.......................... It is not always the fault of the SatNav according to my experience. I was wanting to go to Kettering from Camberley and was directed to go via Gatwick and into Essex. I could not see much sense in this so I pulled over to recheck it. I was then passed by two range rovers. One was in Met Police colours, the second was maroon or dark red and bristled with aerials. After they disappeared, the SatNav worked perfectly and led me right to the door. SatNav was a Tom. The only other time it had me going was when I was on the Isle of Wight and wanted a route home via the New Forest. It offered me a choice of going by ferry or other means. Funny I don't think I had a choice Alan
Sorry to say this Dave but I am afraid that on this occaision Dennis is actually correct.
Office of Fair Trading Code of Guidance
Many activities could count as harassment. It is important to note that "anything done by a person which is reasonable" when trying to recover a debt, is not considered to be harassment. Both the Office of Fair Trading and Trade Associations (run by the credit industry) have produced guidance on what activities may be considered harassment and should therefore be avoided by creditors. The following list is taken from the new Debt Collection Guidance for holders of consumer credit licences.
Creditors are warned by the Office of Fair Trading under the Debt Collection Guidance that the following practices are "considered unfair":
" PUTTING PRESSURE ON DEBTORS OR THIRD PARTIES IS CONSIDERED TO BE OPPRESSIVE."
This includes:
***** Contacting you too frequently****** Pressurising you to sell property or take out more debt * Using more than one collection company at the same time or not telling you when your debt has been passed to another company * Pressurising you to pay in full or in large instalments you cannot afford * Making threatening gestures or statements * Ignoring disputes about whether you owe the money * Trying to embarrass you in public or threatening to tell a third party about your debts such as a neighbour or your family.
IANAL but I believe it that it has been decided in Court that repeated calls chasing debts is covered by the Prevention of Harassment Act. To tell the truth I don't know for sure but I would suggest that it would not be a good idea for someone who has stated that being Trading Standards accredited has been useful for his business to conduct a course of action that could lead to him being accused of harassment.
The Protection From Harassment Act 1997. Under this Act it becomes a criminal offence if you: Cause alarm, harassment or distress more than once as a result of an action you conduct against another person. The conduct might be verbal or non-verbal and it doesn't have to be the same type of action on each occasion - if the person feels alarmed, harassed or distressed by your actions, then it's harassment, plain and simple, even if that was not your intention
Now that is an act that I have been threatened with arrest for. My solicitor went ballistic when I gave her the facts (not a debt harassment in my case).
I note your very good point on that. I do hope that Dave does as well. I believe that he has not caused any harassment by reminding a customer that they owe him money.
Rule Number One; Dennis is never right. Rule Number Two; If Dennis shoule ever be accidentally right, then Rule One applies.
Great. My actions were entirely reasonable - the cow owed me money & lied to delay payment.
I don't have a consumer credit licence - I don't give credit or use finance.
How the f*ck are traders supposed to get paid then?
Had the cowbag returned any of my calls I wouldn't have needed to constantly ask her to.
In this case I'd fited 5 doors for the bitch, which I had paid for. They remain my property until paid for. Her deliberate delay in payment was tantamount to theft.
TBH I don't give a flying f*ck what anyone else thinks. The bitch deliberately delayed payment, then completely ignored my reasonable requests for payment by not returning my calls.
Trading Standards do not automatically come down on the side of the consumer BTW. 18 months ago I had an alledged complaint made against me. TS investigated fully, including interviewing me and visiting the site.
Their conclusion was that the customer was simply trying to claim a refund, there were no grounds for the complaint. They told the complainent that his claim was entirely spurious.
Traders don't ned to be 'afraid' of TS, they are impartial and represent both sides.
They aren't yours once fitted unless its written into the contract. Even if you do have it written into the contract it may well be an unfair clause. For instance you couldn't go and remove an external door and leave her property unsafe, you would have to get a court order for payment and let the balifs decide what to take.
Would you like someone to forward the thread to the council so one of their trading standards people can advise you should you come across another silly cow^w customer?
Are you saying its reasonable to avoid paying people & tell lies to delay payment?
No it isn't. The guidance quoted only applies to those who have.
My action was entirely legal.
They are mine until paid for.
Deliberately delaying payment is unfair.
How would you like it if your Giro was late?
No, I'd change the lock so she couldn't get in until she paid.
Oh bring it on SFB's. I'm sure they are going to take notice of a tosspot who isn't a customer & doesn't live in the area. They would probably enjoy a good laugh.
Good job I wasn't harrassing her then. Had she returned my calls I wouldn't have needed to keep chasing her via txt. I should have charged her for the cost of the txt messages.
It's very reasonable to expect it to be done to you, and from a pure business perspective, very reasonable to do it as well. It may not be
*moral*, but it sure is reasonable. There is every reason to do it IF you dont particularly expect to use that supplier again.
90% of businesses work that way.Yep right up to and including the Ford Motor company, which has done a lot WORSE than that. It has allegedly forced suppliers out of business, and arranged for the business to be picked up on the cheap by its own crony suppliers.
wel you arent supposed to kneecap them.
OTOH if you can hand on heart place a petition to wind them up on the basis that they are presumably insolvent, *purely out of a spirit of public duty* (Specifically NOT as a means of debt collection, yer honour) then sometimes they find money awfully quickly.
That is a moot point in law, I believe. I think the ice is a shade thin there.
I have never heard of an unfair clause being a legal excuse.
hehe.
Nice idea. These things often work better that way.
However, it dopes raise issues as to what legal tools are available for debt collection.
I have found letters penned by a friendly lawyer are often good, then a small claims court may or may not de wedge the bastards. I went straight to winding up order,. cos I knew the animal.
I have seen property retained in lieu, unofficially. No ossifer, I haven't got the mad cows persian rug, I don't know what she is talking about. I consider her accusations slanderous. etc etc.
Once the other party starts playing the game of credible deniability, I have little compunction in using the same tactics.
If someone decides to break the law, they will have little sympathy from the law in defending themselves against actions you may or may not have taken.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.