Old Debt? Mackenzie Hall

rog2

Hi india - it is correct that MH should establish the identity of an 'alleged debtor' before they discuss any 'alleged debt' with them, although this little 'legality' has never appeared to have stopped them from so doing in the past.
You, on the other hand, are under no obligation whatsoever to divulge any of your personal details to the lowlife that is MacKenzie Hall.
By the sound of it, you actually spoke with one of the more 'educated' members of that institution.
Don't worry about their 'FINAL NOTICE' - they don't understand the word 'Final'.
Have a look at:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf

PROLIANT

Tell them to go away, you do not have to pay this old debt, it is statute Barred end of story, no faf, no if, no well do this, simple finished.

lowellcrooks

BEWARE OF STATUTE-BARRED/1973 CCA NOT COMPLIED WITH (LEGALLY UNENFORCEABLE) 'DEBT-CRICKET' :

Yes, debt cricket is my term for the crapola which seems to go on when you have sent the 1973CCA £1 document copy request and the statute-barred letter off. As these chancers buy cheap pennies-in-the-pound 'accounts' over 6 years old, they seldom ever get the original signed agreements - if the accounts came with all this they would sell for a lot more. The banks destroy them usually after 6-years (I know this from insiders) and even if Lowlife etc. DO have them, they will just serve to confirm to the alleged debtor that the amount is statute-barred.
REMEMBER NEVER RING A DEBT-PURCHASE COMPANY!!

I have recently had inside info from one large DPC ex-employee that they DREAD THE 1973 CCA £1/STATUTE BARRED LETTER!

The staff who get commissions/shares of amounts they can talk you into paying HATE THEM as they often compete each month for the best totals agreed with the gullible debtors, and the 1973 CCA letter immediately goes down as a NO-SALE; "oh dear you won't collect anything on that!!!" is the repartee between the competing employees on the phones when one of the accounts of their fellow employee gets handed one of these CCA 1973 replies...

ANYWAY, the situation is not forgotten - the staff will harass you after the expiry of the 1973 CCA time period of 12 days with further letters like the statutory demand tactic, or a vexatious CC Summons to intimidate you (as in my case!) or other styles of threatening letters, in the case of Lowlife Portfolio you'll get one form 'Hamptons Legal' (small print at bottom says it's a 'trading style' of Lowlife Financial) or 'RED DEBTCOLLECTION SERVICES) yes! another trading style zzzzzzzz..yawn...

Now the CRICKET I mentioned. These scum are aware they are illegally harassing you hence they use different trading names to (in their eyes) 'dissipate' the accumulative effect of their harassment so you don't associate it with the same company.

Here is MY story. I got contacted by Lowlife 16 months ago, FORTUNATELY I saw this site and did the 1973 CCA and Statute-Barred response, told them it was legally uncollectable and I won't be paying it (6.8k) and if they disagreed take me to C-Court. Of course they DIDN'T comply with the 1973 CCA obligations for my £1 but DID issue a summons, I defended it in total for the above reasons and plus that it was purely for intimidation thus vexatious, they never proceeded with the case and it was 'stayed' (which means it couldn't be re-opened unless they applied and paid a large fee to sit with a judge to explain why, and they are VERY RARELY un-stayed unless there is a very very good reason!)

So, legally out of the woods, but still got the odd 'secured loan junk mail' from Lowlifes associated finance company ALLSCOTT (ok, they can't get an alleged 6.8k debt out of me but they'll still try to commission me a loan d'oh!!)

WHEN DOES IT STOP????
Last week I got a threatening letter from Mackenzie Hall FOR THE SAME MATTER!!!
"Dear Mr. G.ULLIBLE-TWIT,
Please fill in the standing order form below to clear this debt with 195 weekly payments of £33.71 (approx as I remember it) and avoid further action. Failure to do so in 7 days may result in further action being taken...blah.....fart....pooh....spit....dribble........"
"If you have any difficulty in this please-mail [EMAIL="LOWELL@MACKENZIEHALL.CO.UK"]LOWELL@MACKENZIEHALL.CO.UK[/EMAIL] assoon as possible or call us on 1234567"

SO there's the cricket. The alleged debt being bounced around everyone before being bowled again, despite having a stayed court-case on it, and the breach of the 1973 CCA, the statute-barring.......etc......zzz......

I'm sorry if this upsets anyone, but I've had the last straw with these prats. Instead of using the pre-paid reply envelope, I copied the addy onto a blank one so I could deliberately make them pay a postage surcharge, marked the envelope "settlement cheque' and let's just say the back of their letter became somewhat altered when it was 'accidentally' left on a certain wooden fixture in the bathroom which usually has a long soft chain of tissue on it, and me not wearing my glasses, well accidents happen......

Was sent back to them earlier today.

debt_management

This company has a record of harassing people who may have previously had old (over 6 years) outstanding debts which they owed to another institution. MacKenzie Hall bought debts owed to other lenders and they subsequently aggressively contact those borrowers, irrespective of the time when last contact was made or when judgement was filed.
It should be noted that this course of action is invariably illegal and once it has been made clear to Mackenzie Hall (or indeed any other debt collector) in writing, that you wish no further contact they must refrain from contacting you and if they wish to pursue their claim, they must do so through the courts.

Should anyone seek more advice on this please feel free to contact me.

Regards
Debt Management

fermi

debt_management wrote: »

Should anyone seek more advice on this please feel free to contact me.

If anyone needs any advice, they should be contacting National Debtline, CCCS or CAB. NOT someone anonymous on a forum who only has one post and a username that suggests that they charge for advice.

Correct information and advice can be found here:

Link: Factsheet | Liability for Debts and the Limitation Act (England/Wales)
Link: Factsheet | Liability for debts & the Prescription & Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973

lillaG

hi
my boyfriends mum was being harrassed by MH and now by J2solutions for the same debt. she was gaurantor for my boyfriend in 1998 so he could get a car. after 2 years he did not keep up his repayments so they took the car back. now MH and J2solutions are demanding 6k. they have phoned nieghbours and knocked on their doors trying to find out if my boyfreind or his mum still live at the address. they now have my address as me and my boyfriend now live together but are still harrassing his mum and she is becoming a nervous wreck because of it. do they have a right to still be ringing his mum and bullying her even if they know where my boyfriend lives.

rog2

lillaG wrote: »

my boyfriends mum was being harrassed by MH and now by J2solutions for the same debt.

J2 Solutions and MacKenzie Hall are one and the same, lillaG.

There are a few issues, here:

1. When was the last payment made to, or written acknowledgement of, the 'alleged debt'?

2. Was the car actually 'repossessed' or did your boyfriend simply give it back?

3. MacKenzie Hall/J2 should not be harassing your boyfriend's mum, and certainly not under the guise of two separate debt collection agencies. It is against the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines for a creditor to use more than one dca to pursue the same debt, at the same time, as this can cause confusion and be misleading to the 'alleged debtor';

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf

My guess is that this 'alleged debt' is, probably, statute barred, and that MH have 'purchased' an otherwise written off debt, in the hope that niether your boyfriend, or his parents, are aware of the protection that either the Limitation Act, 1980, or the Consumer Credit Act, 1974, affords them.

lillaG

the last payment or acknowlegment was no less than 8 years ago. the car was repossesed so my opinion is that why should he pay for something that he no longer has. surley taking the car back was enough to cover the debt. the car was worth 9k and he had already paid 6k before they took it away

rog2

lillaG wrote: »

the last payment or acknowlegment was no less than 8 years ago. the car was repossesed so my opinion is that why should he pay for something that he no longer has. surley taking the car back was enough to cover the debt. the car was worth 9k and he had already paid 6k before they took it away

Then your boyfriend's mum must send them the 'Statute Barred' letter:

http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/england_wales/factsheet.php?page=25_liability_for_debts_and_the_limitation_act

It is up to J2 to prove if there was any payment, or written acknowledgement, within the last six years.

lillaG

thanks rog2. she's been afraid to answer the phone for a few weeks now. maybe now i can put her at ease.