We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MacKenzie Hall's utter contempt of OFT requirements!!!
rog2
Posts: 11,650 Forumite
It is now three months since we reported that the Office of Fair trading had imposed 'requirements' on Mackenzie Hall to 'improve handling of disputed debts' - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1639473
Let us be perfectly clear about what the requirement actually says:
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 debt is statute barred.
...................................
ANY FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS COULD RENDER MACKENZIE HALL LIMITED 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
The full document can be viewed here: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/requirements.pdf
To me, at least, the requirements are crystal clear. However, it would appear that, rather than 'curb' the activities of this particular rascidovistic bunch of greed driven vultures, they seem to be pursuing 'unenforceable debts' with renewed gusto - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=114858 (among many)
They appear to be relying on the fact that the requirements imply that they only need to cease 'Debt Collection Activity' if they have been informed, in writing, by the debtor, so to do.
They are still actively pursuing debts which are well out of statute - safe in the knowledge that 99% of all of their potential victims will be unaware either of the protection that the Limitation Act affords them, or of the OFT requirements that they are supposed to be respecting and working to.
I would like to suggest that anyone who has to write to MacKenzie Hall, for whatever reason, prints off a copy of the OFT requirements, from the above link, and staples them to their letter.
More of a rant than a thread, but their attitude just makes me see red. :mad: :mad:
Let us be perfectly clear about what the requirement actually says:
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 debt is statute barred.
...................................
ANY FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS COULD RENDER MACKENZIE HALL LIMITED 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
The full document can be viewed here: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/requirements.pdf
To me, at least, the requirements are crystal clear. However, it would appear that, rather than 'curb' the activities of this particular rascidovistic bunch of greed driven vultures, they seem to be pursuing 'unenforceable debts' with renewed gusto - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=114858 (among many)
They appear to be relying on the fact that the requirements imply that they only need to cease 'Debt Collection Activity' if they have been informed, in writing, by the debtor, so to do.
They are still actively pursuing debts which are well out of statute - safe in the knowledge that 99% of all of their potential victims will be unaware either of the protection that the Limitation Act affords them, or of the OFT requirements that they are supposed to be respecting and working to.
I would like to suggest that anyone who has to write to MacKenzie Hall, for whatever reason, prints off a copy of the OFT requirements, from the above link, and staples them to their letter.
More of a rant than a thread, but their attitude just makes me see red. :mad: :mad:
I am NOT, nor do I profess to be, a Qualified Debt Adviser. I have made MANY mistakes and have OFTEN been the unwitting victim of the the shamefull tactics of the Financial Industry.
If any of my experiences, or the knowledge that I have gained from those experiences, can help anyone who finds themselves in similar circumstances, then my experiences have not been in vain.
HMRC Bankruptcy Statistic - 26th October 2006 - 23rd April 2007 BCSC Member No. 7
DFW Nerd # 166 PROUD TO BE DEALING WITH MY DEBTS
If any of my experiences, or the knowledge that I have gained from those experiences, can help anyone who finds themselves in similar circumstances, then my experiences have not been in vain.
HMRC Bankruptcy Statistic - 26th October 2006 - 23rd April 2007 BCSC Member No. 7
DFW Nerd # 166 PROUD TO BE DEALING WITH MY DEBTS
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards