Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Problems with Mackenzie Hall


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6271 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

I hope someone can help. Several weeks ago I received a letter from Mackenzie Hall stating they were acting for the Lowell Group and were chasing a debt of £2,421.00p and required payment of same.

 

This debt was from about 10 years ago and was owed to Barclaycard. At that time my marriage broke up and I had to go down the IVA route to manage my debts.

 

The IVA was taken on by an Insolvency Practitioner and after about two years of paying them, they went bankrupt. I can't even remember the name but they were in London.

 

I was advised by their administrators to stop making any further payments and I've heard nothing since. This was over 8 years ago and having moved several times all records are now lost. I am certain though that I have never received a CCJ for this old debt

 

I sent Mackenzie Hall a time barred letter which they have ignored. Today I received a final notice giving me 7 days to pay up or further action will be taken.

 

Any advice would be appreciated as to what to do next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware, this debt is too old to pursue (over 6 years). They are trying to get you to acknowledge it, so that they can start the ball rolling again. They cannot legally enforce payment after 7 days and are calling your bluff. I am not sure of the implications for yourself in sending the time-barred letter, but am sure that someone else will come along to advise. If you have acknowledged the debt, then you may have re-opened the time frame for them collecting on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hold tight and see what happens next. Do not contact them any more. If they try and contact you by 'phone, don't confirm anything. They are trying scare tactics to get you to worry about the "further action" they might take and if you get them on the 'phone, they will tell you all kinds of bowlarks to worry you. Ignore it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to satisfy yourself that it is statute barred [if you have been out of touch for a while, a ccj could have been attached] it might be an idea to

get a copy of your credit file.

 

If there has been no movement on the account for the required 6 years

[assuming you are not living in Scotland] then write to your local Trading Standards saying that these people are chasing you for a debt, and ask for

their advice on how to respond as you have already informed them that it is an old debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite what the goons at MHall might tell you NOTHING will unbar a statute barred debt. Once the six-year time limit has passed nothing will restart the clock - letters, promises of payment, definately nothing verbal.

 

The debt will still exist and you may feel morally obliged to pay. But before you do that think carefully where the money's going. The original debtor has washed his hands of it and claimed it against the tax bill. The original creditor may also have claimed on its bad debt insuarnce policies and will have definately sold it on to a debt buyer so they were not too much out of pocket.

 

Now MHall comes on the scene demanding money and making vague threats which border on demanding money by deception. While the advice to check your credit files is sound you should make MHall prove the existence of any orders agaisnt your name. If they won't (because they can't!) write to them and tell their continued letters constitute harrassment and you will report them to the relevant agencies.

 

Come next April the Financial Services Ombudsman takes over as watchdog. Hopefully he'll be more of a rottweiler to the OFT's poodle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

All has been quiet with MH since my last letter from them offering a reduction in the alleged debt.

 

Today (23/2/07) I received a red letter threatening court action if I do not settle the full debt by 26th Feb.

 

They threaten CCJ, seizure of assets and bankruptcy.

 

I am loathe to communicate with them, but now I want to fight back, by threatening them with Trading Standards, harrasment etc but I don't know how to go about it.

 

I've since moved address and the last letter was forwarded on. I don't really want to let them know where I am

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think moving house makes much difference, Mackenzie Hall posted my husband a red card to our new address and we are not even on the voters role. I presume they find addresses from your credit file. We had a few emails back and forth, we have asked for a copy of the agreement, nothing has arrived, we changed email address so they couldn't bother us, so far we have heard nothing else. My husband's debt is about 12 years old and goes back to his previous marriage, he has never paid anything to them or communicated with them, I paid £10 per month from my bank account for a year or two to the previous DCA's, but have no intention of paying them anything else. As far as I'm concerned because they have had no communication from my husband and no payment from him, its statute barred and until they come up with paperwork etc we will continue to ignore them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They claim to be acting on behalf of Lowell. I assume you've heard nothing from them. If you want to do something send MHall the CCA letter. This will cost a £1 and it is essential to send the letter by recorded delivery. There's a template letter in the sticky section. I think its letter N.

 

This request will force Mhall to produce documentation to prove a) a signed, true copy ofthe credit agreement they allege exists b) they have the right to collect and c) a statement of account.

 

They have 12 working days to comply. Any form of communication which does not provide these details is bullpooooo. Sending you one document and not all three is also bullpoo.

 

If they don't comply within this limit they are in default. If the default continues for another month they have committed a criminal offence (for the umpteenth time but the authorities don't do anything). That will help you because they wouldn't be so stupid as to take legal action and take you to court when they themselves have not complied with the law. Would they?

 

When they default you can safely tell them to get knotted

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...