Old Debt? Mackenzie Hall

Tixy

Hi

Phone contact doesn't count as acknowledging the debt. And if you hadn't paid anything from 2001 to 2011 or contacted them (and assuming they don't have a CCJ) then the debt would already be statute barred and nothing you do now would mean it would stop being statute barred.

If you didn't pay them or contact them in writing for more than a 6year period then send them the SB template letter.

FTW

Tixy wrote: »

Hi

Phone contact doesn't count as acknowledging the debt. And if you hadn't paid anything from 2001 to 2011 or contacted them (and assuming they don't have a CCJ) then the debt would already be statute barred and nothing you do now would mean it would stop being statute barred.

If you didn't pay them or contact them in writing for more than a 6year period then send them the SB template letter.

Agree with the above. SB letter's the best course of action. But put no signature on the letter, and ensure it's sent recorded delivery so that you have evidence they received it.

Fred76

fatbelly wrote: »

Hi Fred

Ask for their 'final response' on the matter. They have eight weeks from when the complaint was first made.

You can then refer it to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The complaint form is very straightforward and on the FOS site. Although it will take them a long time to adjudicate, they may well rule in your favour. You may also wish to send the same information to the Office of Fair Trading. Although OFT do not respond to individual complaints, they will add your evidence to their dossier on Mac Hall.

Should think they'll need a forklift to move that...

Thank you for your answer. Their final response was that they are unbale to uphold my complaint because there is no necessity for them to be in possession of any documentary evidence priot to initianting contact with a costumer. This sounds to me incredible considered the fact that the creditor admitted in the end that I was the wrong costumer. It is like "well just take some names randomly and ask for some money. If they pay great, if not, well, sorry but I don't care at all if I cause you distress". If was not taking the matter seriously writing different letters, they were still threatening legal action at this time! That's why I was wondering if it is by law that they don't need to have any documentary evidence in the beginning of a process of debt collection and they can attack whoever they want. If it is not the case, this is for me gartuitous harassement. What do you think?

FTW

Fred76 wrote: »

Thank you for your answer. Their final response was that they are unbale to uphold my complaint because there is no necessity for them to be in possession of any documentary evidence priot to initianting contact with a costumer. This sounds to me incredible considered the fact that the creditor admitted in the end that I was the wrong costumer. It is like "well just take some names randomly and ask for some money. If they pay great, if not, well, sorry but I don't care at all if I cause you distress". If was not taking the matter seriously writing different letters, they were still threatening legal action at this time! That's why I was wondering if it is by law that they don't need to have any documentary evidence in the beginning of a process of debt collection and they can attack whoever they want. If it is not the case, this is for me gartuitous harassement. What do you think?

If you've already written to MH and reminded them of where they stand, then I'd suggest the OFT (MH have already been warned by them), the Financial Ombudsman Service (if they investigate, MH pays for the privilege of them doing so), and Consumer Direct, who will refer you to Alan Stewart, who's the poor TS guy who has the MH caseload.

The more evidence mounts up against MH, the more inclined that arbitration bodies will be to do something against them.

fatbelly

FTW wrote: »

If you've already written to MH and reminded them of where they stand, then I'd suggest the OFT (MH have already been warned by them), the Financial Ombudsman Service (if they investigate, MH pays for the privilege of them doing so), and Consumer Direct, who will refer you to Alan Stewart, who's the poor TS guy who has the MH caseload.

The more evidence mounts up against MH, the more inclined that arbitration bodies will be to do something against them.

I agree completely. All the contacts/complaint forms are on these websites. You could also complain to their 'professional' body, the credit services association. That probably won't do a lot of good but then they can't say that they were unaware of how their members operate.

The FOS are not so concerned with the letter of the law as with what is 'reasonable', which this behaviour clearly is NOT.

Hopefully a slap for MH and some compensation for you is on the cards.

Suzee100

Hi Guys,

This site is brilliant; I am a newbie so am hoping someone may be able to give me some advice.

In 2005, I defaulted on an AMEX corporate charge card; AMEX wrote a number of times but to be honest I was going through some personal stufff and ignored them.

After some time, the debt got passed to Steven Drake Solicitors who requested a CCJ / Default Notice and within a very short space of time a charge came through from Steven Drakes to be applied on my home.

The charge included late fees and interest i'm assuming.

Since the charge I have been paying £1000 per year for the last 4 years; Steven Drakes have never offered a settlement but I want to know now how much of the charge they believe is remaining.

I also want to ask the court to review the CCJ as from reading posts on this site a charge card should not be under the CCA.

I also want to dispute how the amount of the charge has been calculated and the allocated time given to me by Steven Drakes to respond to the DN.

I am not sue of my rights but I know that I have paid most of this charge and its about time for it to be removed.

Any ideas on how I should go about this? Or am I being too optimistic.

fermi

Fred76 wrote: »

Thank you for your answer. Their final response was that they are unbale to uphold my complaint because there is no necessity for them to be in possession of any documentary evidence priot to initianting contact with a costumer.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Just goes to prove what idiots and cowboys they are.

FTW

Fred76 wrote: »

Their final response was that they are unbale to uphold my complaint because there is no necessity for them to be in possession of any documentary evidence priot to initianting contact with a costumer.

This is one of the funniest responses I've ever encountered from any DCA - an open admission that they're on very shaky ground.:rotfl:

You could always argue that if they're not in possession of any documentary evidence, then how do they know that you've breached any agreement?

Where's their proof that you owe them anything? I don't think whoever drafted that MH letter quite realised what they've said.

Fred76 wrote: »

This sounds to me incredible considered the fact that the creditor admitted in the end that I was the wrong costumer.

It's not incredible - MH are chancers, and are well known as such.

They don't care if you're the wrong customer or not - all that matters to them someone paying them, and they don't care who it is that does.

Fred76 wrote: »

It is like "well just take some names randomly and ask for some money. If they pay great, if not, well, sorry but I don't care at all if I cause you distress".

That's exactly how MH work, and have worked for a long time.

Fred76 wrote: »

If was not taking the matter seriously writing different letters, they were still threatening legal action at this time!

That would never happen - MH have never once taken anyone to court, and the same applies to their subsidiary company Meritforce.

Neither company would want you to know that, though.

Fred76 wrote: »

That's why I was wondering if it is by law that they don't need to have any documentary evidence in the beginning of a process of debt collection and they can attack whoever they want. If it is not the case, this is for me gartuitous harassement. What do you think?

It is harassment, and should be treated as such. And in all such cases, I would at least involve the OFT, Consumer Direct and the Financial Ombudsman Service.

scothan

I just received a letter from Mackenzie Hall stating that they have been attempting to contact the person named on the letter (me), regarding a personal matter and to contact them immediately quoting a reference number.

When I contacted them they advised me that I owed them £758 for a kind of loan or debt which was organised (apparantly by me) on 29 November 2004 with Clydsdale Financial. They added that I would have to pay the oustanding amount.

I let them know that I couldn't possibly have anything to do with this loan or debt as I was serving with the forces in Iraq from October 2004 until May 2005.

The advisor added that it may be the case that I have been the victim of identity fraud and that I should get an incident number for them to close the case.

They didn't actually appear to have the information surrounding the debt to hand either.

I am absolutely baffled by this and would appreciate any help from anyone on what I should do next or where i stand.

mikeymack2002

scothan wrote: »

I just received a letter from Mackenzie Hall stating that they have been attempting to contact the person named on the letter (me), regarding a personal matter and to contact them immediately quoting a reference number.

When I contacted them they advised me that I owed them £758 for a kind of loan or debt which was organised (apparantly by me) on 29 November 2004 with Clydsdale Financial. They added that I would have to pay the oustanding amount.

I let them know that I couldn't possibly have anything to do with this loan or debt as I was serving with the forces in Iraq from October 2004 until May 2005.

The advisor added that it may be the case that I have been the victim of identity fraud and that I should get an incident number for them to close the case.

They didn't actually appear to have the information surrounding the debt to hand either.

I am absolutely baffled by this and would appreciate any help from anyone on what I should do next or where i stand.

1 High Street,
Newtown,
Kent
R21 4RH

March 10, 2011

The Loan Company
Company House,
Church Street,
Newtown,
Kent,
R1 7HG


Dear Sir/Madam
Account No: 4563210025897412
You have contacted us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by yourselves. We would point out that we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to The Loan Company. We are familiar with the .Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance. which states that it is unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question. We would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods. Furthermore, ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment. We would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above accounts unless you can provide evidence as to our liability for the debt in question. We await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise we will have no option but to make a complaint to the trading standards department and consider informing the OFT of your actions.
We look forward to your reply.


Yours faithfully


Mr A N Other