Because of the excellent advice in this forum I wrote a firm letter to Mackenzie Hall pointing out the Statue of Limitations and, in the absence of documentary proof, the fact that MH would be trying to obtain money under false pretences. I had a letter from them by return untertaking that they would not write to me again. From their approach, it's hard to believe that this is not just a firm of sharks, using threatening tactics to obtain extinct existent or non-existent debts. It's a shame that they cannot be put out of business or be encouraged to go into a cleaner business.

Mackenzie Hall first contacted me in November last year, by leaving a digital phone message that I must call them back "immediately". The informed me that I had an outstanding Selfridges store card debt outstanding from 1998/9 of £175. I have no recollection of such a debt, but they insisted. Following a first letter from them, I called them again (in response to their "urgent" message) and the MH rep agreed to provide me with the evidence of this debt, which he had. Radio silence for six weeks and then a "Final Notice" today (with no evidence) stating that they would take further action if I didn't make the payment by 25th March. I called them and explained to the girl I spoke to that I was waiting for some evidence from them. She told me that the note of my previous conversation made no reference to evidence and that she could not be held personally responsible for what one of her colleagues might have told me! I persisted and the girl rather charmingly told me that my "attitude stinks" and hung up. I've now written to them along the lines suggested in this forum. I guess it's clear that they're just trying to use strong-handed methods to collect on either real or imagined debts which I guess they must have bought from the credit card company. My soliciotr explained to me that, in the absence of any evidence of the debt, the Stature of Limitations would apply and that if MH persisted, it would effectively be trying to obtain money on their part under false pretences. I've written to explain this to them and maybe they'll keep going, but I won't waste more time replying. Rather unpleasant people in a murky business.