OFT imposes requirements on Mackenzie Hall to improve handling of disputed debts

blind-as-a-bat_2

lowwells PFI is still open since it was up for renewal in 08-Oct-2008, so i doubt II will go through easily.

Question is if it has not actually been re-newed, what is the stance for trading under that name

RAS

fermi wrote: »

One of Lowells' licences is up for renewal in July,

** crosses fingers **

ooOOOOOOOh goody. Made my day. Thanks.

We need to make sure everyone the treat badly reports them.

fermi

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

lowwells PFI is still open since it was up for renewal in 08-Oct-2008, so i doubt II will go through easily.

Question is if it has not actually been re-newed, what is the stance for trading under that name

I expect they have rearranged how the internal organisation works so that that part doesn't need one any more. It costs a lot to renew and maintain a license, so probably allowed to lapse deliberately.

Only a guess, but even Lowells aren't daft enough to trade without one where it is needed surely?

RAS

I think the OFT need to move faster but at least they have started to act.

naijapower

My take is , we ought to encourage people to keep complaining and reporting...
The more the merrier

amime

I keep receiving letters from McKenzie Hall (I assume this is who it is based on the return address) addressed to the previous occupant (over one year ago). I have returned these letters stating the person is no longer at this address. I am now in the process of returning another one to them advising them that if they send another one I will charge them £50 for my returning it to them.

Is there any way I can get them to stop sending letters to someone who is no longer resident and I have no idea where they are now.

Ames

Are there any template letters anywhere? I complained about Fredrickson not complying with a CCA request. The OFT just replied and said I had to send a £1 and go through the procedure with Fredrickson, which I'd already done, and I didn't get a reply from TS. I think there was a problem with what I said to them in the complaint, to stop it from being listened to. It's also put me off complaining to them when they sold the disputed debt on, since they took no notice to start with.

rog2

Ames wrote: »

Are there any template letters anywhere? I complained about Fredrickson not complying with a CCA request. The OFT just replied and said I had to send a £1 and go through the procedure with Fredrickson, which I'd already done, and I didn't get a reply from TS. I think there was a problem with what I said to them in the complaint, to stop it from being listened to. It's also put me off complaining to them when they sold the disputed debt on, since they took no notice to start with.

If you've already requested a cca, and Fredrickson have not complied with your request, then there is no need to go through the procedure again. If Fredrickson decide to take you to Court, then you will have your defence in that you have requested the cca and Fredrickson are in default and have no legal right to enforce the agreement - even if they magically produce the cca to the Court, then they will have to have a pretty convincing reason as to why they did not comply with your request.
In the meantime, keep complaining to the OFT and Trading Standards.

Ames

They haven't taken me to court, just sold it on to Cabot. When I told Cabot off on the phone for chasing me when they shouldn't they went quiet, so I need to wait and see what happens next.

rog2

Ames wrote: »

They haven't taken me to court, just sold it on to Cabot. When I told Cabot off on the phone for chasing me when they shouldn't they went quiet, so I need to wait and see what happens next.

The simply send Cabot a copy of the 'FORMAL NOTICE - ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE' letter that you will find on post 8 of the following thread - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=963087

If Cabot continue to pursue you for payment then make a formal complaint to Trading Standards/OFT and the Financial Ombudsman.

The Debt Collection 'Industry' must not be allowed to openly flout the Law in this way. :mad: :mad: