Mackenzie Hall

tricky_tree_3

GeorgeUK wrote: »

Have you sent the letter about harrassment by phone that i posted?

If not you could send that.
Otherwise you could either ignore the calls as you currently are or you could jsut write to them stating that the debt is statute barred and that you will not be making ayments towards it (template letter also in that linked thread)

Yes I sent the letter about telephone harrassment thanks for posting it. I must admit that seems to have worked, after a flurry of texts and missed unanswered calls they seem to have stopped (heard nothing now in over a fortnight) The NDL advised to send the statute barred letter only if they correspond through writing but as yet I've not heard a sausage from MH. So I've sent nothing else to them.

Many thanks George, yours and Rog2's advice and support are second to none. I'll keep updating this thread as and when anything happens incase others find themselves in a similar situation :beer:

rog2

tricky_tree wrote: »

Many thanks George, yours and Rog2's advice and support are second to none. I'll keep updating this thread as and when anything happens incase others find themselves in a similar situation

Please do, tt. It CAN be frustrating, having to deal with the likes of Mackenzie Hall, but reason usually wins in the end. Good luck.

tricky_tree_3

rog2 wrote: »

Just stick to your guns, tt - MH always prefer to telephone as there is only a miniscule chance that 'debtors' record their phone calls, whereas letters are acceptable forms of evidence.
As George says - send them, recorded, the 'harrassment' letter - keep copies of ALL correspondence between you and these 'creatures from hell'.
As we have said before - if MH feel that they have a genuine case they will, eventually, write.

Good luck.

Thats just what I am doing Rog2, many thanks for the support and wise words. As yet theres been no written corresspondance from them other than me sending the telephone harrassment letter. MH haven't even written to me saying theres a debt after all. Thankfully not had any phone hassle for about a fortnight so we'll see what their next move is. many thanks again and I'll keep updating as and when. :beer:

tricky_tree_3

rog2 wrote: »

Please do, tt. It CAN be frustrating, having to deal with the likes of Mackenzie Hall, but reason usually wins in the end. Good luck.

So true rog2, its really frustrating. I had the initial agressive onslaught from them, now just nothing. I'm well prepared to fight this one and see it to the death but they just seem to have gone back under that rock from which they crawled. I wait with baited breath

tricky_tree_3

Just thought I'd update.......

After months of silence, MH have wrote to me again. They say my debt isn't statute barred because theres a CCJ on it, and I must pay up otherwise they'll send a doorstep collection round (despite me sending them the template regarding doorstep collections). They also claim I made a payment on some random date in 2004 (which I didnt).

Coincidently on the same day as I received MH's letter, I also received a letter from the Student Loans Co saying they had passed all my details of accounts onto a company called Thesis Services, and that SLC would now no longer be dealing with my account.

So whats my next move? Who are Thesis Services?

I should also add I will be emigrating at the end of january. So do I ignore MH's claims and fire off another doorstep collection template?

Any help would be much appreciated

Thanks

TT

tricky_tree_3

Just thought I'd bump this to see if the nightowls are about (sorry I'm an impatient sod)

GeorgeUK

Hi Tricky

As we said earlier, if they were wanting to enforce the debt, they would need to take it back to court as you have not made any payments for over 6 years.

They say my debt isn't statute barred because theres a CCJ on it

This is correct - a CCJ cannot become statute barred.

and I must pay up otherwise they'll send a doorstep collection round (despite me sending them the template regarding doorstep collections).

As they have a CCJ, why are they not sending bailiffs instead of doorstep collectors? Oh yes, because the debt is unenforcable right now unless they go back to court.

They also claim I made a payment on some random date in 2004 (which I didnt).

Not too sure what you should do about this. You could send them a SAR, but they may edit the details of your account. I wouldn't worry about this unless they start adding more pressure, then i would contact nationaldebtline to inform them that they are trying to enforce a CCJ that is more than 6 years old and have claimed you have made a payment when you have not. See what they would advise.

(Since they have updated their site, i can't find that section to link to)

No idea who Thesis Services are. Possibly a DCA that specialises in collecting educational debts by the sound of them.

tricky_tree_3

Thanks again George, top advice as usual :beer:

It had made me wonder why they keep on with the threat of doorstep collection. I may fire off another doorstep collection template and see what happens.

As for Thesis Services, I'm digging round the net and I believe they are part of Link Financial Services. I've heard of them but as yet not had chance to do any more research. If they are another DCA is it possible for 2 DCA's to chase the same debt? It seems strange that the SLC inform me about Thesis Services yet nothing about why MH are chasing.

Will keep updating, as and when.

Thanks again

TT

rog2

tricky_tree wrote: »

After months of silence, MH have wrote to me again. They say my debt isn't statute barred because theres a CCJ on it, and I must pay up otherwise they'll send a doorstep collection round (despite me sending them the template regarding doorstep collections). They also claim I made a payment on some random date in 2004 (which I didnt).

Coincidently on the same day as I received MH's letter, I also received a letter from the Student Loans Co saying they had passed all my details of accounts onto a company called Thesis Services, and that SLC would now no longer be dealing with my account.

So whats my next move? Who are Thesis Services?

Hi TT - sorry I've not been around much, lately, but I have just seen your update, and there are a few points:

1. If a CCJ has been issued, then the 'debt' does not, normally, come under the terms of the Limitation Act - provided, of course that the CCJ was issued within the original Limitation Period. HOWEVER, if a CCJ has not been 'enforced' for six years, then MH would need to apply to the Courts for permission to 'enforce' that CCJ and, in order to do so, they must give a very good reason as to why they did not enforce the order within the six years.
2. It is, also, a typical MH tactic to claim that a 'debt' is not statute barred because a payment was made during the 'limitation period'. However, they must prove that a genuine payment was indeed made and that that payment was made by the alleged debtor (not, for example, by an internal credit or by allocating money that you may have paid as a statutory fee, for instance for a cca or SAR request. IF MH are so sure of their statement regarding the CCJ, then why would they need to claim that the debt is not statute barred due to an alleged payment by you? In my opinion, they are clutching at straws in order to entrap you into admittin liability for this 'debt'.
3. I have not, personally, come accross the crowd called 'Thesis Services' but, to answer your question, the Office of Fair Trading, in their 'Guidelines on Debt Collection' do, indeed, consider it to be an unfair practice for a creditor to use more than one Debt Collection Agency to pursue an 'alleged debt' at the same time; http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf The fact that 'Thesis Services' appear to be the current 'owners' of the alleged debt (they probably purchased it for a few pence in the pound) would indicate to me that MacKenzie Hall were 'bounty hunting' and that they were never 'owners' of this alleged debt, nor were they acting under the instructions of the original creditor. This is yet another example of the depths to which MH will sink, in order to make an easy buck.

Above all, TT, please do not let this unfortunate incident interfere, in any way, with your plans for emigration. Neither MH, nor Thesis Services, can take any action against you, outside of the UK, to collect on a UK consumer debt, regardless of the existence of a UK CCJ, nor should it affect your credit rating in your new country.

tricky_tree_3

Thanks again Rog2, both yourself and GeorgeUK have been most helpful throughout this thread :beer:


I have to agree regarding MH and their bounty hunting tactics. The SLC have never said they were passing the account to them to collect. I have decided to send MH another doorstep collection template and see what their next move is.

As for Thesis Services, well they have yet to write to me. From doing some research on the net I believe the SLC have passed over 800,000 accounts to them for loans pre 1998. So when they finally do contact me I shall update.

Once again many thanks for your wise words and wisdom, you have been a great help and its very much appreciated.

I will update as and when.

Thanks

TT