To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Our legal system simply doesn’t protect the rights of law-abiding citizens
Share this:
From Nick Poingdestre.
YOUR story concerning campsite proprietor David Bridges shows how useless our legal system is for protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens and how it can be abused by cheats and fraudsters.
It is interesting in one respect, however, as it highlights one avenue I didn’t think of using in a recent case of debt collection involving one of our well-known British banks.
A friend of mine went into his branch to close his account in June last year and promptly withdrew all his money. Due to the bank’s maladministration, however, they didn’t actually close his account and subsequently paid several standing orders.
As a consequence, the account went overdrawn and the bank wrote to him demanding he put the account back into credit.
They wrote to him every week from 8 July to 30 October, as well as on 13 November and 10 December, by which time the matter had gone to the JFSC because the bank had levied overdraft fees of £330 and were insisting that they be paid.
Had I known about the defence of harassment, I would have advised him to go straight to the police, as the JFSC can only adjudicate on the complaints process and it seems that the police can arrest the directors of a British bank if they persist in demanding money from their customers.
Perhaps any readers who are being bothered by troublesome firms asking for payment of any goods and services they may have had would therefore consider going to the police as a cheaper alternative to legal representation.
Related