Roberts v Bank of Scotland plc and another appeal – [2013] All ER (D) 88

Whilst i was searching for a case on Lexis Nexis today, i came across the case report on Roberts v Bank of Scotland plc and another appeal – [2013] All ER (D) 88. This case was very interesting indeed, not least because the Bank of Scotland appealed having lost at the first instance and took the matter to the Court of Appeal and lost again.

The facts however are most interesting, it seems the Bank had called the Claimant over 500 times in the space of 12 months, and the Claimant for her part had told the Bank that she did not want to discuss the matter with the bank or its debt collectors.

The lower courts are often quick to frown on a debtor who doesnt communicate with his creditor, however quite helpfully the Court of Appeal seems to have clarified matters on this point.

 

This is an extract from the case report.

(1) The existence of a debt did not give a lender the right to bombard the debtor with calls. It was for the debtor to decide whether they wanted to discuss the matter with the creditor.

 

In respect of the harassment appeal, the claimant had made it perfectly clear that she had not wanted to speak to the bank, and she had been perfectly entitled to do so. Once the bank had phoned a few times, it had been clear that no progress was to be made. Further calls had been futile and should have been stopped. The judge had been right to characterise the calls as intimidation and they had been wholly unjustified. In respect of quantum, there was no possible ground for interfering with the judge’s assessment of damages.

While this claim was raised under the Tort of Harassment and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, it confirms that much like in the case of Harrison v Link Financial Limited, the Courts are happy to step in and uphold consumers rights not to be harassed by Banks or debt collectors, and where such conduct occurs, the Courts will award damages against the Bank or debt collector.

 

This is a very helpful Judgment and one which i will happily keep in my locker when i deal with cases where creditors have been excessive with their telephone calls.