On many occasions the Timeshare consumer wants to exit their contracts and as a result of the civil wrongs are habitually perpetrated by the resorts, the timeshare salesman and the industry against timeshare consumers.
If and when the consumer challenges some resorts they are either met with a wall of silence whereby the perpetrators refuse to participate in meaningful discussion with the consumer or engage others acting as their agents who ignore the consumers issues and make demands for payment. Moreover, the resort representatives bombard the consumer with further invoices and claims backed up with telephone calls and threatening letter including debt collectors.
In short this can be stopped – and on a no win no fee agreement which the TCA can arrange for consumers
In the case of Roberts v Bank of Scotland PLC  EWCA Civ 882, the UK Court of Appeal upheld an award of damages against the Royal Bank of Scotland for harassment.
The case was brought as a civil claim under section 1 (1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which provides:
“A person must not pursue a course of conduct (a) which amounts to harassment of another and (b) which he knows or ought toknow amounts to harassment of another”.
Details of the case
According to the Bank’s log, telephone calls or attempted telephone calls were made to the claimant from December 2007 to January 2009. The claimant was greatly distressed by the “bombardment” of phone calls and took proceedings in the County Court claiming damages.
In its defence, the Bank admitted making a large number of phone calls to their customer but denied that these amounted to harassment. The Bank asserted the calls were reasonable attempts to contact its customer and counterclaimed for £10,941.37 outstanding on the customer’s accounts.
The Court of Appeal held that
- it was clear that the customer was in breach of contract by exceeding her overdraft,
- that the bank was entitled to contact her to “seek a mutually acceptable resolution of the problem”,
- the existence of the debt did not, however, give the creditor the right to “bombard the debtor with endless and repeated telephone calls”.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the County Court which had awarded the claimant £7,500 in damages. (The court had also given judgment to the Bank in favour of the sum counterclaimed, which was not in dispute).
The court held that the Bank’s conduct achieved the requisite level of seriousness to constitute harassment within the meaning of the 1997 Act. It was harassment “which could have been prosecuted in the criminal courts.”
Similar issues were raised in a recent Housing Rights Service Chancery case. The borrower had entered in to an arrangement with the lender to repay an agreed amount each month towards the arrears and the case had been adjourned to monitor payments. Despite this, the lender continued to regularly phone the borrower seeking larger repayments and threatening the borrower with the loss of his home. Whilst not specifically defining the behaviour in that particular case as harassment, the Master commented that such behaviour could amount to contempt of court.
Clearly if a consumer set out they dispute with the resort and that resort fails to engages and wickedly seek payment of a disputed debt, then each and every consumer is entitles to issue proceeding for harassment from which damages will flow.
Last modified: August 28, 2015