Harassment ?

[enquirer]

Here's the scenario:

L is a debt collection company.
W is a debtor currently being pursued by L.
S is someone with no connection to either.

W used to live in a house.
Whilst in the house, W ran up debts with a mobile phone company.
The house was reposessed by the lendor and W moved elsewhere.
This occurred several years ago.
The electoral roll confirms that W has been gone for years.
S bought the house from the lendor. The title is full and unencumbered.
W's mobile phone debts have been passed to L.
L is now sending reams of threatening mail to W's former address. The threats include the making of charges against the property, personal visits and so on.
S has to deal with this mail.
S is now finding this distressing.

The threatening mail continues to arrive, even though S has informed L and they have acknowledged their error in writing.

Does this continued mailing constitute harassment of S?

If representatives of L visit the property looking for W, is this harassment?

If representatives of L visit the property and attempt to gain entry or remove property, what are the offences/torts/remedies?

I'm guessing possibly assault and criminal damage. Maybe burglary. But would this not depend on the person trying to get in knowing the truth? What of mens rea?

What if L does not inform their own staff of the true position, and they believe, however wrongly, that they are acting within their rights?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Harassment ?

L is a debt collection company.
W is a debtor currently being pursued by L.
S is someone with no connection to either.

W used to live in a house.
Whilst in the house, W ran up debts with a mobile phone company.
The house was reposessed by the lendor and W moved elsewhere.
This occurred several years ago.
The electoral roll confirms that W has been gone for years.
S bought the house from the lendor. The title is full and unencumbered.
W's mobile phone debts have been passed to L.
L is now sending reams of threatening mail to W's former address. The threats include the making of charges against the property, personal visits and so on.
S has to deal with this mail.
S is now finding this distressing.

The threatening mail continues to arrive, even though S has informed L and they have acknowledged their error in writing.

Does this continued mailing constitute harassment of S?

Yes.

If representatives of L visit the property looking for W, is this harassment?

It could be; it is almost certainly trespass.

If representatives of L visit the property and attempt to gain entry or remove property, what are the offences/torts/remedies?

I'm guessing possibly assault and criminal damage. Maybe burglary.

Strictly speaking, burglary can only occur at night; during the daylight hours, the offence would be house breaking.

But would this not depend on the person trying to get in knowing the truth?

No, as there is nothing in law that generally permits a mere debt collector to enter a person's residence and take anything found therein in full or partial settlement of an alleged debt.

This is one reason why civil courts exist.

What of mens rea?

Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?

What if L does not inform their own staff of the true position, and they believe, however wrongly, that they are acting within their rights?

This would hardly matter, as nobody in their right wits would suppose that working for a debt collector could or would confer upon them a right to force entry to a person's domicile and/or steal anything found therein.

When should the essay be handed in?

[labman]

Re: Harassment ?

Excellent answer CC!

Enquirer, this is actually quite a common occurence. DCA's will pester and pester.

If you have it in writing that they have admitted their error, then everything after that point (if not some before if they've been told about it) is harassment. They are committing criminal offences and should be penalised appropriately.

Unfortunately, it is a sad fact of life that the police will not get involved in this sort of thing as they will (incorrectly) claim it is a civil issue.

[enquirer]

Re: Harassment ?

Thanks CC.

So, harassment - Yes, since the firm now knows.

What really interests me is if the goon trying to get entry (and they are not noted for their intelligence), has not been told by L that he's going to the wrong place.

It is apparent that DCA's like L are completely unscrupulous, and don't particularly care where goods are obtained. I think that they would use, and then in turn abandon, their own agents is a given.

But anyway, what of the individual trying, or succeeding in gaining entry?

I see in Butterworths Police Law, that if someone is subjectively reckless as to entering as a trespasser, that condition is fulfilled. So presumably, if someone informs him that he is a trespasser, at the wrong house etcetera, he is at least reckless. It also states that if entry is gained by means of a deception (eg 'I'm a gas inspector'), permission so gained is invalid and it amounts to entry as a trespasser.

Is 'intent to steal' and 'dishonesty' satisfied before or once he has been informed of his error?

I would have thought so, but would be interested in comments.

[labman]

Re: Harassment ?

Hi,

Are you confusing a Debt Collector with a Bailiff? I have never known a Debt Collector or DCA attempt entry to a property to remove goods.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Harassment ?

Are you confusing a Debt Collector with a Bailiff?

Apart from the obvious comment that it is quite easy to confuse debt collectors and other such creatures of the delta-minus class, should not the status of the would-be intruder have been specified by whomever set the essay?

[enquirer]

Re: Harassment ?

Hm. Let's assume both possibilities.

Firstly, that the goon at the door is just some thug working for a DCA. He may or may not know that he has come to the wrong address.

Secondly, that the goon is actually a real bailiff, but that the DCA lied in order to obtain a court order.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Harassment ?

Hm. Let's assume both possibilities.

Firstly, that the goon at the door is just some thug working for a DCA. He may or may not know that he has come to the wrong address.

Whether or not he is at the correct address, such an oaf has no more powers of entry and seizure than might a newspaper boy. You might therefore acquaint the oaf with the celebrated retort in the matter of Arkell v Pressdram.

Secondly, that the goon is actually a real bailiff, but that the DCA lied in order to obtain a court order.

What sort of "court order" do you suppose the DCA had obtained without bothering with the nicety of first suing the alleged debtor?

[enquirer]

Re: Harassment ?

Whether or not he is at the correct address, such an oaf has no more powers of entry and seizure than might a newspaper boy. You might therefore acquaint the oaf with the celebrated retort in the matter of Arkell v Pressdram.

I shall invoke the Curse of Gnome!

What sort of "court order" do you suppose the DCA had obtained without bothering with the nicety of first suing the alleged debtor?

Unsure. Would it be possible for a DCA to go to the County Court, get a claim issued, have it heard in abstentia, obtain a judgement against the debtor, and then send the dogs to their old address?

(I sued a company some years ago. They binned all correspondence from the court, not even replying to the claim. I applied for, and got, a default judgement. This is not quite the same, but ...).

[CleverClogs]

Re: Harassment ?

Unsure. Would it be possible for a DCA to go to the County Court, get a claim issued, have it heard in abstentia, obtain a judgement against the debtor, and then send the dogs to their old address.

Yes, it would be perfectly possible for a creditor to obtain a default judgement against a debtor and to attempt enforcement by means of a warrant of execution. However, if the debtor no longer resides at that address, the bailiff has no right to carry out distraint upon any of the goods and chattels of the current resident.

Nor is the current resident under any obligation whatever to state or suggest where the debtor might now reside.