History9 mins ago
Call centres
My son whilst at Uni. became overdrawn on his bank account. The banks call centre, presumably in Mumbai, were trying to get in contact with him by phoning his home number. They were told he wasn't available on this number and was away at Uni. They persisted on calling this number three times a day, six days a week for a month. Can anything be done to prevent this number of calls should this situation re-occur.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sigma. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Are you sure you would just give up, sigma, if the boot was on the other foot? If banks always gave up so easily even more people would use the 'he doesn't live here now' response.
Is your son aware of the issue? Presumably he is building up hefty charges and his credit raing may suffer. I hope he sorts it out.
I'm sure you can block the number- or is it a withheld number?
Is your son aware of the issue? Presumably he is building up hefty charges and his credit raing may suffer. I hope he sorts it out.
I'm sure you can block the number- or is it a withheld number?
With respect, justifying the creditors actions because the problem (or, if you prefer, fault) lies originally with the debtor rather misses the point.
The creditor has every right to attempt to recover the debt owed by the debtor, but not by any means. One of the means that, by my interpretation, is not permitted, is persistently calling persons who have no relationship with the creditor.
If I have new slates fixed to my roof and I don't pay the roofer, the roofer is not entitled to come around and strip them from the roof - irrespective of how we may all feel about the moral issues. It is not a question of morality, it is a question of law. The roofer must try to recover his losses for the breach of contract by taking court action against the party who owes them a debt and add the costs of doing so to the grand total being pursued. I'm afraid that's how it is for our nice bankers. A well know source of moral virtue. What they cannot do is harass people - especially those who have done absolutely nothing wrong.
The creditor has every right to attempt to recover the debt owed by the debtor, but not by any means. One of the means that, by my interpretation, is not permitted, is persistently calling persons who have no relationship with the creditor.
If I have new slates fixed to my roof and I don't pay the roofer, the roofer is not entitled to come around and strip them from the roof - irrespective of how we may all feel about the moral issues. It is not a question of morality, it is a question of law. The roofer must try to recover his losses for the breach of contract by taking court action against the party who owes them a debt and add the costs of doing so to the grand total being pursued. I'm afraid that's how it is for our nice bankers. A well know source of moral virtue. What they cannot do is harass people - especially those who have done absolutely nothing wrong.
I'm not sure the example you give, Stu Dent, is quite the same, as the bank are requesting their money and aren't removing goods, although I agree it would be wrong for the bank to call bailiffs in and remove furniture in this case.
Whilst i think the son i being very unfair here on sigma, I do feel the bank could be a bit cleverer here- they could for example send a recorded delivery letter to the last known address, or close the account.
Stu-Dent suggests the bank should "recover [its] losses for the breach of contract by taking court action against the party who owes them a debt and add the costs of doing so to the grand total being pursued". I'm not sure how it can do this if the address is said not to be valid.
Does anyone know how the bank would take legal action when it has no current address?
Anyway, sigma sounds like a caring mum and I'm sure if she received a letter addressed to her son threatening court action, bailiffs or bankrupty, she would not ignore it.
Next time they ring maybe sigma could ask them to send a letter addressed to the son at her address and say she will forward it to the son.
Whilst i think the son i being very unfair here on sigma, I do feel the bank could be a bit cleverer here- they could for example send a recorded delivery letter to the last known address, or close the account.
Stu-Dent suggests the bank should "recover [its] losses for the breach of contract by taking court action against the party who owes them a debt and add the costs of doing so to the grand total being pursued". I'm not sure how it can do this if the address is said not to be valid.
Does anyone know how the bank would take legal action when it has no current address?
Anyway, sigma sounds like a caring mum and I'm sure if she received a letter addressed to her son threatening court action, bailiffs or bankrupty, she would not ignore it.
Next time they ring maybe sigma could ask them to send a letter addressed to the son at her address and say she will forward it to the son.
We're away off at another angle here but running with your example Stu (which had virtually no similarity to the case in point anyway), why can't the roofer come and strip the slates off the roof (provided he restored the roof to its previous state and didn't leave it worse)? What is the purpose of the legal small print on the back of virtually every invoice that says "Title to the goods does not pass and remains with the seller until paid for in full" unless it is enforceable in law? Surely that means if a customer does not pay for goods they can simply collect them again? I appreciate that's not quite the same in terms of fixed roofing slates but still?
Well to be fair, my comparisons are a bit rubbishy; but still, I think the point was clear enough - however much you think one party is morally correct to act in a particular way does not make them right legally. In addition, I don't think the comparison needs to be a direct one. (By the way, those tiles are now permanently fixed to fixed/heritable property. They are no longer moveable so no longer belong to our roofer - his remedy is breach of contract).
Let us remember that Sigma was asking us to help solve HIS/HER legal problem (and not his/her SON). We were not asked to give our tuppenceworth on who we thought was morally in the wrong. Perhaps I agree that the blame for the problem arising lies solely with our young student friend, but that doesn't make the actions of his creditor legitimate. As a matter of fact I actually do think that the best thing Sigma could do (for her son, not for herself/himself) is to advise the son to contact his creditor and make arrangements to pay. You can't (nearly always) run away from debt and it nearly always catches up with people and the debt is just far bigger than the original sum being pursued. Many other longer term problems can arise through trying to run from the original debt. But that's an entirely different issue from what we were being asked. Read the question! Read what is said at Govan Law Centre.
They (and I) have said that the creditor is entitled to pursue the debt owed - through the proper legal channels available to them - this is not in dispute. GLC say this can cause problems because the creditor wants to avoid the time and expense of going through these channels (fao Skyline), they therefore sometimes take it upon themselves to circumvent these channels. That's what our creditors here are doing.
Let us remember that Sigma was asking us to help solve HIS/HER legal problem (and not his/her SON). We were not asked to give our tuppenceworth on who we thought was morally in the wrong. Perhaps I agree that the blame for the problem arising lies solely with our young student friend, but that doesn't make the actions of his creditor legitimate. As a matter of fact I actually do think that the best thing Sigma could do (for her son, not for herself/himself) is to advise the son to contact his creditor and make arrangements to pay. You can't (nearly always) run away from debt and it nearly always catches up with people and the debt is just far bigger than the original sum being pursued. Many other longer term problems can arise through trying to run from the original debt. But that's an entirely different issue from what we were being asked. Read the question! Read what is said at Govan Law Centre.
They (and I) have said that the creditor is entitled to pursue the debt owed - through the proper legal channels available to them - this is not in dispute. GLC say this can cause problems because the creditor wants to avoid the time and expense of going through these channels (fao Skyline), they therefore sometimes take it upon themselves to circumvent these channels. That's what our creditors here are doing.
It's a difficult problem for the creditor. It may take them a while to recover the debt. They may have to write it off due to the difficulty of tracing and then doing deligence against the debtor. So what? That's their problem. You may not think it fair but who said life was?
So what can the creditor do in this case?
Well, it's difficult, but there are any number of companies out there offering their services to trace debtors. Their very existence suggests that they must have a sufficient success rate at doing so otherwise they wouldn't get the business.
It's a difficult problem for the creditor, no doubt about it. It may take them a while to recover the debt. They may have to write it off due to the difficulty of tracing and then doing deligence against the debtor. So what? That's their problem. You may not think it fair but who said life was? We were not asked to deal with a question of apparent fairness, we were asked to deal with a question of factual law.
So what can the creditor do in this case?
Well, it's difficult, but there are any number of companies out there offering their services to trace debtors. Their very existence suggests that they must have a sufficient success rate at doing so otherwise they wouldn't get the business. The costs of these services can be added to the total debt owed if the contract between creditor and debtor allows. Once the debtor is traced then it may result in a wages or bank account arrestment. That's when the debtors world can begin to cave in. However we were not asked about the rights of the creditor. We were asked about the rights of someone being persistently called (harrassed?) pursuing a debt and concerning a business relationship that they had no legal connection to.
I may be in the minority here but hopefully I�ve put up a reasonable argument for the other side.
Happy
So what can the creditor do in this case?
Well, it's difficult, but there are any number of companies out there offering their services to trace debtors. Their very existence suggests that they must have a sufficient success rate at doing so otherwise they wouldn't get the business.
It's a difficult problem for the creditor, no doubt about it. It may take them a while to recover the debt. They may have to write it off due to the difficulty of tracing and then doing deligence against the debtor. So what? That's their problem. You may not think it fair but who said life was? We were not asked to deal with a question of apparent fairness, we were asked to deal with a question of factual law.
So what can the creditor do in this case?
Well, it's difficult, but there are any number of companies out there offering their services to trace debtors. Their very existence suggests that they must have a sufficient success rate at doing so otherwise they wouldn't get the business. The costs of these services can be added to the total debt owed if the contract between creditor and debtor allows. Once the debtor is traced then it may result in a wages or bank account arrestment. That's when the debtors world can begin to cave in. However we were not asked about the rights of the creditor. We were asked about the rights of someone being persistently called (harrassed?) pursuing a debt and concerning a business relationship that they had no legal connection to.
I may be in the minority here but hopefully I�ve put up a reasonable argument for the other side.
Happy
