help: in court vs marlin on monday

rochdalecowboy_2

Hi, I was in court about 3 months ago for a debt to marbles credit card (HFC) which is being pursued by marlin, when i was last in court they only brought a copy of an application form with no terms and conditions on or any mention of APR, they also tried to use a copy of terms and conditions for a different HFC credit card. The judge adjourned it and asked marlin to bring the original copy of the application form (which they claim is the credit agreement) or give a satisfactory reason why they can't obtain it. They have written saying they cant get hold of it but they have included terms and conditions for a marbles credit card although this has no link to me. I would be extremely grateful for advice on how to approach this in court,
many thanks

robpw2

take the letter with you
if they dont have what the court asked for then they will not be able to win

RAS

Hi marlin are probably hoping you will not turn up and they will win by default.

So go and take your letter and point out that the OFT recently put additional requirements on Mackenzie Hall for pursuing debts that are in dispute, including those where there is no valid CCA. if MH do not improve they will be fined or lose their licence, so marlin should be careful.

rochdalecowboy_2

is mackenzie hall the same as marlin

RAS

frankly, I no longer know who owns whom in the credit industry, but the same rules apply to both.

stapeley

Just in case the Judge is unaware of the OFT guidelines ,point it out .

stapeley

My money , if I had any , would be on them not turning up !

rochdalecowboy_2

they turned up last time, any last minute advice would be gratefully received

stapeley

Sorry it so late . If they turn up with the original application form , ask the Judge if the consumer credit act does not require that a copy of a true signed agreement containing all the prescribed terms be supplied on request ? If the Judge appears to be moving towards the claimants side ask that the true signed copy of a Consumer Credit AGREEMENT is shown . If it seems to be going your way say nothin !!!!!!!! GOOD LUCK let us know how it goes .

RAS

RC

Read this. It relates to Mackenzie Hall but it clear evidence that the OFt regard continued pursuit of a disputed debt to be on contravention of their guidelines.

Ask marlin if this debt is covered by the Consumer Credit Act?

Next ask them if their licence is subject to OGT scrutiny.

then tell them that continued pursit of disputed debts contravenes OFt guidelines, as evidenced by this case re Mac hall

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

Press release:

Quote:
The Office of Fair Trading has taken action against Mackenzie Hall Ltd, a debt collection company, requiring it to improve its practices.

Download Mackenzie Hall requirements (pdf 47 kb).

The OFT has used its powers under consumer credit legislation to impose 'requirements' on Mackenzie Hall after an investigation found that some of its business processes failed to meet satisfactory standards. As a result of these requirements, Mackenzie Hall must not:

• pursue a debt where it has been notified in writing that there is reasonable cause to believe that the debt is in dispute, and
• pursue a debt where it has been notified in writing that the debt is statute barred.

Failure to comply with a requirement could lead to a fine of up to £50,000 and/or possible revocation of Mackenzie Hall's consumer credit licence.

Following an application by the company to renew its existing consumer credit licence, the OFT carried out an in-depth investigation into Mackenzie Hall's business practices and procedures, including a visit to its offices. The investigation found that whilst the company's procedures were of a satisfactory standard, complaint evidence received by the OFT showed that some of these procedures were not always followed.

The OFT raised its concerns with Mackenzie Hall and confirmed that it would be looking to impose requirements to improve compliance. Mackenzie Hall acknowledged the problems and, as allowed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, made a proposal to address the OFT's concerns.

Ray Watson, OFT Director for Consumer Credit, said:

'Persisting with debt collection activity when debts are in dispute can give rise to significant consumer detriment, particularly where vulnerable consumers are involved.'

'In this case Mackenzie Hall has co-operated fully with the OFT and has taken steps to ensure that the business follows correct procedures for handling disputed and statute barred debts.'

'We will continue to use our licensing powers to take action to protect consumers where debt collectors fail to ensure full compliance with our guidance.'
The requirements:

Quote:
THE OFT REQUIRES AS FOLLOWS:

1. That as of 15 April 2009

1.1 Mackenzie Hall Limited will not carry out Debt Collection Activity where it has been informed, in writing, that there is reasonable cause to believe that the debt is in dispute.

1.2 Mackenzie Hall Limited will not carry out Debt Collection Activity where it has been informed, in writing, that the account is statute barred.

Debt Collection Activity is defined as:

a) sending debt collection letters;

b) making of debt collection calls;

c) the use of any other medium for the purpose of collecting an outstanding debt; or

d) the acceptance of payments offered against a debt.

A debt is considered as in dispute where:

a) it has been reasonably demonstrated that the debt has been
previously paid;

b) a request under section 77 or 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has not been complied with, and this prevents the agreement being enforced without the permission of the court;

c) it is reasonably believed that the debt may have been incurred as a result of identity theft or fraud; or

d) it is reasonably doubted that the person being pursued for the debt is the actual debtor.

For the avoidance of doubt, where only part of a debt is disputed Mackenzie Hall Limited may seek to recover any other part of the debt that is not disputed.

ANY FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS WILL RENDER MACKENZIE HALL LIMITED LIABLE TO FURTHER FORMAL ACTION BY THE OFT. THIS COULD INCLUDE THE IMPOSITION OF FINANCIAL PENALTIES PURSUANT TO SECTION 39A OF THE ACT AND/OR THE REVOCATION OF MACKENZIE HALL LIMITED'S CONSUMER CREDIT LICENCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 32 OF THE ACT.