halifax harrassment most foul. help me

[leeds1]

rough SAR for Lloyds

 

Under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998, please send me the following information that your company holds.

I would like lists, transcripts and recordings of all the phone calls which have been made to my phone numbers by

yourselves or by others acting on your behalf. Please supply me with recordings as well as a clear itemised log of all

calls made to me so I can equate them with my own recordings and call logs.

Also please provide me with the data which specifies thast I did not want calls made to me at all.

 

 

I would also like records of all the times I went into the branch asking about an account I was sure I had and was

told I did not have any other accounts. Account number 00000000.

I would also like records of the time I had to make an appointment to see the manager regarding this account in

order to be allowed to access my own data which was denied to me in the branch. Please provide me with a list of

charges which were constantly being added to that account while I was paying into the wrong account. Since obtaining

a SAR I now have all the statements which were sent to the wrong address.

 

Is it normal procedure to ring from witheld numbers and ask for personal information?

Is it normal procedure to ring me and often hang up when answered?

Is it normal procedure to refuse to put me through to a supervisor?

Is it normal procedure to continue calling me, even on weekends?

Are records of unanswered calls kept by yourselves?

If they are not, how can your call figures be accurate?

 

All data, including data held on a microfiche must be provided within a reasonable timescale, a maximum of 40 days. I enclose the maximum statutory fee of £10 as stated under the Data Protection Act.

 

 

 

I look forward to your response.

Edited March 6, 2009 by leeds1
left my account number in by mistake.

[leeds1]

HBOS palnned to counter sue the Manchester couple.

i feel i need to up my weaponry in case they try it with me too.

they cant argue with more calls on record from Lloyds. they use the same technique as Halifax.

 

AA99, i am in a quandry at the moment. i can't say how the final application

might end up at this stage. this is very important to me. i dont want to mess up by leaving anything out.

 

they wont mess up, they will pay for the best and pull more dirty tricks if they can. i am nothing to them.

 

Amanda

[AA99]

HBOS palnned to counter sue the Manchester couple.

i feel i need to up my weaponry in case they try it with me too.

they cant argue with more calls on record from Lloyds. they use the same technique as Halifax.

 

AA99, i am in a quandry at the moment. i can't say how the final application

might end up at this stage. this is very important to me. i dont want to mess up by leaving anything out.

 

they wont mess up, they will pay for the best and pull more dirty tricks if they can. i am nothing to them.

 

Amanda

 

You sound like you are being looked after here ;-)

[pt2537]

Not wanting to put a fly in the ointment but our counsel has just advised of a claim in the penzance court where a claim was dismissed for a injunction under s3 PFH1997 on the basis of SUNDERLAND CITY COUNCIL (appellant) v. CONN(respondent) - [2008] IRLR 324 which is a court of appeal judgment . the claim was against RBS for over 700 calls to a terminally ill person over a 5 month period and t he judge held that harrassment was not proven even considering ferguson and british gas

[steven4064]

Is the judgement published yet - we need to see the details. Surely number of calls is not the only parameter.

[pt2537]

yes it has been published and is on Bailli as well

 

i have a copy of the judgment but cannot upload it on here as i have max'd out my upload

[BankFodder]

Can you link us to it please

[pt2537]

Conn v City of Sunderland [2007] EWCA Civ 1492 (07 November 2007)

[steven4064]

The key phrase seems to be

The recorder dismissed the claimant's claim for damages and negligence on the basis that any breach of duty must not be causative of the psychiatric injuries complained of by the claimant.

That shouldn't be the case here since we have a doctor's letter saying quite categorically that Halifax's harassment IS a direct cause of leeds1's psychiatric injuries.

 

Also is this Scottish case a precedent in England?

[pt2537]

The key phrase seems to be That shouldn't be the case here since we have a doctor's letter saying quite categorically that Halifax's harassment IS a direct cause of leeds1's psychiatric injuries.

 

Also is this Scottish case a precedent in England?

Scottish?

 

Erm Sunderland is up near Newcastle Steven (or did you mean something else?)

 

In any event, the Counsel we spoke to was instructed by a well known specialist in PFA injunctions from the southwest of the country if you get what i mean;) and by the seems the case was one of over 700 calls by RBS, to a seriously unwell person and the judge ruled that Harassment was not proven as Unreasonable behaviour did not satisfy the test for Harrassment. the case is as i understand it off to the Court of Appeal but it seems that when the otherside threw Conn into the mix, the judge felt bound to follow it

[pt2537]

if its any help,

 

looking over the email i had from counsel, he says that the judge placed great importance on this paragraph

 

Courts are well able to recognize the boundary between conduct which is unattractive, even unreasonable, and conduct which is oppressive and unacceptable. To cross the boundary from the regrettable to the unacceptable the gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability under Section 2."

[steven4064]

As you can see, I am a bit confused.

 

Not wanting to put a fly in the ointment but our counsel has just advised of a claim in the penzance court where a claim was dismissed for a injunction under s3 PFH1997 on the basis of SUNDERLAND CITY COUNCIL (appellant) v. CONN(respondent) - [2008] IRLR 324 which is a court of appeal judgment . the claim was against RBS for over 700 calls to a terminally ill person over a 5 month period and t he judge held that harrassment was not proven even considering ferguson and british gas

Where does RBS come into it and where are the 700 phone calls? This case is about some SCC employee giving another employee the 'silent treatment'.

 

I think most of our users would be delighted with the silent treatment from RBS

 

And Sunderland may not be in Scotland but itis nowhere near Penzance either.

[pt2537]

As you can see, I am a bit confused.

 

Where does RBS come into it and where are the 700 phone calls? This case is about some SCC employee giving another employee the 'silent treatment'.

 

I think most of our users would be delighted with the silent treatment from RBS

 

And Sunderland may not be in Scotland but itis nowhere near Penzance either.

okie dokie

 

RBS were the defendants in the case that took place initially in the penzance court, we (the firm i work for) have a member of staff who is suffering major hassle from Barclays and Mercers, so we have the case on cover with Temple legal expense insurers and have a CFA in place, the next step was to seek guidance from counsel, we instructed the same counsel whom had been involved in the case in Penznace where RBS were the Defendants.

 

Counsel advised that the claim under s3 PFA had been lost on the basis that , while counsel for the claimant (and our counsel now) had relied upon Ferguson and British Gas, the other side RBS had relied upon the case of Conn and Sunderland CC. the judge ruled against even considering the judgment of Ferguson and the person who was the claimant was seriously ill and had suffered a massive amount of calls, this is why i raised the issue as caution was urged and we had to go back over our case with a fine tooth comb, the application has now been sent to the court for issue under the part 8 proceedure as required by the CPR

 

the misleading bit about

the claim was against RBS for over 700 calls to a terminally ill person over a 5 month period and t he judge held that harrassment was not proven even considering ferguson and british gas

was the refering to the claim which my counsel had advised us about that had been lost in the Penzance court against RBS using Conn ruling

 

I hope that helps

Edited March 7, 2009 by pt2537
added a bit

[steven4064]

 

 

On what basis did the judge rule out consideration of Ferguson? CAn they do that?

 

And how did the Conn ruling refer to the 700-call case?

[pt2537]

 

 

On what basis did the judge rule out consideration of Ferguson? CAn they do that?

 

And how did the Conn ruling refer to the 700-call case?

 

 

The Judge placed reliance upon the Conn ruling and in particular this part

Courts are well able to recognize the boundary between conduct which is unattractive, even unreasonable, and conduct which is oppressive and unacceptable. To cross the boundary from the regrettable to the unacceptable the gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability under Section 2."

the judge held that harrasment had NOT been proven to the standard which was necessary and the judge apparently relied upon Guys NHS trust as well, but i am not able to tell you all what counsel has advised as i have probably said too much already but we were advised to re jigg our case in light of what happened and our pleadings were much much much mnore indepth than what you have posted, all im trying to do is draw attention to what happened.

[pt2537]

 

 

Can they do that? Yes, a judge can distinguish a case on its fact and then decide not to apply the ruling in favor of another

 

And how did the Conn ruling refer to the 700-call case?It didnt, but the judge considered that the conn ruling which inturn refered to Guys NHS Trust case set out the test which needed to be established for harrassment to be proven

[pt2537]

dont forget you will not fall in small claims track even if you try to go ahead with the part 7 proceedure, the part 8 is the correct route as set out in CPR 65 and in any case part 8 automatically falls multitrack so the issue of costs is one that needs consideration

[AA99]

This all sounds to me that the law is interpretted at the end of the day depending on which DJ is holding court that day:confused: This isn't encouraging, all these authoratitive bodies seem to interpret what they want on the day despite of all our pleading and begging and breaking rules procedures:confused:

[pt2537]

This all sounds to me that the law is interpretted at the end of the day depending on which DJ is holding court that day:confused: This isn't encouraging, all these authoratitive bodies seem to interpret what they want on the day despite of all our pleading and begging and breaking rules procedures:confused:

Its not that bad to be honest, certainly not all doom and gloom but i raised a point that needs consideration thats all, and of course that is why we have appeal courts as the DJ can and often does get it wrong, the trouble is that this case that i refer to in penzance, as i understand it was before a circuit judge so not your common or garden DJ

 

still , it should not be viewed as "not encouraging" merely it should be taken on board so that counter arguments can be developed

[AA99]

Thanks pt, you confirmed my suspicions (the law is an ass!) oops, sorry, did I say that?!

[pt2537]

Thanks pt, you confirmed my suspicions (the law is an ass!) oops, sorry, did I say that?!

I think it is worth noting that my comments on this thread have not been made to say Dont take action, on the contrary, we have issued our injunction application to the court local to our office, we have however had to make some amendments in lite of the advice given by counsel.

 

And yes AA99 law is an ass, youre bang on there:)

[steven4064]

So going back to leeds1's POC - should we beef that up or provide the additional evidnec and pleadings at a later stage?

[BankFodder]

So going back to leeds1's POC - should we beef that up or provide the additional evidnec and pleadings at a later stage?

I don't think that it needs beefing up. It can be amended later of necessary.

 

I am only wondering whether in view of the unfortunate judgment in which costs were awarded against the claimant, it might be helpful to add a claim for breach of contract.

If a judge was to coclude that there was no harassment because there was no criminal liability, he wold very likely at least find that there had been a breach of conduct as their behaviour has at the very least breached OFT guidelines for debt collection.

Hopefully this would guarantee a victory on at least one front and would make it very much easier for the judge to refuse costs if the harassment action failed.

I'm thinking out of the box here but the judgment worries me a bit and so a contract action might provide a bit of additional insurance.

What do you think?

[steven4064]

It might be wothwhile but the circumstances in Conn are very different from those in leeds1's case. So long as we make that abundantly clear in the SoC - ie a point by point anaylsis of the differences, I don't think there should be a problem:

 

1. Conn was suing SCC over the behaviour of an employee acting alone - in leeds1's case we have evidnece that harassment is institutionalised and that there is a 'directing mind'

2. the only threat was to do with property and no physical or psycological harm was established - in leeds1's case we have evidnece that harm was caused and was caused directly by the harassment

3. The remarks addressed to Conn were adressed to a group of people. I leeds1's case, all the harassment is addressed to her (or her parents) personally

4. The harassment is more serious and sustained than in the Conn case

[pt2537]

just a thought but you have missed out within the pleadings the fact that there are a number of breaches of the OFT guidance on debt collection.

 

this was advised by counsel to be considered