Nationwide:Eversheds:Home visits:Human Rights Actgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread
I have informed Eversheds that any action of sending an agent to my house will be treated by myself as an invasion of privacy and I would seek the appropriate remedy against them. They replied that the HR Act 1998 and in particular section 8, "this may only apply to acts undertaken by public authorities." They go on to say that they and the Nationwide are not subject to these provisions. Are they correct?
-- alan cornwall (email@example.com), August 21, 2002
I'm not qualified, but U think they are correct. The HR Act only affects goverment bodies, at least this is what my mates barrister informed us when we asked such questions.
-- Harry (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 23, 2002.
There's a lot of confusion about this, even amongst the legal fraternity. Yes, sure, the HRA applies primarily to public authorities such as government departments and local authorities (eg city councils), and only time and case law will tell if the HRA is going to be applied to companies as well. (You could argue that a sewage company or a bank carries out a 'public function', so the HRA should apply to them too.) However, the crux of the matter is that the *courts* are also a 'public authority' and cannot ignore the provisions of the HRA. So if Eversheds took you to court it is within that arena that you could argue that your human rights were breached by the litigant. The court cannot ignore the HRA, because it is legally obliged to be bound by the HRA. Make sense? But these are unchartered waters to a great degree, I believe. Others may know of recent case law which illuminates the position better.
-- Eleanor Scott (email@example.com), August 29, 2002.
They don't give a piece of sugar about your rights they are the most rudest people I ever dealt with!
What happend since?
-- Johnny Ball (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 03, 2002.