subject: Taking Action Against Threatening Creditors [print this page] A creditor who unduly pressurises someone who they allege owes them money may be committing a criminal offence. It is illegal to harass or cause distress and anxiety to someone who owes money. There is an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 of sending threatening letters and the Administration of Justice Act 1970 prohibits the making of threats. Aggressive practices by creditors intended to make people pay money is outlawed in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
Examples of illegal behaviour have been held to include:
contacting a debtor continually;
contacting the debtor late at night or at an unsociable time;
pressurising a debtor to sell property to pay the debt;
demanding money in such a way as to intimidate or embarrass the debtor;
making false claims such as that a document is an official document when it is not, being a court official or bailiff; that court proceedings have been issued or that non-payment is a criminal offence and the debtor could be sent to prison
threatening to tell neighbours, friends or relatives about the debt;
ignoring disputes about the debt;
making threatening gestures;
requiring the debtor to pay all of the debt or instalments which cannot be afforded;
suggesting that action will be taken which is not possible.
Although any of the above activities may well constitute a criminal offence it must be remembered that simply asking for payment and anything reasonable in this context is not harassment and therefore not illegal. The Office of Fair Trading have published guidelines and will assist in enforcing the law if you feel threatened.
The courts have always been prepared to make injunction orders in cases of harassment to prevent a credit our applying undue pressure. The courts have recently shown themselves willing to protect people who are harassed by claims for money by awarding them compensation. This was demonstrated in a case concerning a Mrs. Ferguson and British Gas.
Mrs. Ferguson was unhappy with the service provided by British Gas and took her business elsewhere. This resulted in a multitude of letters from the supplier and threats to disconnect the supply. These were all complemented by further threats of court proceedings and referrals to credit rating agencies. Letters explaining the position were ignored as were a multitude of telephone calls.
Quite understandably Mrs Ferguson was most distressed by all of this and was reduced to a state of anxiety. Court proceedings were issued in which damages were claimed for the distress and upset that there had been caused. An appeal was issued by British Gas who said that no reasonable cause of action was shown.
The Court of Appeal was not impressed by this claim and were highly critical of British Gas and their conduct. They held that behaviour such as here was grave and quite capable of being harassment. It was oppressive and unacceptable and constituted harassment. British Gas argued that as the demand letters were computer generated they need not have been taken seriously. This argument was rejected out of hand.
This case and Mrs Ferguson have opened the door for those being threatened by debt collectors or service providers such as British Gas to claim compensation through the courts where distress is caused by demands for payment of debts not owed. Usually the claim can be brought under the Small Claims procedure.
