MCO Capital loan

Eaglemar

I am getting the feeling from this whole sorry mess that the systems in place to try and protect us from fraud are far from adequate. What protection is being a member of CIFAS going to afford when loan companies can still get our details when they arent a member of CIFAS. They should have to be legally made to be a member of CIFAS to exist as a loan company if any protection were to be fulfilled.
This paints a bad picture for all these fraud protection schemes and to be honest the victims of fraud like us are just going to have to look out for these criminals on our own, or in combined efforts from forums like these. But this is hard when we have to pay companies to view and check our credit reports on a regular basis.
I am just grateful that there are places like this forum where similarly affected people can share information, lend support, and fight these scammers as it seems the authorities do too little, too late.

geomacl

I've just had a look at the Helploan web site and nothing has changed but the have added a paragraph about loan fraud - even suggesting that those so defrauded contact MCO at their Bressenden Place address - is there anyone actually at that address - I doubt it.
There appears to be no difference in the data required to obtain a payday loan - name, address, DoB, bank account -and that's it. So what's new.
Come on NFIB/CoLP please get on top of this - and, at least, stop any further loans being made until MCO are properly registered under UK company legislation and properly licenced to make such loans. This is a disgrace and many of the things we are hearing - eg about MCO being defrauded out of £1.5 million beggar belief - where does that money come from as they have a capital of only £100.:mad:
We've had over 600 hits since this morning - these must include reps from NFIB, CoLP etc (and no doubt MCO!!!). Why don't they show themselves as James from Experian has recently done?

Eaglemar

Probably scared of showing their faces I think geomacl.

colinho

grahamqat wrote: »

But James, if they are co-operating with Police, why are they still sending out fraudulent letters? and why are they still running the web-site that caused the problems in the first place?

Like OB, just watching with interest. I'm still concerned that the information back on page 6 of this thread is not being noticed:


The Warwick address is owned by Warwick University Science Park. In response to an email I sent yesterday, I have had the following email from the centre manager of the Warwick address.
The book-keeping and helpline services for MCO Capital are at the Innovation Centre. It's registered office is 5th Floor, Imperial House, 15-19 Kingsway, London WC2B 6UN.

This is a legitimate company making short term loans to individuals. It is not a "scam".

The letters which are sent out come from the collection agent used by MCO Capital, Intrum Justica, on the basis that the information supplied to MCO Capital is correct.


So it would seem that there ARE MCO/Helploan employees active from a UK address. Just not the one from which they should legally be operating?

grahamqat

Hi Colinho. appreciate input but beg to differ. Had MCO been legit they would have gone on Radio 4 last weekend. They would also have a trading SIC code rather than the non-trading code. They wouldn't have a LTD company MWLAW SERVICES LTD as a secretary. I could go on but the company has an organised crime profile and a zero credit rating to match. Action Fraud was presumably told this when they issued thousands of CRN's against them. Confidence tricksters are very clever. Bear in mind this has been planned for two years. Try telling MCO is legit to Jahman's Dad. They have effectively put this vulnerable person in hospital due to the fear and stress they have caused him. Sorry to rant but I feel very strongly there is a massive potential miscarriage of justice about all this.

geomacl

grahamqat wrote: »

Hi Colinho. appreciate input but beg to differ. Had MCO been legit they would have gone on Radio 4 last weekend. They would also have a trading SIC code rather than the non-trading code. They wouldn't have a LTD company MWLAW SERVICES LTD as a secretary. I could go on but the company has an organised crime profile and a zero credit rating to match. Action Fraud was presumably told this when they issued thousands of CRN's against them. Confidence tricksters are very clever. Bear in mind this has been planned for two years. Try telling MCO is legit to Jahman's Dad. They have effectively put this vulnerable person in hospital due to the fear and stress they have caused him. Sorry to rant but I feel very strongly there is a massive potential miscarriage of justice about all this.

Exactly grahamqat!!!! They have a lot of questions to answer - unfortunately it does not appear to be the authorities (NFIB/CoLP) who are asking these questions!!!!

colinho

grahamqat wrote: »

Hi Colinho. appreciate input but beg to differ. Had MCO been legit they would have gone on Radio 4 last weekend. They would also have a trading SIC code rather than the non-trading code. They wouldn't have a LTD company MWLAW SERVICES LTD as a secretary. I could go on but the company has an organised crime profile and a zero credit rating to match. Action Fraud was presumably told this when they issued thousands of CRN's against them. Confidence tricksters are very clever. Bear in mind this has been planned for two years. Try telling MCO is legit to Jahman's Dad. They have effectively put this vulnerable person in hospital due to the fear and stress they have caused him. Sorry to rant but I feel very strongly there is a massive potential miscarriage of justice about all this.

I'm certainly not a believer in their legality, nor in any part of the scam, the point I was hoping to make, was that it would seem that somebody has set up an operation which has been running since February, with office space, employees, and telephone lines. Presumably to service the hits from the website.
As far as I can tell, there has been no proceedings against MCO, in fact, "Authorities" seem to have swung back to their original position, that MCO are victims (although seeing evil loan sharks as victims takes a few more steps than I could manage). So there must presumably be a legitimate trail somewhere for MCO, which satisfies those same "Authorities".
We know from earlier research that this outfit runs similar businesses in other European countries, and has basically been run out of Estonia for their activities - but nobody has nailed them for (what the law defines as) criminal activity.
We are all outraged by what we've discovered about the actions of CRA's and the total lack of protection within our own legal system.
I've had two FOI requests rejected, quoting debatable clauses in the FOI act, so I can't find out what communications exist between MCO and, for instance, NFIB.
As always, I find the system is not on the side of the individual, and that the entire policing system is now part of the revenue stream for government, so has no interest, nor incentive, to bother with "the people". The SFO are supposed to get involved "over a million", yet they are conspicuous by their absence.
I'm pretty sure that if any of my companies (yes, I'm a company director, too) tried to run with the MCO methodology, I'd be getting some interesting post, probably much of it containing the word "fine" (not in the "How are you" sense of the word;-))
Probably turn out that MCO is owned by Blair......

grahamqat

Thanks for getting back Colinho - a lot of common ground really. It's the definition of "legit" that is tricky. Agree about the authorities (AF, NFIB etc). They started with MCO the victims. Seemed to change tack when they handed out CRN's, then reverted back asking people not to contact them but IJ instead. I suppose I get annoyed when MCO get referred to as "victims". It's just about everybody else that has suffered due to them. Even the ID fraudsters who tried to get the loan lost £6 on SMS messages. (Not too sad about that though).

Oldbloke_2

Good to have you back colinho.

I beg to differ about the legitimacy of MCO. You cannot deny that the company is trading illegally in this country by not having valid information lodged with Companies House and the OFT. I would also suggest that not being traceable anywhere other than their website should also set alarm bells ringing. They do not advertise anywhere other than their website, they are not listed in any business directory, yellow pages, thompson local, the list goes on and on....nothing, nowhere! As for the email you received from Warwick, I'd suggest that this information should be available through some other source other than an email, yet it does not.

What sort of legitimate company has no profile other than it's website and dodgy financial information that proves it's worthless?

piglets3_2

Debtfreeatlast wrote: »

They will know which are and which are not legit, as the cash has to of been put in to one or maybe a few accounts. With UK banks it is very hard to open an account without a doubt they have not gone to the trouble of opening up accounts in all of our names for a £300 theft, and this is where MCO deserve everything they get, they accepted the loans having done the mininum of checks, and it appears they have not even checked where the money was going was even in the correct name.

IJ have informed me that the loan was paid into a bank account in my name.