Harassmentgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread
First, a brief summery (all of this is referring to Experto Credite, the debt agents, as the solicitors have passed the case back, in my opinion, as there is no case to answer):
Lots of letters from October 2000 to November 2000 then nothing including no replies to my last two letters until yesterday when the following arrived:
“I called at your home last week to assess your financial situation but you were not in.
I will call again next week to personally serve County Court Proceedings to you.
This will lead to your existing debt being increased as our clients will pursue full entitlement in costs and interest.
Please contact me personally within 48 hours”
At no time have they given proof of the alleged debt (all I have is a figure on a piece of paper – I have no proof that they even act for RSA), sent any documents requested and have continuously ignored parts of some letters and all of others.
My points: 1) If they did call round then they are in breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
2) If they did not and are just saying they did then they are in breach of both the Human Rights Act (Article 6?) and the Administration of Justice Act 1970 Section 40.
3) If they had a case why am I not in court?
4) If there was a case then why have I managed to get the solicitor out of the picture?
If these are correct then either way I should be seriously considering taking legal action against them for harassment. What do you all think/understand to be the case?
-- Matt (email@example.com), March 25, 2001
I read this in the Guardian yesterday (31st march 2001):
"Using the threat of prosecution to ensure payment of a disputed civil debt could offend against s21 [Section 21] of the Theft Act 1968, which prohibits making an unwarranted demand for gain with menaces, and would amount to blackmail."
The author was barrister Richard Colbey, writing in the Jobs & Money supplement (p 24-25) about the rail company Connex's pusuit of disputed civil debts, which he appears to believe is flawed in its approach for reasons including the one quoted above, i.e. the provisions of the Theft Act 1968.
See also my post a few threads above this one, 'Harassment (cont.)'.
Good luck, Matt.
-- Eleanor Scott (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 01, 2001.