Debt collection can be harassment

In this period of increasing concern over personal and business debt a recent case involving a consumer against British Gas plc provides clear guidance on the dangers of getting debt collection wrong.

 

Lisa Ferguson took on the might of British Gas to win a settlement from the company after receiving innumerable debt collection letters for gas bills for which she was not responsible.

 

Despite repeated communications to the FTSE plc (including the company’s chairman) she continued to receive demands and threats for 8 months. Following this she wrote to the energy watchdog but continued to receive threats despite employees of British Gas reassuring her the matter was settled.

 

Ferguson claimed the action was unlawful under the Protection Of Harassment Act which provides civil and criminal redress.

 

The Court of Appeal rejected an application of British Gas to dismiss the action on the basis that their actions did not constitute harassment on the grounds its behaviour was not serious enough.

 

British Gas then settled the matter but refused to disclose how much was paid to Ferguson.

 

The case highlights how complaints departments in large companies need to work closely with credit controllers to avoid causing harassment by making unwarranted demands. The court was unimpressed by the plc’s argument that some demands were not serious as these were “computer generated” noting that “..real people are responsible for programming and entering material into the computer...”

 

Damning British Gas as “..a monster machine out of control..” the court ruling will make it easier to force “monster” companies with poor debt collection records and complaints handling to make amends.

 

Blaming the computer is no defence.

Add a comment | Subscribe to this discussion  | Register For legal reasons only registered users can add comments