Roberts -v- Bank of Scotland  EWCA Civ 882 – 11/06/13
A court of appeal in the U.K. found that , in a case involving the conduct of a Bank making hundreds of telephone calls attempting to talk to a customer about the state of her accounts, a lower court had been entitled to conclude that the conduct of the Bank was unacceptable and intimidatory and amounted to harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and award damages of £7,500.
In the judgement of Lord Justice Jackson he held:-
“The existence of a debt, however, does not give the creditor the right to bombard the debtor with endless and repeated telephone calls. The debtor is fully entitled to say that he or she does not wish to talk to the creditor. In those circumstances, the creditor is thrown back upon his formal legal remedies. That is what the courts are there to provide. They are there to ensure that creditors do not resort to the remedy of self help.
In the present case, the claimant made it abundantly plain that she did not wish to receive telephone calls from the bank. She was perfectly entitled to adopt this position. Once the bank had tried to telephone the claimant a few times and had received the same response on each occasion, it was obvious that telephoning the claimant would achieve nothing. Thereafter, there was no possible justification for continuing to ring the claimant up.”
Has any Bank/Building Society/Credit Union customer been subjected to similar treatment?