Mackenzie Hall - not my debt

waynehayes

Hi folks.

In the past week we have had 3 letters from Mackenzie Hall. The first 2 were addressed to 'The Occupier', looking for a certain person, the 3rd letter was addressed to him personally. This person is not, and never has lived at this address, but he is my partners ex boyfriend from 10 years ago. She has had no contact with him since then, and has no financial ties to him.
Should we respond to the letter or ignore it? Will they try to pursue the action further - i.e. send round the bailiffs? Also, how would they have got this address?
Thanks in advance.

fermi

Just return as "not known" at this address.

They need a court order for bailiffs, but if you are not the person and can prove it then they can't touch you or your things.

I doubt knowing MH that it would ever go to that anyway. They depend more on scare tactics and nasty letters.

Try not to worry.

RAS

Fermi is right. She may have had a joint account and they have her name, so they are fishing. Apart from the fact that they are breaking the Data Protection Act and OFT Guidelines,....

Ignore.

bathgatebuyer

That's my reaction - they are breaching OFT Guidelines in sending mail to 'the occupier'.

Another effort by MK to try and cream money off people.

fermi

Depends on the exact content of the letter really.

1. Was there a demand for payment or action threatened?
2. Were any personal details or details of the debt disclosed?

Deceptive and/or unfair methods

2.7 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair.

2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

a. sending demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question, for example, threatening debt recovery action to 'the occupier' or sending a payment demand to all people sharing the same name/date of birth as a debtor in the hope that contact with the correct debtor will be made.

b. disclosing debt details to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question, for example, disclosing details to 'the occupier' of an address.

As usual they will try to use perceived 'grey areas' in the guidelines. :rolleyes:

waynehayes

The last letter - which was addressed to the person in particular - had details of the debt and the creditor too. It also asked for payment and that proceedings to recover the debt will follow.

fermi

waynehayes wrote: »

The last letter - which was addressed to the person in particular - had details of the debt and the creditor too. It also asked for payment and that proceedings to recover the debt will follow.

Is that only on the one that was personally addressed to them?

Strictly, you shouldn't have opened that.

RAS

I suspect that they will argue that the letter was addressed to him rather than the occupier but ask the Information Commisioner.

What they seem to be doing is laying a trail by sending letters with the ex's name addressed to the Occupier and then send a letter addressed to him whilst

1. having no evidence that he is living there.
2. having made almost ensured that the occupier will now be conversant with his name and concerned about the content of the letter, even if they knew nothing before.

waynehayes

fermi wrote: »

Is that only on the one that was personally addressed to them?

Strictly, you shouldn't have opened that.

The second had his name too and stated that ours might be 'the possible address of our subject'.

fermi

waynehayes wrote: »

The second had his name too and stated that ours might be 'the possible address of our subject'.

Did it contain any more details than the name? Details of the debt? Other personal details of him?

fermi

Unless I am mistaken here, we have.

Two letters addressed to "the occupier" stating that they are seeking "this person". That is all. No details of the debt disclosed and no personal details other than the name.

Then another letter actually addressed to him that you (in theory) shouldn't have opened.

Is that correct?

If that is so, then it is sneaky, but not strictly a breach of the "letter" of the guidelines as far as I can see.