Be aware - a company can be guilty of harassment!

Recently the court in Kosar v. Bank of Scotland Plc T/A Halifax [2011] has again confirmed that a company can be guilty of harassment under s.1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (the Act).  The key wording here is “A person must not pursue a course of conduct… which amounts to harassment of another”.

It was originally thought that the Act only applied to a physical person. How could a company be guilty of harassment? Surely it would need a person to actually cause the harassment?  Yet the court stated that in relation to the Act the definition of a ‘person’ is not restricted to a physical human being but that of a body corporate as well. Unfortunately, the report of the case does not provide the background facts.

The case of Kosar has built upon the principal put forward in Lisa Maria Angela Ferguson v British Gas Trading Limited.  The Claimant argued that British Gas were guilty of harassment as the company sent her numerous letters stating that she owed them money, when in fact this was not true.  The letters also threatened to cut the Claimant’s gas supply off, start legal proceedings against her and report her to credit agencies.

British Gas put forward numerous arguments in their defence, the key ones being:

• The letters sent were generated by a computer and should not be taken as seriously as if they were sent by an individual;
• Since the Claimant knew the letters were unfounded she should not have been concerned; and
• That the Company was a large organisation and therefore ‘the right hand did not always know what the left hand was doing’.

All of these defences failed, and the Court of Appeal held there was a strongly arguable case that their conduct amounted to harassment.

It is clear that a company can be found guilty of harassment. Therefore, it is important for companies to review their procedures and ensure their conduct could not be considered harassment. Any companies that continue to pursue their customers for money after a bill has been settled may risk both civil and criminal liability under the Act, the fact that any letters were automatically generated will not provide a defence.