Because of this:
Sessions says, she told him "that he and defendant Wells were harassing her and that such harassment was bad policy, and 'could have serious consequences' including leading people to abandon their homes or even potentially committing suicide. Throughout the conversation plaintiff told defendant Gajewski that she was concerned about other people who might be enduring the same kind of harassment she was facing." (Italics in complaint."
Sessions says Gajewski "immediately seized on plaintiff's statement that defendants' harassment could have consequences and he began engaging in a highly inappropriate line of questioning."
I know this sounds bad, and I do have suspicions about motivation, but right here this sounds like the written mandates are being followed. If you mention to a collector something like this, they are trained not to ignore it and to go further. In short, it is not an inappropriate line of questioning.
And according to the suit, she did mention that she might consider suicide later on. Hopefully the call is recorded and can be retrieved, and I am sure the 911 call was.
Collection calls have precipitated suicide in the past, and these people are trained to follow a procedure such as this. Fortunately there are courts, and someone dispassionate can take a look at this.
On the face of it, an 85 year old living alone who responds to a call such as that with comments such as those may have an issue. Obviously this feisty lady did not, but I would have reacted with concern.
As to the collection attempt, it's apparent that this lady had no intention of paying off the bill - apparently she was paying current bills but not back charges? Therefore it is obvious why she was getting calls.
Futhermore, according to her own filing she had not been getting calls for a while, and to respond to ONE phone call in what? three months? by claiming that this is harassment that would cause people to leave their homes and/or commit suicide raises real questions. Perhaps she was just being very aggressive with the bank, but I don't think a properly trained employee SHOULD have ignored that.
= new reply since forum marked as read
