Mackenzie Hall / CCJ

Perhaps what you should have done is act more maturely in the first place and either answered my original question or even before that explained why you didn't think they could be re-registered when I had already stated they could and stated that it didn't happen very often. I would then have taken the trouble to explain.

I don't know what experience/involvement you have in the debt collection field but sometimes a little knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge at all. 'Advice' you put on here could easily be believed by people with no experiernce what-so-ever and the potential for damage is vast. Just be certain of your facts before you get in too deep.

well at least i hope thats what they wrote to me for as otherwise i have no idea

TAG wrote:

In view of your aggresive and patronising posts to me Tootsie Roll, I can only summise that you must work for or have worked for a DCA. And if I'm wrong (again) then maybe you should ponder it as a career. With an attitude like yours it would be right up your street!

TAG, without wishing to add fuel to the fire so to speak you are indeed correct and TR (Troll) is an Ex DCA, and although some of his post are indeed factually correct and well meaning he does have a tendency to incite argument and hence (under various screen names) he has been removed and banned from various other boards for what some consider to be inappropriate conduct.

Nonetheless, he is correct in a lot of his statements, especially that some people tend to use these boards as a route to debt avoidance rather than debt resolution.

Anyway, with regards to the OP’s original question Mackenzie Hall do specialise in time expired, or hard to recover debt, they are also (allegedly) known to write to people on a purely spurious basis in regards to debt related to other people with the same or very similar names, and they are also known to “aggressively pursue” these cases.

The best bet for the O.P is to send a letter something similar to that which I have attached below, and wait for the deafening silence in response!

If they do continue to pursue after non-compliance to the attached they should be reported to your local trading standards and the OFT as appropriate.

---

Courtesy of the “Debt help uk Board”;

I do not acknowledge ANY debt to your company. I require you to supply the following documentation before I will correspond further on this matter.

1. You must supply me with a true copy of the alleged agreement you refer to. This is my right under your obligation to supply a copy of the agreement under the legislation contained within s.78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s.77 (1) for fixed sum credit) - your obligation also extends to providing a statement of account. I enclose a £1 postal order in payment of the statutory fee, PO Serial Number xxxxx.

2. A signed true copy of the deed of assignment of the above referenced agreement that you allege exists.

3. You are notified that you are obliged to supply these documents, whether you are the original creditor or not.

Non-compliance with my request is a criminal offence under the above Act and will result in a report being submitted to the relevant statutory authorities.

---

This letter can be used for ther DCA if the debt is purchased, or the original creditor if the DCA is acting as a recovery agent on their behalf, if / when they have confirmed that they have the right to recover then you can evaluate your options.

Depends who obtained the original order, it is 99% likely that it would of been the original creditor who was the claimant in the court proceedings, therefore it would be most likely that they would be the ones to "re-register" the CCJ,

However details of the order would also be held by the registry trust which can be searched separately by anyone with reasonable cause, and this is where the CRA's obtain thier data rather than a direct upload from the data controlers ( Creditors / DCA's)

http://www.registry-trust.org.uk/

General advice is if that you are in the position of receiving an order then it should be satisfied as soon as is reasonable practicable, however always confirm that those who are attempting to recover the debt are lawfully entitled to do so.

Go’s back to the original question, and will depend on the following;

1. Have M.H purchased the debt, or are they acting as a recovery agent on the creditors behalf, if it is the former then the letter / P.O should be made payable to M.H, if it is the latter then you should only deal with the original creditor.

2. If M.H are chasing a CCJ it is 99% likely that they are acting as agents, you should therefore direct all correspondence and requests for proof to the original creditor ( however inform M.H by recorded post that the debt is in dispute and that their contact should cease until you have resolved the matter with the original creditor / claimant)

3. The CCA S77 . 78 letter is more intended for debts before they get to the CCJ stage, however if the creditor / DCA are unable to provide the original agreement then this would in fact give you reasonable caused to apply for the CCJ to be set aside as the claimant can not prove that a correctly executed CCA agreement was in place, thus the debt is technically unenforceable.

4. notwithstanding any of the above, (and most importantly) M.H normal chase these debts on a purely speculative basis, and 9/10 times can not correctly document their entitlement to recover. Therefore you should always either request proof of the original debt, and / or any notices of assignment from the original creditor .