Meritforce doorstep visit letter - best course of action?

nickfletcher

I have just received an 'Authorised Collector Visit' warning letter from Meritforce. The letter claims that due to "non-payment of the above debt to Mackenzie Hall, we have been instructed to collect this debt". The client for the alleged debt is shown as "Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd".

I have never had any financial dealings with Cabot Financial. Indeed, Cabot Financial are themselves a debt collector as far as I know.

It is possible that this alleged debt relates to money that I owed to a credit card over six years ago. However, there's not enough information on the letter for me to establish whether or not this is the case. The letter does not include any account numbers that I recognise.

The last time I was in debt to any organisation was over six years ago and I have not had any communication with anyone about any debts for more than six years. Thus I know that, even if this claim refers to money that I actually owed, it is now statute barred.

So my question is: What should I do in response to this letter?

It seems to me I can do one of four things:
1) Ignore it.
2) Write back, deny any knowledge of the debt, and ask them for more information.
3) Write back with a CCA request.
4) Write back with a "statute barred" letter.

Which is best?

Although the "statute barred" letter seems most appropriate, I am uncomfortable with it since it amounts to admitting that the alleged debt was real, whereas I don't actually know what the claim refers to. I only know that, even if real, it must be time expired.

Johnny_Chaos

Ignore it and throw it in the bin. No details of the debt, the name of a company you've never heard of - not worth worrying about.

I suspect it's a company just going through their slush pile of long forgotten debts to see if they can claw back some old money. A shot in the dark.

Unless they have specified an exact time and date on the letter, they will not call round. They may not write again, but if they do you can deal with it then.

fermi

Option 1) or 2) I would say.

If 2) then:

1 High Street,
Newtown,
Kent
R21 4RH
October 9, 2007

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

Dear Sir/Madam

Ref: xxxxxxxxxxx

You have contacted us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by ourselves.

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.

Furthermore, should it be your intention to arrange a “doorstep call”, please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make an appointment with you.

There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.).

Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so, then you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance.

We also notice the OFT have recently placed requirements on Mackenzie Hall Ltd. Specifically, that they/you and all connected companies cease collection activity and enforcement while any debt remains queried or disputed. Should you ignore this requirement, a complaint with the OFT and other regulatory bodies will be raised.

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





Mrs A N Other

nickfletcher

Thanks for the reply.

Johnny_Chaos wrote: »

Ignore it and throw it in the bin. No details of the debt, the name of a company you've never heard of - not worth worrying about.

For the avoidance of doubt I should make it clear that the letter contains no details that I recognise. The letter does specify:
a) The alleged client (Cabot Finanial (Europe) Ltd, with whom I have never had any dealings);
b) A "Client Reference" account number (which I've never seen before); and
c) The principal sum (which could conceivably be similar to the amount I owed to the credit card but which I nevertheless don't recognise).

Johnny_Chaos wrote: »

I suspect it's a company just going through their slush pile of long forgotten debts to see if they can claw back some old money. A shot in the dark.

It sure looks like it.

Johnny_Chaos wrote: »

Unless they have specified an exact time and date on the letter, they will not call round.

This is an interesting point. The letter threatens that "An authorised collector will make a visit to your property within the next 10 days" but does not give a specific date.

I presume that "within the next 10 days" is not precise enough to qualify as an appointment?

I can't say that a visit worries me personally but this is my elderly mum's house and it would greatly upset her.

nickfletcher

Many thanks for your reply and for the template letter.

fermi wrote: »

Option 1) or 2) I would say.

I think that I shall ignore Meritforce's letter for the time being and then proceed to using the template letter should they contact me again.

In addition this bit from the template letter is particularly interesting:

We also notice the OFT have recently placed requirements on Mackenzie Hall Ltd. Specifically, that they/you and all connected companies cease collection activity and enforcement while any debt remains queried or disputed.

Do you have any references to this? Being able to quote chapter and verse might well come in useful.

fermi

nickfletcher wrote: »

Do you have any references to this? Being able to quote chapter and verse might well come in useful.

Here

---

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

nickfletcher

fermi wrote: »

Here

---

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

Thanks! :-)