Harassment by Debt Collection Company

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

On the contrary, the principle behind "lifting the corporate veil" has nothing to do with the value of a debt.

However to the costs of proceeding on such grounds would be much more than $1k.

You missed the part "but they must have reasons to do so."

Is $1k a good reason?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Same concerns were raised when bankruptcy laws were changed to be less onerous on bankrupts to encourage entrepreneurship. Good example the discharge of actress and biz woman Jaclyn Tay.

The question of corporate law inhibiting social responsibility has been debated by many and depends on which side of the fence you are. In this case the TS truly believes the amorality of the company. No matter what is said, he would never change his mind. He is just looking for affirmation.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

That may possibly be harassment unless mother-in-law is also a director of the debtor co.

I hope the debt collectors go and ask Subok's (sorry his friend's) mother-in-law to encourage Subok (sorry his friend) to make the comapny pay.

 

[Zombie]

On the contrary,

That was my message.

I was trying to tell Subok, that
on one hand, the protection to the shareholders/directors, from separate entity of the company, is not foolproof,
on the other hand, it has no value to sue for $1k.

Therefore, debt collectors would be engaged and they would assume that they are not legally forbidden to go straight to the shareholders/directors.

 

[cass888]

That may possibly be harassment unless mother-in-law is also a director of the debtor co.

There is no law against harassment as long as there is no tresspass (i.e. get out of my house) no threats are made or any untruths stated. Nothing wrong to knock on her door, "Good morning, ma'am. Your son-in-law is a director of XXX which owes our client $1,000.00. Can you ask him to get XXX to pay us." or "Excuse me, Miss. Your father is a ... etc".

Totally LEGAL. There is no law against embarassment.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Perhaps, but if it is done on numerous occasions than I think she would possibly have some sort redress, civil or criminal.

There is no law against harassment as long as there is no tresspass (i.e. get out of my house) no threats are made or any untruths stated. Nothing wrong to knock on her door, "Good morning, ma'am. Your son-in-law is a director of XXX which owes our client $1,000.00. Can you ask him to get XXX to pay us." or "Excuse me, Miss. Your father is a ... etc".

Totally LEGAL. There is no law against embarassment.

 

[zack123]

Perhaps, but if it is done on numerous occasions than I think she would possibly have some sort redress, civil or criminal.

In that case can i get a redress against tele-salesman who hounds me daily to offer easy credit, credit cards, insurance etc?

 

[Subok]

Unless u are a businessman, already bleed and close down business, you wouldn't understand the agony of having to dig to your pocket again.

Easy to stand at the sideline to criticise why don't pay this pay that etc etc. Wait till you are in the boiling pot then you come and comment.

Anyway the topic is harassment by debt collectors NOT whether SHOULD PAY or NOT TO PAY. The technicalities already being covered. And a Director is NOT THE SOLE Proprietor of the company. Now that's the problem, the "not informed" act "informed"

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

If it is the very same chap or the same co. then I think you may well have a case.

In that case can i get a redress against tele-salesman who hounds me daily to offer easy credit, credit cards, insurance etc?

 

[zack123]

Unless u are a businessman, already bleed and close down business, you wouldn't understand the agony of having to dig to your pocket again.

Easy to stand at the sideline to criticise why don't pay this pay that etc etc. Wait till you are in the boiling pot then you come and comment.

Anyway the topic is harassment by debt collectors NOT whether SHOULD PAY or NOT TO PAY. The technicalities already being covered. And a Director is NOT THE SOLE Proprietor of the company. Now that's the problem, the "not informed" act "informed"

If you are already aware of the associated corporate laws, why need to question so much? You think only a businessman understands the agony of losing money and being chased by debtors?

Nowadays the title of directors are a dime a dozen. Any tom dick or harry can be a director of a $2 company. Dun need to put your friend on a pedestal and idolize him like some superhuman and looking over the rest like some form of maggot.

 

[myjohnson]

I don't get it. What is it that is so difficult for some people to understand. On whatever ground you are standing on, it must come to the point when someone is held to be breaking the law. And I'm not talking about the debt issue here. Because if any dispute cannot be settle in private and amicably between two parties, then they would have to bring civil actions against each other to bring the matter to a resolution. Resorting to any other type of action outside the law will lead to criminal charges being brought to oneself. Harassment is a criminal act. Period. It's as simple as that. The stand of the law will always come back to this one simple sentence, "KEEP THE PEACE AND DO NOT RESORT TO TAKING THE LAW ON TO YOUR OWN HANDS."

 

[cass888]

Anyway the topic is harassment by debt collectors NOT whether SHOULD PAY or NOT TO PAY. The technicalities already being covered. And a Director is NOT THE SOLE Proprietor of the company. Now that's the problem, the "not informed" act "informed"

It is not harassment to ask your friend (read you) to get the company to pay them.

 

[cass888]

"KEEP THE PEACE AND DO NOT RESORT TO TAKING THE LAW ON TO YOUR OWN HANDS."

It is not taking the law to your own hands to talk. And it is not against the law to ask for your money back. It is only against the law after the company goes bankrupt which it hasn't.

 

[myjohnson]

Subok did mention that the company had ceased operations, had it not?
If a woman or man had made the decision to break up a relationship, any party that continues to "talk" the other to resume the relationship to the point of pestering day in, day out, to the point of "harassing" could be possibly charged under the law.
It's okay for you, in this forum to constantly chant your "anti Chee Soon Juan mantras" in every other post you've made. No law is broken unless the other party choose to take action LKY style. But try to go to his office or home and harass him with those mantras and see what action can be taken under the law against you.

 

[Zombie]

Harassment is a criminal act. Period. It's as simple as that.

If you do not use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, the law will not consider harassment.

 

[Lian9]

Hmn, if i were your friend, i would counter sue the originator of harassement in a personal suit, and claim for damages done.

 

[myjohnson]

If you do not use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, the law will not consider harassment.

This is just a suggestion of a scenario. I come to your house three or four times a day, ring your door bell just to have a casual conversation. You don't welcome it, I persist. No threats, no foul languages just pleasantries. How?

 

[kuntakinte]

Sorry, if everybody subscribe to your argument "to settle in private and amicably between two parties" in Singapore, Singapore is not only a fine and vibrant city, it is also a businessmen coo-coo city.

Nobody will sue you because you owe them $1k because the legal fee is more than that. Why creditors resort to using debt collection company ? The reasons are bountiful and vengeful. One simple reason - it costs less than litigation fee. Another, debt collection companies bear all the brunt and risk, if not, they won't ask for 2/8 in some cases (Pareto Law?? NO !!, you get 20% of the collection, they get 80%). In addition, the creditor may have to pay an admin fee too !!

That's why, when you approach these debt collection companies, the first thing they want to see are all your invoices or transactions with the customer follow by few questions to ascertain if there is a case or not.

Yes, these debt collection companies will harass you to embarrass you. Try to report to the police when you are harassed and see what happen ? If I could read the police's mind, they could be saying,"You f88king deserve it !!"...... *DIGRESS* The same reaction when you are harassed by Ah Long.....

Why are these debt collection companies immune to being punished by the law ??? Nope, they are not immunized, these are........... simply put, STREETWISE / STREET-SMART maneuvre !!

I don't get it. What is it that is so difficult for some people to understand. On whatever ground you are standing on, it must come to the point when someone is held to be breaking the law. And I'm not talking about the debt issue here. Because if any dispute cannot be settle in private and amicably between two parties, then they would have to bring civil actions against each other to bring the matter to a resolution. Resorting to any other type of action outside the law will lead to criminal charges being brought to oneself. Harassment is a criminal act. Period. It's as simple as that. The stand of the law will always come back to this one simple sentence, "KEEP THE PEACE AND DO NOT RESORT TO TAKING THE LAW ON TO YOUR OWN HANDS."

 

[myjohnson]

Bro, I was trying to be diplomatic. Right from the start I can't help but feel these are the typical papitised individuals unable to handle the vexations of life the street smart way. They are always trying to look at life in black and white. But still I will defend my contention that the best course of action will be to play the "game" and bring the police into the picture. I will not elaborate further. This is as far as I will go in this thread.

 

[kuntakinte]

Oooppssss.... Silly me !!

Bro, I was trying to be diplomatic. Right from the start I can't help but feel these are the typical papitised individuals unable to handle the vexations of life the street smart way. They are always trying to look at life in black and white. But still I will defend my contention that the best course of action will be to play the "game" and bring the police into the picture. I will not elaborate further. This is as far as I will go in this thread.