By submitting damning "valuation report" evidence under duress, the Halifax/HSE have virtually demolished their own claim.

After nearly twelve months of consistant litigation, were I consitantly & politely questioned and requested the "Halifax" substantiate - (with all the procedures and advice this excellent website suggests) - their 4 year old shortfall claim of £17,000 via legal representatives "Hammond Suddards & Edge". As previous, they have damingly submitted documentation which contains;- contradicting & conflicting hand written & typed versions of the same valuation & survey report's with VERY serious descrepencies which effectively downgraded the property pre-framing it for a quick sale at £10,000 less than its market value, they also supplied various other breakdowns of information with questionable costs under headings such as "cleaning contracts" & "maintenance issues" which are minor compared to the discrepencies contained in the reports mentioned. To this day I cant understand why they released the reports, they were included in a bulk of the information issued in a panic glut after I formally proved to them the marketable value of the property was more than their sale price!!

Since then, I have had no responce from HSE in two months, which is further to my requests for their client to account for its previous actions during the sale & actions resulting in the sale of the property etc etc etc etc. However, I am seeking closure on this to enable me to repair my financial status and after reading an interesting reply in your Q&A section from the NAMV, I very recently despatched a letter to HSE by registered post advising that; if HSE/Halifax do not provide the information requested in numerous correspondance to substantiate their client's claim within 14 days it would be assumed; they had dropped the claim in its entirety and it would also be assumed any other correspondance other than this would be considered as harrasment.

What can construed as harrasment and can anyone help with how you report harrasment! Is it a police thing or something else??? Any advice welcome, in anticipation - thanks.

-- David Keane (davidkeane@bushinternet.com), September 05, 2001

Answers

Harrassment is not easily definable (at least, not in law). Essentially, this is the area of English law where reasonableness comes into play. The court will consider what a reasonable person would do under these circumstances.

For example:

If you had asked HSE/Halifax not to contact you at work, and you responded in a courteous manner to any correspondence they sent you, and they still persisted in phoning you at work, then that would be harrassment.

Similarly, turning up uninvited at your place of work or where you live would be harrassment.

If they telephoned you at home and you had specifically asked them not to, and to write instead, then I think this would also constitute harrassment.

Personally, I think you've got a VERY good case - if you don't hear anything in 14 days then I think you can fairly say they've dropped their claim.

Let's say they suddenly pick it up again in 3 months time - I think this would clearly be harrassment and I suspect, given your efforts to sort this out, the courts would agree.

I'm not in the legal profession, I should add - these are just my opinions...and I won't be offended if anyone says I'm wrong !

-- Chris (chrsh@hotmail.com), September 05, 2001.

David, did you go ahead and give them the 14 day deadline? if so, could you tell us what happened? I've often thought of taking this line myself so would be very interested to hear how it's going for you.

Thanks

-- (_Believer14@excite.co.uk), September 23, 2001.

I can only comment on my case and the issues in relation to it, however, as the site suggests I would strongly advise you MUST seek the best professional advice/guidance you can obtain within your means. I would also point you to the other informative threads further down the Q&A advising of other Halifax activities including their practices of monitoring this site!!

In reference to the above, I wrote to the Halifax's Solicitor attaching a copy of a previous letter dated 25th June 2001, which, in the absence of any response to the original correspondence sent over two months previous, was to enable them to respond and to qualify their claim.

Historically, they have displayed acts of; noted intentional delays, wilful non-contributions to achieving a level condition, demonstrations of unwillingness to provide information and damningly submitting valuation & survey Reports with conflicting & contradictory information.

This consistent behavioural pattern and the Halifax's recent contradictorial goodwill gesture coupled with their conceded offers of conditional reduction, which as a consequence, divided the unsubstantiated singular claim, have only served to form acknowledgment to the very serious discrepancies in the marginal evidence they have supplied to date. Given this, the marginal evidence in place coupled with their client’s acknowledgement almost dictates the wholesale demolition of the claim.

However, given all of the above, I wrote on the 28th August requesting they provide information to validate their client’s unsubstantiated claim within 14 days, I further advised that if they failed to provide this information it would be assumed that their client’s claim had been dropped in its entirety and that any further; intentional delays, wilful non-contributions to achieving a level condition, demonstrations of unwillingness to provide information, correspondence or contact other than that requested would be treated as harassment and reported accordingly as a criminal offence. Hammond Suddards Edge (HSE) have failed to produce an account of their client’s actions and the essential evidence necessary to enable an independent and reasonable party in possession of the same information to qualify their client’s unsubstantiated claim. To this end, I have requested this information in approximately twenty letters over the nine month period since HSE's initial claim notification in December 2000, in response, their chosen course of action has included non-cooperation, reluctance, intimidation and harassment.

The very serious and still unaccounted for discrepancies noted to date and HSE's chosen course of action constitutes a conduct that evidently disregards both the Civil Procedural Rules and the Law Society, clearly demonstrating that the Halifax and Hammond Suddards Edge intend and have intended to pursue their unsubstantiated claim through intimidation rather than reasonable qualification.

Given this they clearly intended to subject myself and my household to harassment, distress, and anxiety.

Harassment, whether by the Halifax or Hammond Suddards Edge whom have advocated & defended the taking of such action, is a criminal offence in England and Wales under Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

As advised in my correspondence to them on the 28th August, all correspondence on file and all future letters received on this matter will be passed to the Metropolitan Police, the OSS (Office for the Supervision of Solicitors) and the OFT (Office of Fair Trading) for investigation.

Succesfull/Unsuccessfull? I gues that depends on the desired objective of the correspondence. Any comments? Hope this answers your query!!

-- David Keane (davidkeane@bushinternet.com), September 24, 2001.

P.S. - I forgot to mention, to add insult to injury Hammond Suddards Edge reponded by fax late in the afternoon on the 14th day!!!

-- david Keane (davidkeane@bushinternet.com), September 25, 2001.