they asked him to pay the Ł100 he owed them by some
other means; again at no additional cost to GB. At least assuming
he has a CC or DC
Again no problem.
The only real problem I can see, is GB's failure thus far to
produce any really convincing explanation as to why he shouldn't
simply pay the Ł100 he owes, by other means.
bb
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:25:27 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvoti1v.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in messageAvoiding the problem described. As I already said.
news:slrnvotcof.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vmlvh6$39meq$1@dont-email.me...
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit >>>>>>>>under £100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I >>>>>>>>thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns >>>>>>>>out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it. >>>>>>>>(I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told >>>>>>>>them that they would just have to try harder!)
Surely most reasoinable people would assume that once a person
cancels a contract, as you did with your previous suppliers, then this >>>>>>> somehow or other *automatically* cancels any DD arrangements in
place ? This would seem to be a very sensible measure.
I don't know why "reasonable" people would assume that, given it isn't >>>>>> true. And it quite obviously wouldn't be "very sensible" given it would >>>>>> lead to exactly the problems described by GB.
What benefits accrue, your view, in continuing direct debit arrangements >>>>> with parties with whom you no longer have a contractual arrangement ? >>>>
As to the "problems" described by GB.
The supplier explained that GB owed them £100.
A sum which he doesn't dispute
But rather than allow him to pay them by CC, bank transfer,
cheque, or postal order they were demanding payment in
what form exactly ?
Such that there were these "problems", of which you speak ?
What on earth are you on about?
GB's only "problem" was all of his own making when having been
informed of the debt, rather than agreeing to pay it by any of the
methods mentioned or debit card
Ok so you somehow missed the bit right at the beginning where he
expected them to take the payment via the existing direct debit,
and they couldn't because they had for some inexplicable reason
cancelled it. If they hadn't have done that, none of the problems
would have occurred.
Does the company making an adminsitrative error somehow cancel the
debt or the debtor's obligation to pay it?
On 21/01/2025 12:39, Martin Harran wrote:
Does the company making an adminsitrative error somehow cancel the
debt or the debtor's obligation to pay it?
I don't think it does at all.
Does my being awkward about it make it okay for them to breach the
Harassment Act?
I have already told them that they are welcome to deduct any money I owe
them from the damages for harassment.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:25:05 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:25:27 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvoti1v.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvotcof.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Surely most reasoinable people would assume that once a person >>>>>>>>> cancels a contract, as you did with your previous suppliers, >>>>>>>>> then this somehow or other *automatically* cancels any DD
arrangements in place ? This would seem to be a very sensible >>>>>>>>> measure.
I don't know why "reasonable" people would assume that, given
it isn't true. And it quite obviously wouldn't be "very
sensible" given it would lead to exactly the problems described >>>>>>>> by GB.
What benefits accrue, your view, in continuing direct debit
arrangements with parties with whom you no longer have a
contractual arrangement ?
Avoiding the problem described. As I already said.
As to the "problems" described by GB.
The supplier explained that GB owed them £100.
A sum which he doesn't dispute
But rather than allow him to pay them by CC, bank transfer,
cheque, or postal order they were demanding payment in
what form exactly ?
Such that there were these "problems", of which you speak ?
What on earth are you on about?
GB's only "problem" was all of his own making when having been
informed of the debt, rather than agreeing to pay it by any of the
methods mentioned or debit card
Ok so you somehow missed the bit right at the beginning where he >>>>expected them to take the payment via the existing direct debit,
and they couldn't because they had for some inexplicable reason >>>>cancelled it. If they hadn't have done that, none of the problems
would have occurred.
Does the company making an adminsitrative error somehow cancel the
debt or the debtor's obligation to pay it?
I think you've lost track of the topic of this subthread.
I think you've lost track of the core of this topic which is that he
owed them money and when they made an administrative error, he
basically stuck up two fingers at them.
On 20/01/2025 17:01, GB wrote:
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit
under £100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I
thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns
out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it.
(I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told
them that they would just have to try harder!)
It is to be noted that you refused to engage with them in their attempts
to resolve the situation by collecting the outstanding amount.
Over the space of a few days, they started to bombard me with
communications. These included threats that they would add money to
the bill and refer me to a debt collection agency. I received several
letters and emails over quite a short space of time.
You're going to need to be much more specific than "bombard me with communications. (See questions following the next paragraph.)
Similarly, by what mechanism were they threatening to "add money to the bill"?
Stating that an outstanding amount from a delinquent debtor, (and I use
that phrase according to its correct legal and financial definition),
may, or indeed will, be passed to a DCA is unlikely to constitute
harassment in and of itself.
Did you respond to any of the e-mails or letters with an offer to pay,
or an explanation as to why you believed you should not have to satisfy
the debt?
Then they started to phone me. I have rather lost count of the number
of calls. Some were to my mobile phone and some to the landline. I
received five calls on one day alone to my mobile phone, so I blocked
the number, but they started using a different one.
How many phone calls and over what period? How many of those did you answer? At any time when speaking to them did you make an offer to pay
the outstanding amount? How many times did they contact you after you
had demonstrated you were willing to engage with them to satisfy the outstanding debt.
Does this seem like "a course of conduct ... which amounts to
harassment"?
On the face of it, and absent some major details you have failed to
provide, not in the slightest.
To clarify, Ms Ferguson claimed "£5,000 for distress and anxiety and
£5,000 for financial loss due to time and expenses in dealing with
British Gas." (See paragraph [4] of the judgment [^1].)
Not only were the threats against her far more serious but she didn't actually owe British Gas any money and the situation continued for over
six months during which time she wrote numerous letters and made several telephone calls pointing out that she had no account with British Gas, sometimes receiving apologies and assurances from British Gas that the
matter would be dealt with only for the bills and threats to continue.
She spent many hours attempting to resolve this and, more importantly,
was brought into a state of considerable anxiety not knowing if someone
would come at any time to cut her off, whether she would have legal proceedings served upon her or whether she would be or had already been reported to a credit reference agency. The latter of which was
noteworthy as she ran her own business from home meaning there would be severe implications for the business should adverse entries be made with credit reference agencies. (See para [3] of the judgment.)
Do you believe your circumstances in any way match those of Ms Ferguson?
If I do issue proceedings, is it possible to do so in such a way that
the matter is dealt with in the small claims track? Would it help if I
claim a relatively modest amount of damages?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: prior to allocation to a track, there is no protection
from costs. You might request that the case be assigned to the Small
Claims Track but your former energy supplier is equally at liberty to
request a different track. Should the claim be assigned to a track
other than the Small Claims Track, (and amount claimed is only one
metric for being allocated to this track, the complexity of the case is another), you are potentially liable for costs incurred up to that
point, even if you decided to discontinue the claim at the point
immediately following allocation.
To give an idea of costs, as para [1] of the judgment makes clear,
"Because she funds the claim out of her personal resources, she does so
at considerable risk: were she ultimately to lose she would probably
have to pay British Gas's considerable costs."
If you have £30K to spare, I would recommend making a donation to the
food bank from that fund. Otherwise, I recommend you take the "bit
under £100" you already have as a "win" and give that to the foodbank.
[^1] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html
On 1/21/25 13:28, GB wrote:
On 21/01/2025 12:39, Martin Harran wrote:
Does the company making an adminsitrative error somehow cancel the
debt or the debtor's obligation to pay it?
I don't think it does at all.
Does my being awkward about it make it okay for them to breach the
Harassment Act?
I have already told them that they are welcome to deduct any money I
owe them from the damages for harassment.
You haven't really made a case for how they harassed you. Phoning you multiple times a day could be harassment, but normally it isn't.
Even if you establish harassment, the first recourse should be to ask
them to stop. So if you want damages you need to elaborate on the damage done.
FWIW my experience of energy suppliers is their astonishing
incompetence, and a willingness to just make figures up (the dear
departed Bulb).
I just think it will all be too difficult to get any kind of enjoyment
from.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:25:05 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:25:27 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvoti1v.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in messageAvoiding the problem described. As I already said.
news:slrnvotcof.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-20, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vmlvh6$39meq$1@dont-email.me...
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit
under £100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I >>>>>>>>>> thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns >>>>>>>>>> out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it.
(I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told >>>>>>>>>> them that they would just have to try harder!)
Surely most reasoinable people would assume that once a person >>>>>>>>> cancels a contract, as you did with your previous suppliers, then this
somehow or other *automatically* cancels any DD arrangements in >>>>>>>>> place ? This would seem to be a very sensible measure.
I don't know why "reasonable" people would assume that, given it isn't >>>>>>>> true. And it quite obviously wouldn't be "very sensible" given it would
lead to exactly the problems described by GB.
What benefits accrue, your view, in continuing direct debit arrangements
with parties with whom you no longer have a contractual arrangement ? >>>>>>
As to the "problems" described by GB.
The supplier explained that GB owed them £100.
A sum which he doesn't dispute
But rather than allow him to pay them by CC, bank transfer,
cheque, or postal order they were demanding payment in
what form exactly ?
Such that there were these "problems", of which you speak ?
What on earth are you on about?
GB's only "problem" was all of his own making when having been
informed of the debt, rather than agreeing to pay it by any of the
methods mentioned or debit card
Ok so you somehow missed the bit right at the beginning where he
expected them to take the payment via the existing direct debit,
and they couldn't because they had for some inexplicable reason
cancelled it. If they hadn't have done that, none of the problems
would have occurred.
Does the company making an adminsitrative error somehow cancel the
debt or the debtor's obligation to pay it?
I think you've lost track of the topic of this subthread.
I think you've lost track of the core of this topic which is that he
owed them money and when they made an administrative error, he
basically stuck up two fingers at them. It worked in that he got the
debt cancelled but now he wants damages from them for trying to
collect the money that he fully agrees he owed them.
On 21/01/2025 00:45, billy bookcase wrote:
Problems ? There's more than one ?
The supplier made a mistake, which they readily admitted, at no
additional cost to GB.
Oh no, they didn't admit it! They denied having cancelled the DD, and
called me a liar. They only backed down on that one when I produced a
letter from the bank.
So no problem
As a result they asked him to pay the Ł100 he owed them by some
other means; again at no additional cost to GB. At least assuming
he has a CC or DC
It was additional trouble on my part, which they refused to acknowledge
in any way. It's not like I left them for a cheaper supplier. I left
them because their service was so incredibly poor.
Again no problem.
The only real problem I can see, is GB's failure thus far to
produce any really convincing explanation as to why he shouldn't
simply pay the Ł100 he owes, by other means.
I see no reason to help them in any way. I made a complaint to them, to
try to get a reasonable resolution, which they didn't do anything about.
However, I would like to get a few £££ for the local food bank. I can issue proceedings, provided the claim is in the small claims track. And, provided I have a case.
Otherwise, I would need to engage a solicitor, and get ATE insurance.
Hence, my question at the outset.
Does my being awkward about it make it okay for them to breach the Harassment Act?
On 21/01/2025 00:45, billy bookcase wrote:
Problems ? There's more than one ?
The supplier made a mistake, which they readily admitted, at no
additional cost to GB.
Oh no, they didn't admit it! They denied having cancelled the DD, and called me a liar.
They only backed down on that one when I produced a letter from the bank.
So no problem
As a result they asked him to pay the L100 he owed them by some
other means; again at no additional cost to GB. At least assuming
he has a CC or DC
It was additional trouble on my part,
which they refused to acknowledge in any way. It's not like I left them for a cheaper
supplier. I left them because their service was so incredibly poor.
Again no problem.
The only real problem I can see, is GB's failure thus far to
produce any really convincing explanation as to why he shouldn't
simply pay the L100 he owes, by other means.
I see no reason to help them in any way. I made a complaint to them, to try to get a
reasonable resolution, which they didn't do anything about.
However, I would like to get a few for the local food bank. I can issue proceedings, provided the claim is in the small claims track. And, provided I have a
case.
Otherwise, I would need to engage a solicitor, and get ATE insurance. Hence, my
question at the outset.
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:vmo7eq$3ejc$2@dont-email.me...
Does my being awkward about it make it okay for them to breach the Harassment Act?
It isn't illegal harassment.
The whole point about illegal harassment is that
*its impossible for the victim to stop it*
Whereas its impossible to illegally harass someone into fulfilling a legal obligation.
When once that obligation has been fulfilled the harassment will stop
The original case you cited was illegal harassment because the subject didn't owe BG any money; and so *there was nothing she could do to end the harassment."
bb
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:vmo7eq$3ejc$2@dont-email.me...
Does my being awkward about it make it okay for them to breach the
Harassment Act?
It isn't illegal harassment.
The whole point about illegal harassment is that
*its impossible for the victim to stop it*
Whereas its impossible to illegally harass someone into fulfilling a legal obligation.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvp04l5.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vmo7eq$3ejc$2@dont-email.me...
Does my being awkward about it make it okay for them to breach the
Harassment Act?
It isn't illegal harassment.
The whole point about illegal harassment is that
*its impossible for the victim to stop it*
Whereas its impossible to illegally harass someone into fulfilling a legal >>> obligation.
None of that is true.
That definition is indeed contradictory; as it may not always be
possible for a potential victim to fulfil their legal obligations
and thus end the harrassment. If say they owe millions of
pounds.
If howewver they only owe a relatively trifling sum which they
show every evidence of being able to pay, and thus end the harassment
but are simply being obstructive, resorting to phraseology such as
"you'll have to try harder" then any further approaches by
conventional means, emails, letters, telephone calls cannot of
themselves amount to illegal harrassment.
On 2025-01-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vmo7eq$3ejc$2@dont-email.me...
Does my being awkward about it make it okay for them to breach the
Harassment Act?
It isn't illegal harassment.
The whole point about illegal harassment is that
*its impossible for the victim to stop it*
Whereas its impossible to illegally harass someone into fulfilling a legal >> obligation.
None of that is true.
On 2025-01-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp04l5.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vmo7eq$3ejc$2@dont-email.me...
Does my being awkward about it make it okay for them to breach the
Harassment Act?
It isn't illegal harassment.
The whole point about illegal harassment is that
*its impossible for the victim to stop it*
Whereas its impossible to illegally harass someone into fulfilling a legal >>>> obligation.
None of that is true.
That definition is indeed contradictory; as it may not always be
possible for a potential victim to fulfil their legal obligations
and thus end the harrassment. If say they owe millions of
pounds.
If howewver they only owe a relatively trifling sum which they
show every evidence of being able to pay, and thus end the harassment
but are simply being obstructive, resorting to phraseology such as
"you'll have to try harder" then any further approaches by
conventional means, emails, letters, telephone calls cannot of
themselves amount to illegal harrassment.
Do you have any evidence to support your opinion? What you're saying
simply isn't true, you're just writing what you think the law should
be rather than what it actually is.
He doesn't need a great deal of luck given that the "five calls a day"
thing sounds like pretty straightforward harassment, and potentially criminal.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvp1g47.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp04l5.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vmo7eq$3ejc$2@dont-email.me...
Does my being awkward about it make it okay for them to breach the >>>>>> Harassment Act?
It isn't illegal harassment.
The whole point about illegal harassment is that
*its impossible for the victim to stop it*
Whereas its impossible to illegally harass someone into fulfilling a legal
obligation.
None of that is true.
That definition is indeed contradictory; as it may not always be
possible for a potential victim to fulfil their legal obligations
and thus end the harrassment. If say they owe millions of
pounds.
If howewver they only owe a relatively trifling sum which they
show every evidence of being able to pay, and thus end the harassment
but are simply being obstructive, resorting to phraseology such as
"you'll have to try harder" then any further approaches by
conventional means, emails, letters, telephone calls cannot of
themselves amount to illegal harrassment.
Do you have any evidence to support your opinion? What you're saying
simply isn't true, you're just writing what you think the law should
be rather than what it actually is.
My explanation conforms with "all" the definitions of illegal
harrassmnt which I've encountered.
Aside from the OP, you and you alone don't forget, are making the claim
that the OP was potentially subject to illegal harrassment
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvotkbb.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
He doesn't need a great deal of luck given that the "five calls a day"
thing sounds like pretty straightforward harassment, and potentially
criminal.
Please cite the specific piece or pieces of Legislation which enables
you to make such a claim.
Given a) he did owe the money and b) he did have the means to pay.
Otherwise there might arise the reasonable suspicion that it is you
yourself who is writing what you think the law should be, rather
than what it actially is.
bb
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 17:34:38 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2025 14:30, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/01/2025 17:01, GB wrote:
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit
under £100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I
thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns
out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it.
(I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told
them that they would just have to try harder!)
It is to be noted that you refused to engage with them in their attempts >>> to resolve the situation by collecting the outstanding amount.
I did engage with them, and suggested repeatedly that they take the
money by direct debit, which they refused to do.
AIUI, they didn't *refuse*, they tiold you that *couldn't* do it
because the DD had been cancelled.
On 21/01/2025 21:49, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 17:34:38 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2025 14:30, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/01/2025 17:01, GB wrote:
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit >>>>> under £100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I
thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns >>>>> out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it. >>>>> (I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told >>>>> them that they would just have to try harder!)
It is to be noted that you refused to engage with them in their attempts >>>> to resolve the situation by collecting the outstanding amount.
I did engage with them, and suggested repeatedly that they take the
money by direct debit, which they refused to do.
AIUI, they didn't *refuse*, they tiold you that *couldn't* do it
because the DD had been cancelled.
That only became apparent later on. When it did, they refused to
reinstate it.
I still haven't found out why. I suspect it's their general incompetence
at most things, and they have come up with a number of different reasons
why they mustn't do it - all of which seem to be nonsense. The latest
one is that it would be fraudulent.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvp1g47.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp04l5.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vmo7eq$3ejc$2@dont-email.me...
Does my being awkward about it make it okay for them to breach the >>>>>> Harassment Act?
It isn't illegal harassment.
The whole point about illegal harassment is that
*its impossible for the victim to stop it*
Whereas its impossible to illegally harass someone into fulfilling a legal
obligation.
None of that is true.
That definition is indeed contradictory; as it may not always be
possible for a potential victim to fulfil their legal obligations
and thus end the harrassment. If say they owe millions of
pounds.
If howewver they only owe a relatively trifling sum which they
show every evidence of being able to pay, and thus end the harassment
but are simply being obstructive, resorting to phraseology such as
"you'll have to try harder" then any further approaches by
conventional means, emails, letters, telephone calls cannot of
themselves amount to illegal harrassment.
Do you have any evidence to support your opinion? What you're saying
simply isn't true, you're just writing what you think the law should
be rather than what it actually is.
My explanation conforms with "all" the definitions of illegal
harrassmnt which I've encountered.
Aside from the OP, you and you alone don't forget, are making the claim
that the OP was potentially subject to illegal harrassment
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvotkbb.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
He doesn't need a great deal of luck given that the "five calls a day"
thing sounds like pretty straightforward harassment, and potentially
criminal.
Please cite the specific piece or pieces of Legislation which enables
you to make such a claim.
Given a) he did owe the money and b) he did have the means to pay.
Otherwise there might arise the reasonable suspicion that it is you
yourself who is writing what you think the law should be, rather
than what it actially is.
On 22 Jan 2025 at 10:29:03 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 21/01/2025 21:49, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 17:34:38 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2025 14:30, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/01/2025 17:01, GB wrote:
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit >>>>>> under £100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I
thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns >>>>>> out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it. >>>>>> (I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told >>>>>> them that they would just have to try harder!)
It is to be noted that you refused to engage with them in their attempts >>>>> to resolve the situation by collecting the outstanding amount.
I did engage with them, and suggested repeatedly that they take the
money by direct debit, which they refused to do.
AIUI, they didn't *refuse*, they tiold you that *couldn't* do it
because the DD had been cancelled.
That only became apparent later on. When it did, they refused to
reinstate it.
I still haven't found out why. I suspect it's their general incompetence
at most things, and they have come up with a number of different reasons
why they mustn't do it - all of which seem to be nonsense. The latest
one is that it would be fraudulent.
The banks, as you know, allow reputable firms to initiate DDs from customers who are going to be making regular payments without any notification to the bank from the customer. However, I don't think the banks ever let a retailer initiate a DD to make a single payment.
That is what Paypal, credit cards or
customer initiated one off payments are for. So it may well be that initiating
the DD again for a one off payment from an ex-customer would require them to lie to the bank, and therefore would be fraudulent.
On 2025-01-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp1g47.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp04l5.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vmo7eq$3ejc$2@dont-email.me...
Does my being awkward about it make it okay for them to breach the >>>>>>> Harassment Act?
It isn't illegal harassment.
The whole point about illegal harassment is that
*its impossible for the victim to stop it*
Whereas its impossible to illegally harass someone into fulfilling a legal
obligation.
None of that is true.
That definition is indeed contradictory; as it may not always be
possible for a potential victim to fulfil their legal obligations
and thus end the harrassment. If say they owe millions of
pounds.
If howewver they only owe a relatively trifling sum which they
show every evidence of being able to pay, and thus end the harassment
but are simply being obstructive, resorting to phraseology such as
"you'll have to try harder" then any further approaches by
conventional means, emails, letters, telephone calls cannot of
themselves amount to illegal harrassment.
Do you have any evidence to support your opinion? What you're saying
simply isn't true, you're just writing what you think the law should
be rather than what it actually is.
My explanation conforms with "all" the definitions of illegal
harrassmnt which I've encountered.
Aside from the OP, you and you alone don't forget, are making the claim
that the OP was potentially subject to illegal harrassment
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvotkbb.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
He doesn't need a great deal of luck given that the "five calls a day"
thing sounds like pretty straightforward harassment, and potentially
criminal.
Please cite the specific piece or pieces of Legislation which enables
you to make such a claim.
Given a) he did owe the money and b) he did have the means to pay.
Otherwise there might arise the reasonable suspicion that it is you
yourself who is writing what you think the law should be, rather
than what it actially is.
I don't know why you're asking given you already know what the
legislation is, it's the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
It doesn't have an exemption when your victim owes you money.
But you also appear to be forgetting the Administration of Justice
Act 1970 s40, which explicitly says that making overly-frequent
demands of a debtor ("unlawful harassment of debtors") is a crime:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/31/section/40
I didn't bring the latter up previously as it doesn't help GB's
situation, whereby he wants to sue the creditor in civil court
rather than get them a criminal record and a 100 fine.
But I am
surprised that you had forgotten or never knew that harassment
of a debtor has been a crime for a very long time.
As to whether GB's specific case amounts to harassment reaching
the criminal standard, that obviously depends on the details,
most of which we don't have. If the "5 calls in a day" thing was
a one-off and he only answered the last one, then probably not.
If was a recurring thing over a longer period, then perhaps it
does. What he said about them moving to another number after he
blocked them makes it sound like the latter. But the point is
that in principle it could do.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvp1nuk.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp1g47.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp04l5.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vmo7eq$3ejc$2@dont-email.me...
Does my being awkward about it make it okay for them to breach the >>>>>>>> Harassment Act?
It isn't illegal harassment.
The whole point about illegal harassment is that
*its impossible for the victim to stop it*
Whereas its impossible to illegally harass someone into fulfilling a legal
obligation.
None of that is true.
That definition is indeed contradictory; as it may not always be
possible for a potential victim to fulfil their legal obligations
and thus end the harrassment. If say they owe millions of
pounds.
If howewver they only owe a relatively trifling sum which they
show every evidence of being able to pay, and thus end the harassment >>>>> but are simply being obstructive, resorting to phraseology such as
"you'll have to try harder" then any further approaches by
conventional means, emails, letters, telephone calls cannot of
themselves amount to illegal harrassment.
Do you have any evidence to support your opinion? What you're saying
simply isn't true, you're just writing what you think the law should
be rather than what it actually is.
My explanation conforms with "all" the definitions of illegal
harrassmnt which I've encountered.
Aside from the OP, you and you alone don't forget, are making the claim
that the OP was potentially subject to illegal harrassment
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvotkbb.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
He doesn't need a great deal of luck given that the "five calls a day" >>>> thing sounds like pretty straightforward harassment, and potentially
criminal.
Please cite the specific piece or pieces of Legislation which enables
you to make such a claim.
Given a) he did owe the money and b) he did have the means to pay.
Otherwise there might arise the reasonable suspicion that it is you
yourself who is writing what you think the law should be, rather
than what it actially is.
I don't know why you're asking given you already know what the
legislation is, it's the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
It doesn't have an exemption when your victim owes you money.
But you also appear to be forgetting the Administration of Justice
Act 1970 s40, which explicitly says that making overly-frequent
demands of a debtor ("unlawful harassment of debtors") is a crime:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/31/section/40
quote:
(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another
person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a
contract, he-
(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
unquote:
As I suggested before where a debtor is clearly unable to pay then
harassing them rather than following the correct legal procedure is
illegal.
However in a situation where the debtor acknowledges the debt, *and is clearly in a position to pay* (never mind challenging the creditor, as
here) then in such circumstances, any reasonable person could only
conclude that the debtor themselves are as much responsible for any
alarm distress or humiliation which might be caused to themselves and
their family as is anyone else.
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:35:18 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp1nuk.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp1g47.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp04l5.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vmo7eq$3ejc$2@dont-email.me...
Does my being awkward about it make it okay for them to breach the >>>>>>>>>> Harassment Act?
It isn't illegal harassment.
The whole point about illegal harassment is that
*its impossible for the victim to stop it*
Whereas its impossible to illegally harass someone into fulfilling a legal
obligation.
None of that is true.
That definition is indeed contradictory; as it may not always be >>>>>>> possible for a potential victim to fulfil their legal obligations >>>>>>> and thus end the harrassment. If say they owe millions of
pounds.
If howewver they only owe a relatively trifling sum which they
show every evidence of being able to pay, and thus end the harassment >>>>>>> but are simply being obstructive, resorting to phraseology such as >>>>>>> "you'll have to try harder" then any further approaches by
conventional means, emails, letters, telephone calls cannot of
themselves amount to illegal harrassment.
Do you have any evidence to support your opinion? What you're saying >>>>>> simply isn't true, you're just writing what you think the law should >>>>>> be rather than what it actually is.
My explanation conforms with "all" the definitions of illegal
harrassmnt which I've encountered.
Aside from the OP, you and you alone don't forget, are making the claim >>>>> that the OP was potentially subject to illegal harrassment
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvotkbb.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
He doesn't need a great deal of luck given that the "five calls a day" >>>>>> thing sounds like pretty straightforward harassment, and potentially >>>>>> criminal.
Please cite the specific piece or pieces of Legislation which enables >>>>> you to make such a claim.
Given a) he did owe the money and b) he did have the means to pay.
Otherwise there might arise the reasonable suspicion that it is you
yourself who is writing what you think the law should be, rather
than what it actially is.
I don't know why you're asking given you already know what the
legislation is, it's the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
It doesn't have an exemption when your victim owes you money.
But you also appear to be forgetting the Administration of Justice
Act 1970 s40, which explicitly says that making overly-frequent
demands of a debtor ("unlawful harassment of debtors") is a crime:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/31/section/40
quote:
(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another
person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a
contract, he-
(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their >>> frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any >>> threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to >>> subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or
humiliation;
unquote:
As I suggested before where a debtor is clearly unable to pay then
harassing them rather than following the correct legal procedure is
illegal.
However in a situation where the debtor acknowledges the debt, *and is
clearly in a position to pay* (never mind challenging the creditor, as
here) then in such circumstances, any reasonable person could only
conclude that the debtor themselves are as much responsible for any
alarm distress or humiliation which might be caused to themselves and
their family as is anyone else.
Yet again, you're just saying what you want to be true. The law doesn't
say any of that, you're just making it up. The whole point of the
"unlawful harassment of a debtor" law is that it doesn't matter if the >>debtor rightfully owes the money and could pay it, the creditor is still >>not allowed to harass them. It's literally the opposite of your claim
that "it's the debtor's fault so tough titty".
ISTM that you and Billy are talking past each other. Harassment is
clearly illegal, nobody can dispute that, but what matters is whether
the behaviour in a particular instance qualifies as harassment. I very
much doubt that a judge would regard as harassment what has happened
in this case, hence my "Good luck with that …" remark elsewhere about
GB seeking to claim damages.
On 2025-01-22, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:35:18 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp1nuk.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp1g47.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp04l5.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vmo7eq$3ejc$2@dont-email.me...
Does my being awkward about it make it okay for them to breach the >>>>>>>>>>> Harassment Act?
It isn't illegal harassment.
The whole point about illegal harassment is that
*its impossible for the victim to stop it*
Whereas its impossible to illegally harass someone into fulfilling a legal
obligation.
None of that is true.
That definition is indeed contradictory; as it may not always be >>>>>>>> possible for a potential victim to fulfil their legal obligations >>>>>>>> and thus end the harrassment. If say they owe millions of
pounds.
If howewver they only owe a relatively trifling sum which they >>>>>>>> show every evidence of being able to pay, and thus end the harassment >>>>>>>> but are simply being obstructive, resorting to phraseology such as >>>>>>>> "you'll have to try harder" then any further approaches by
conventional means, emails, letters, telephone calls cannot of >>>>>>>> themselves amount to illegal harrassment.
Do you have any evidence to support your opinion? What you're saying >>>>>>> simply isn't true, you're just writing what you think the law should >>>>>>> be rather than what it actually is.
My explanation conforms with "all" the definitions of illegal
harrassmnt which I've encountered.
Aside from the OP, you and you alone don't forget, are making the claim >>>>>> that the OP was potentially subject to illegal harrassment
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvotkbb.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
He doesn't need a great deal of luck given that the "five calls a day" >>>>>>> thing sounds like pretty straightforward harassment, and potentially >>>>>>> criminal.
Please cite the specific piece or pieces of Legislation which enables >>>>>> you to make such a claim.
Given a) he did owe the money and b) he did have the means to pay. >>>>>>
Otherwise there might arise the reasonable suspicion that it is you >>>>>> yourself who is writing what you think the law should be, rather
than what it actially is.
I don't know why you're asking given you already know what the
legislation is, it's the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
It doesn't have an exemption when your victim owes you money.
But you also appear to be forgetting the Administration of Justice
Act 1970 s40, which explicitly says that making overly-frequent
demands of a debtor ("unlawful harassment of debtors") is a crime:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/31/section/40
quote:
(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another >>>> person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a
contract, he-
(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their >>>> frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any >>>> threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to >>>> subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or >>>> humiliation;
unquote:
As I suggested before where a debtor is clearly unable to pay then
harassing them rather than following the correct legal procedure is
illegal.
However in a situation where the debtor acknowledges the debt, *and is >>>> clearly in a position to pay* (never mind challenging the creditor, as >>>> here) then in such circumstances, any reasonable person could only
conclude that the debtor themselves are as much responsible for any
alarm distress or humiliation which might be caused to themselves and
their family as is anyone else.
Yet again, you're just saying what you want to be true. The law doesn't >>>say any of that, you're just making it up. The whole point of the >>>"unlawful harassment of a debtor" law is that it doesn't matter if the >>>debtor rightfully owes the money and could pay it, the creditor is still >>>not allowed to harass them. It's literally the opposite of your claim >>>that "it's the debtor's fault so tough titty".
ISTM that you and Billy are talking past each other. Harassment is
clearly illegal, nobody can dispute that, but what matters is whether
the behaviour in a particular instance qualifies as harassment. I very
much doubt that a judge would regard as harassment what has happened
in this case, hence my "Good luck with that ." remark elsewhere about
GB seeking to claim damages.
No, you're again misunderstanding what this sub-thread is about.
Billy seems to think that it's almost impossible for harassment to
be illegal if the victim is a debtor - most things short of actual
threats of violence are ok it would appear.
My point is that this
position is not supported by the law and indeed is explicitly
contradicted.
It's a general point. As I said very recently in this thread, none
of us except GB have enough information to determine whether he has
been the victim of a crime or a tort or no wrong at all.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvp2rjk.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
No, you're again misunderstanding what this sub-thread is about.
Billy seems to think that it's almost impossible for harassment to
be illegal if the victim is a debtor - most things short of actual
threats of violence are ok it would appear.
Anyone who has followed this thread, might well recognise that description
as being among the most abject and highly misleading misrepresentations
of another person's position, as they are likely to come across in many a long day.
On 21/01/2025 17:34, GB wrote:
On 21/01/2025 14:30, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/01/2025 17:01, GB wrote:
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a
bit under £100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I
thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns
out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate
it. (I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I
told them that they would just have to try harder!)
It is to be noted that you refused to engage with them in their
attempts to resolve the situation by collecting the outstanding amount.
I did engage with them, and suggested repeatedly that they take the
money by direct debit, which they refused to do. So, the lack of
engagement was on both sides. That was partly because it was ages
until I discovered that they had cancelled the DD. Until then, I just
thought they were being even more disorganised than usual.
We clearly interpret my use of the word "engage" differently. Your
offer to settle the debt by direct debit was refused. The creditor is
under no obligation to accept your preferred method of payment and it
remains your responsibility to settle the debt using a suitable method
of payment, i.e. one that is acceptable to the creditor. [^1]
They are not threats. They are outlining quite clearly what steps they
will take to collect the debt should you fail to discharge it in a
timely manner. They are required to do this.
Eventually, they told me that I had cancelled the DD (not true!), so I
told them they had my permission to reinstate it.
Before or after the calls listed below? Let's keep things chronological
as far as possible, please.
Tel calls:
5/11 12.48
6/11 13.08
6/11 17.26
7/11 14.49
Those are from my mobile phone. I think there were others, but they
used different numbers, so it's hard to be sure.
You give no indication of which, if any, were answered and which were ~ignored~ not answered.
Furthermore, if in any of those calls you actually spoke to the
creditor, please give a brief overview of the conversation.
E.g. at what point did you tell them that they would "just have to try harder"?
*ALL* of the calls were after I had told them I was happy to pay the
debt and asked them to operate the DD.
How did they respond to your offer to settle the debt by Direct Debit
and what was your response thereto?
No, I'm even more convinced than I was previously that should you issue against the energy company you will lose and lose big.
To clarify, Ms Ferguson claimed "£5,000 for distress and anxiety and
£5,000 for financial loss due to time and expenses in dealing with
British Gas." (See paragraph [4] of the judgment [^1].)
Out of interest: Imagine two customers sent exactly the same
communications. One is much more distressed than the other. Should
they receive the same or different compensation?
I invite you to research the principle that the respondent must take the claimant as it finds them, sometimes known as the "eggshell skull"
principle, and whether or not it has ever been applied to civil claims
for harassment. (I've had a quick check and cannot see any case law
that immediately jumps out at me, but there doesn't mean that there
isn't any - just that I might have missed it.)
Thank you. That's what I thought.
You're welcome. I advise you in the strongest possible terms not to
take the matter further legally and, if you are intent on the foodbank benefitting from this then you pass the "just under £100" to them.
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:29:03 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2025 21:49, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 17:34:38 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2025 14:30, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/01/2025 17:01, GB wrote:
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit >>>>>> under £100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I
thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns >>>>>> out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it. >>>>>> (I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told >>>>>> them that they would just have to try harder!)
It is to be noted that you refused to engage with them in their attempts >>>>> to resolve the situation by collecting the outstanding amount.
I did engage with them, and suggested repeatedly that they take the
money by direct debit, which they refused to do.
AIUI, they didn't *refuse*, they tiold you that *couldn't* do it
because the DD had been cancelled.
That only became apparent later on. When it did, they refused to
reinstate it.
You have said elsewhere that they said they *couldn't* do it because
the account was closed. Being unable to do something is not the same
as refusing to do it which suggests that they had other options.
As is mine with the current case simply as a yopical example. Whatever
the pedantics of the wording of the legislation, I can't imagine a
judge ever finding it harassment for a company to press for payment of
an undisputed debt well within the capacity of the debtor to settle
where the only reason the debtor is giving for non-payment is that
they are pissed off with their creditor.
As I said very recently in this thread, none
of us except GB have enough information to determine whether he has
been the victim of a crime or a tort or no wrong at all.
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 22:17:24 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
No, you're again misunderstanding what this sub-thread is about.
Billy seems to think that it's almost impossible for harassment to
be illegal if the victim is a debtor - most things short of actual
threats of violence are ok it would appear. My point is that this
position is not supported by the law and indeed is explicitly
contradicted.
It's a general point.
As is mine with the current case simply as a yopical example. Whatever
the pedantics of the wording of the legislation, I can't imagine a
judge ever finding it harassment for a company to press for payment of
an undisputed debt well within the capacity of the debtor to settle
where the only reason the debtor is giving for non-payment is that
they are pissed off with their creditor.
On 23/01/2025 14:21, Martin Harran wrote:
As is mine with the current case simply as a yopical example. Whatever
the pedantics of the wording of the legislation, I can't imagine a
judge ever finding it harassment for a company to press for payment of
an undisputed debt well within the capacity of the debtor to settle
where the only reason the debtor is giving for non-payment is that
they are pissed off with their creditor.
I was surprised at myself too, so I checked the timeline.
I had contacted the supplier's CS, asking them to help sort this out.
They took 4 weeks to get back to me. It's during those 4 weeks that they
kept badgering me.
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 22:17:24 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-22, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:35:18 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp1nuk.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp1g47.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp04l5.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vmo7eq$3ejc$2@dont-email.me...
Does my being awkward about it make it okay for them to breach the >>>>>>>>>>>> Harassment Act?
It isn't illegal harassment.
The whole point about illegal harassment is that
*its impossible for the victim to stop it*
Whereas its impossible to illegally harass someone into fulfilling a legal
obligation.
None of that is true.
That definition is indeed contradictory; as it may not always be >>>>>>>>> possible for a potential victim to fulfil their legal obligations >>>>>>>>> and thus end the harrassment. If say they owe millions of
pounds.
If howewver they only owe a relatively trifling sum which they >>>>>>>>> show every evidence of being able to pay, and thus end the harassment >>>>>>>>> but are simply being obstructive, resorting to phraseology such as >>>>>>>>> "you'll have to try harder" then any further approaches by
conventional means, emails, letters, telephone calls cannot of >>>>>>>>> themselves amount to illegal harrassment.
Do you have any evidence to support your opinion? What you're saying >>>>>>>> simply isn't true, you're just writing what you think the law should >>>>>>>> be rather than what it actually is.
My explanation conforms with "all" the definitions of illegal
harrassmnt which I've encountered.
Aside from the OP, you and you alone don't forget, are making the claim >>>>>>> that the OP was potentially subject to illegal harrassment
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvotkbb.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
He doesn't need a great deal of luck given that the "five calls a day" >>>>>>>> thing sounds like pretty straightforward harassment, and potentially >>>>>>>> criminal.
Please cite the specific piece or pieces of Legislation which enables >>>>>>> you to make such a claim.
Given a) he did owe the money and b) he did have the means to pay. >>>>>>>
Otherwise there might arise the reasonable suspicion that it is you >>>>>>> yourself who is writing what you think the law should be, rather >>>>>>> than what it actially is.
I don't know why you're asking given you already know what the
legislation is, it's the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
It doesn't have an exemption when your victim owes you money.
But you also appear to be forgetting the Administration of Justice >>>>>> Act 1970 s40, which explicitly says that making overly-frequent
demands of a debtor ("unlawful harassment of debtors") is a crime: >>>>>>
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/31/section/40
quote:
(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another >>>>> person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a
contract, he-
(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their >>>>> frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any >>>>> threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to >>>>> subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or >>>>> humiliation;
unquote:
As I suggested before where a debtor is clearly unable to pay then
harassing them rather than following the correct legal procedure is
illegal.
However in a situation where the debtor acknowledges the debt, *and is >>>>> clearly in a position to pay* (never mind challenging the creditor, as >>>>> here) then in such circumstances, any reasonable person could only
conclude that the debtor themselves are as much responsible for any
alarm distress or humiliation which might be caused to themselves and >>>>> their family as is anyone else.
Yet again, you're just saying what you want to be true. The law doesn't >>>> say any of that, you're just making it up. The whole point of the
"unlawful harassment of a debtor" law is that it doesn't matter if the >>>> debtor rightfully owes the money and could pay it, the creditor is still >>>> not allowed to harass them. It's literally the opposite of your claim
that "it's the debtor's fault so tough titty".
ISTM that you and Billy are talking past each other. Harassment is
clearly illegal, nobody can dispute that, but what matters is whether
the behaviour in a particular instance qualifies as harassment. I very
much doubt that a judge would regard as harassment what has happened
in this case, hence my "Good luck with that …" remark elsewhere about
GB seeking to claim damages.
No, you're again misunderstanding what this sub-thread is about.
Billy seems to think that it's almost impossible for harassment to
be illegal if the victim is a debtor - most things short of actual
threats of violence are ok it would appear. My point is that this
position is not supported by the law and indeed is explicitly
contradicted.
It's a general point.
As is mine with the current case simply as a yopical example. Whatever
the pedantics of the wording of the legislation, I can't imagine a
judge ever finding it harassment for a company to press for payment of
an undisputed debt well within the capacity of the debtor to settle
where the only reason the debtor is giving for non-payment is that
they are pissed off with their creditor.
On 2025-01-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp2rjk.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
No, you're again misunderstanding what this sub-thread is about.
Billy seems to think that it's almost impossible for harassment to
be illegal if the victim is a debtor - most things short of actual
threats of violence are ok it would appear.
Anyone who has followed this thread, might well recognise that description >> as being among the most abject and highly misleading misrepresentations
of another person's position, as they are likely to come across in many a
long day.
Ironically that comment is far more apt when applied to the histrionics
that followed from you. Let me know if you are in need of a fainting
couch or smelling salts. At the very least you should probably try
breathing into a paper bag.
Do you agree that, far from my description of your position being as spectacularly false as you are claiming, it would in fact be entirely accurate if we simply replace "debtor" with "debtor who can pay"?
On 2025-01-23, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:29:03 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2025 21:49, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 17:34:38 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2025 14:30, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/01/2025 17:01, GB wrote:
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit >>>>>>> under £100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I >>>>>>> thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns >>>>>>> out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it. >>>>>>> (I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told >>>>>>> them that they would just have to try harder!)
It is to be noted that you refused to engage with them in their attempts >>>>>> to resolve the situation by collecting the outstanding amount.
I did engage with them, and suggested repeatedly that they take the
money by direct debit, which they refused to do.
AIUI, they didn't *refuse*, they tiold you that *couldn't* do it
because the DD had been cancelled.
That only became apparent later on. When it did, they refused to
reinstate it.
You have said elsewhere that they said they *couldn't* do it because
the account was closed. Being unable to do something is not the same
as refusing to do it which suggests that they had other options.
A company being "unable" to something because they have chosen not
to create a procedure to do it is not the same as being unable to
do it because there is no way they could make it happen.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvp4dcj.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp2rjk.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
No, you're again misunderstanding what this sub-thread is about.
Billy seems to think that it's almost impossible for harassment to
be illegal if the victim is a debtor - most things short of actual
threats of violence are ok it would appear.
Anyone who has followed this thread, might well recognise that description >>> as being among the most abject and highly misleading misrepresentations
of another person's position, as they are likely to come across in many a >>> long day.
Ironically that comment is far more apt when applied to the histrionics
that followed from you. Let me know if you are in need of a fainting
couch or smelling salts. At the very least you should probably try
breathing into a paper bag.
Do you agree that, far from my description of your position being as
spectacularly false as you are claiming, it would in fact be entirely
accurate if we simply replace "debtor" with "debtor who can pay"?
"We" ? Who are these "we", of whom you speak ?
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 15:42:57 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-23, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 22:17:24 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
No, you're again misunderstanding what this sub-thread is about.
Billy seems to think that it's almost impossible for harassment to
be illegal if the victim is a debtor - most things short of actual >>>>threats of violence are ok it would appear. My point is that this >>>>position is not supported by the law and indeed is explicitly >>>>contradicted.
It's a general point.
As is mine with the current case simply as a yopical example. Whatever
the pedantics of the wording of the legislation, I can't imagine a
judge ever finding it harassment for a company to press for payment of
an undisputed debt well within the capacity of the debtor to settle
where the only reason the debtor is giving for non-payment is that
they are pissed off with their creditor.
I can only suggest you find a better imagination.
Well, my imagination might be improved if you were to find even one
case where a judge did that.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 17:37:16 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-23, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 15:42:57 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-23, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 22:17:24 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
No, you're again misunderstanding what this sub-thread is about. >>>>>>Billy seems to think that it's almost impossible for harassment to >>>>>>be illegal if the victim is a debtor - most things short of actual >>>>>>threats of violence are ok it would appear. My point is that this >>>>>>position is not supported by the law and indeed is explicitly >>>>>>contradicted.
It's a general point.
As is mine with the current case simply as a yopical example. Whatever >>>>> the pedantics of the wording of the legislation, I can't imagine a
judge ever finding it harassment for a company to press for payment of >>>>> an undisputed debt well within the capacity of the debtor to settle
where the only reason the debtor is giving for non-payment is that
they are pissed off with their creditor.
I can only suggest you find a better imagination.
Well, my imagination might be improved if you were to find even one
case where a judge did that.
That's hardly a fair request given the incredibly low chances of such
a case being reported (it would have to be appealed at least twice >>presumably). And also given I don't have access to the case law search >>tools which would be required.
But it is not "pedantic" to point out that Parliament passed a law which >>explicitly makes excessively frequent demands for payment a crime, with >>absolutely no caveats about the debtor's reason for not paying, and >>therefore your claim that there is no frequency of demands which will be >>considered a crime seems a bit unlikely.
Parliament makes laws that apply in general; it is up to a judge (or
jury where appropriate) to decide whether specific cases infringe that
law. In this case, parliament passed a law making harassment illegal.
It is up to a judge (or jury if necessary) to decide whether an
individual cases qualifies as harassment.
They include:contacting you several times a day ..."
They did this, but only for a couple of days. I can't say that I am deeply scarred by
the incident, but it was a bit annoying.
On 23/01/2025 15:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-01-23, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:29:03 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2025 21:49, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 17:34:38 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
On 21/01/2025 14:30, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/01/2025 17:01, GB wrote:
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit >>>>>>>> under £100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I >>>>>>>> thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns >>>>>>>> out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it. >>>>>>>> (I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told >>>>>>>> them that they would just have to try harder!)
It is to be noted that you refused to engage with them in their attempts
to resolve the situation by collecting the outstanding amount.
I did engage with them, and suggested repeatedly that they take the >>>>>> money by direct debit, which they refused to do.
AIUI, they didn't *refuse*, they tiold you that *couldn't* do it
because the DD had been cancelled.
That only became apparent later on. When it did, they refused to
reinstate it.
You have said elsewhere that they said they *couldn't* do it because
the account was closed. Being unable to do something is not the same
as refusing to do it which suggests that they had other options.
A company being "unable" to something because they have chosen not
to create a procedure to do it is not the same as being unable to
do it because there is no way they could make it happen.
They have given several different reasons why they can't reinstate the
DD. These have included that the banks won't let them, and it would be fraudulent. I assume that they just feel they can say the first thing
that comes into their heads. Indeed, there don't seem to be any repercussions for doing that.
On 2025-01-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp4dcj.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp2rjk.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
No, you're again misunderstanding what this sub-thread is about.
Billy seems to think that it's almost impossible for harassment to
be illegal if the victim is a debtor - most things short of actual
threats of violence are ok it would appear.
Anyone who has followed this thread, might well recognise that description >>>> as being among the most abject and highly misleading misrepresentations >>>> of another person's position, as they are likely to come across in many a >>>> long day.
Ironically that comment is far more apt when applied to the histrionics
that followed from you. Let me know if you are in need of a fainting
couch or smelling salts. At the very least you should probably try
breathing into a paper bag.
Do you agree that, far from my description of your position being as
spectacularly false as you are claiming, it would in fact be entirely
accurate if we simply replace "debtor" with "debtor who can pay"?
"We" ? Who are these "we", of whom you speak ?
You and me. Come on, this is pretty basic English comprehension.
Is there any chance of you answering the question?
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvp4vqi.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp4dcj.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp2rjk.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
No, you're again misunderstanding what this sub-thread is about.
Billy seems to think that it's almost impossible for harassment to >>>>>> be illegal if the victim is a debtor - most things short of actual >>>>>> threats of violence are ok it would appear.
Anyone who has followed this thread, might well recognise that description
as being among the most abject and highly misleading misrepresentations >>>>> of another person's position, as they are likely to come across in many a >>>>> long day.
Ironically that comment is far more apt when applied to the histrionics >>>> that followed from you. Let me know if you are in need of a fainting
couch or smelling salts. At the very least you should probably try
breathing into a paper bag.
Do you agree that, far from my description of your position being as
spectacularly false as you are claiming, it would in fact be entirely
accurate if we simply replace "debtor" with "debtor who can pay"?
"We" ? Who are these "we", of whom you speak ?
You and me. Come on, this is pretty basic English comprehension.
Is there any chance of you answering the question?
Given that your entire argument has been totally demolished by the
the advice which has now "emerged" from Citizens Advice, I can see
very little point, quite honestly.
bb
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvp4vqi.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp4dcj.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp2rjk.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
No, you're again misunderstanding what this sub-thread is about.
Billy seems to think that it's almost impossible for harassment to >>>>>> be illegal if the victim is a debtor - most things short of actual >>>>>> threats of violence are ok it would appear.
Anyone who has followed this thread, might well recognise that description
as being among the most abject and highly misleading misrepresentations >>>>> of another person's position, as they are likely to come across in many a >>>>> long day.
Ironically that comment is far more apt when applied to the histrionics >>>> that followed from you. Let me know if you are in need of a fainting
couch or smelling salts. At the very least you should probably try
breathing into a paper bag.
Do you agree that, far from my description of your position being as
spectacularly false as you are claiming, it would in fact be entirely
accurate if we simply replace "debtor" with "debtor who can pay"?
"We" ? Who are these "we", of whom you speak ?
You and me. Come on, this is pretty basic English comprehension.
Is there any chance of you answering the question?
Given that your entire argument has been totally demolished by the
the advice which has now "emerged" from Citizens Advice,
I can see very little point, quite honestly.
On 23 Jan 2025 at 18:11:31 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp4vqi.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp4dcj.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp2rjk.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
No, you're again misunderstanding what this sub-thread is about. >>>>>>> Billy seems to think that it's almost impossible for harassment to >>>>>>> be illegal if the victim is a debtor - most things short of actual >>>>>>> threats of violence are ok it would appear.
Anyone who has followed this thread, might well recognise that description
as being among the most abject and highly misleading misrepresentations >>>>>> of another person's position, as they are likely to come across in many a
long day.
Ironically that comment is far more apt when applied to the histrionics >>>>> that followed from you. Let me know if you are in need of a fainting >>>>> couch or smelling salts. At the very least you should probably try
breathing into a paper bag.
Do you agree that, far from my description of your position being as >>>>> spectacularly false as you are claiming, it would in fact be entirely >>>>> accurate if we simply replace "debtor" with "debtor who can pay"?
"We" ? Who are these "we", of whom you speak ?
You and me. Come on, this is pretty basic English comprehension.
Is there any chance of you answering the question?
Given that your entire argument has been totally demolished by the
the advice which has now "emerged" from Citizens Advice, I can see
very little point, quite honestly.
bb
Please do explain how any advice from Citizen's Advice is either a) a definitive statement of the law, or b) in any way suggests that harassment cannot occur toward a debtor who could easily pay the bill if he wanted to?
On 2025-01-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp4vqi.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp4dcj.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp2rjk.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
No, you're again misunderstanding what this sub-thread is about. >>>>>>> Billy seems to think that it's almost impossible for harassment to >>>>>>> be illegal if the victim is a debtor - most things short of actual >>>>>>> threats of violence are ok it would appear.
Anyone who has followed this thread, might well recognise that description
as being among the most abject and highly misleading misrepresentations >>>>>> of another person's position, as they are likely to come across in many a
long day.
Ironically that comment is far more apt when applied to the histrionics >>>>> that followed from you. Let me know if you are in need of a fainting >>>>> couch or smelling salts. At the very least you should probably try
breathing into a paper bag.
Do you agree that, far from my description of your position being as >>>>> spectacularly false as you are claiming, it would in fact be entirely >>>>> accurate if we simply replace "debtor" with "debtor who can pay"?
"We" ? Who are these "we", of whom you speak ?
You and me. Come on, this is pretty basic English comprehension.
Is there any chance of you answering the question?
Given that your entire argument has been totally demolished by the
the advice which has now "emerged" from Citizens Advice,
That's hilarious. You don't get to win an argument by fiat, you know.
You have to actually do it.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 17:55:59 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-23, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 17:37:16 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-23, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 15:42:57 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-23, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 22:17:24 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
No, you're again misunderstanding what this sub-thread is about. >>>>>>>>Billy seems to think that it's almost impossible for harassment to >>>>>>>>be illegal if the victim is a debtor - most things short of actual >>>>>>>>threats of violence are ok it would appear. My point is that this >>>>>>>>position is not supported by the law and indeed is explicitly >>>>>>>>contradicted.
It's a general point.
As is mine with the current case simply as a yopical example. Whatever >>>>>>> the pedantics of the wording of the legislation, I can't imagine a >>>>>>> judge ever finding it harassment for a company to press for payment of >>>>>>> an undisputed debt well within the capacity of the debtor to settle >>>>>>> where the only reason the debtor is giving for non-payment is that >>>>>>> they are pissed off with their creditor.
I can only suggest you find a better imagination.
Well, my imagination might be improved if you were to find even one
case where a judge did that.
That's hardly a fair request given the incredibly low chances of such
a case being reported (it would have to be appealed at least twice >>>>presumably). And also given I don't have access to the case law search >>>>tools which would be required.
But it is not "pedantic" to point out that Parliament passed a law which >>>>explicitly makes excessively frequent demands for payment a crime, with >>>>absolutely no caveats about the debtor's reason for not paying, and >>>>therefore your claim that there is no frequency of demands which will be >>>>considered a crime seems a bit unlikely.
Parliament makes laws that apply in general; it is up to a judge (or
jury where appropriate) to decide whether specific cases infringe that
law. In this case, parliament passed a law making harassment illegal.
It is up to a judge (or jury if necessary) to decide whether an
individual cases qualifies as harassment.
Yes. And it's rather unlikely that they would all decide that, based
upon criteria not mentioned in the law, no case could ever qualify
as harassment.
Notwithstanding the importance of precedents, judges and juries don't
make decisions for *all* potential cases, only the specific case
before them.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvp52p1.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp4vqi.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp4dcj.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvp2rjk.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
No, you're again misunderstanding what this sub-thread is about. >>>>>>>> Billy seems to think that it's almost impossible for harassment to >>>>>>>> be illegal if the victim is a debtor - most things short of actual >>>>>>>> threats of violence are ok it would appear.
Anyone who has followed this thread, might well recognise that
description as being among the most abject and highly misleading >>>>>>> misrepresentations of another person's position, as they are
likely to come across in many a long day.
Ironically that comment is far more apt when applied to the histrionics >>>>>> that followed from you. Let me know if you are in need of a fainting >>>>>> couch or smelling salts. At the very least you should probably try >>>>>> breathing into a paper bag.
Do you agree that, far from my description of your position being as >>>>>> spectacularly false as you are claiming, it would in fact be entirely >>>>>> accurate if we simply replace "debtor" with "debtor who can pay"?
"We" ? Who are these "we", of whom you speak ?
You and me. Come on, this is pretty basic English comprehension.
Is there any chance of you answering the question?
Given that your entire argument has been totally demolished by the
the advice which has now "emerged" from Citizens Advice,
That's hilarious. You don't get to win an argument by fiat, you know.
You have to actually do it.
I win an argument by "fiat" because you choose to snip it ?
Twice ?
Perhaps they shouldn't have invented reasons, but it probably seemed better to
them than just saying they can't do it and don't know why.
The only people who I can see claiming that DDs can be used for one off payments is some merchantcompany offering a payment service to SMEs.
I don't know why I keep bothering to engage with you to be honest,
On 23 Jan 2025 at 17:31:48 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/01/2025 15:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-01-23, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:29:03 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/01/2025 21:49, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 17:34:38 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 21/01/2025 14:30, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/01/2025 17:01, GB wrote:
I transferred my energy supplier, and there was a final bill of a bit >>>>>>>>> under £100 with the old supplier. There was a DD in place, and I >>>>>>>>> thought they would just take the money from my account, but it turns >>>>>>>>> out that they had cancelled the DD and were not able to reinstate it. >>>>>>>>> (I'm afraid that I was a bit pee'd off with them by then, and I told >>>>>>>>> them that they would just have to try harder!)
It is to be noted that you refused to engage with them in their attempts
to resolve the situation by collecting the outstanding amount.
I did engage with them, and suggested repeatedly that they take the >>>>>>> money by direct debit, which they refused to do.
AIUI, they didn't *refuse*, they tiold you that *couldn't* do it
because the DD had been cancelled.
That only became apparent later on. When it did, they refused to
reinstate it.
You have said elsewhere that they said they *couldn't* do it because
the account was closed. Being unable to do something is not the same
as refusing to do it which suggests that they had other options.
A company being "unable" to something because they have chosen not
to create a procedure to do it is not the same as being unable to
do it because there is no way they could make it happen.
They have given several different reasons why they can't reinstate the
DD. These have included that the banks won't let them, and it would be
fraudulent. I assume that they just feel they can say the first thing
that comes into their heads. Indeed, there don't seem to be any
repercussions for doing that.
If there isn't a system available for them to do that, then it seems likely it
can't be done without renogiating their system with their bank at director level. Large organisations often get away with maladministration on the grounds that they are too big to alter their policies at local level. It almost certainly an action not available to any of the minions you spoke to. Perhaps they shouldn't have invented reasons, but it probably seemed better to
them than just saying they can't do it and don't know why. The only people who
I can see claiming that DDs can be used for one off payments is some merchant company offering a payment service to SMEs.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:48:06 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |