McKenzie Hall chasing an old debt

[ftolad]

Thanks for the advice BB... however I may have been a little premature due to a number of claims going on at the moment.

 

The upshot of this is that MH have not committed an offence (yet), but will do on Thursday.

 

The other really good bit of news is that as part of a separate claim for unfair charges, I've received a copy of all my bank statements. If you read the start of the thread I mentioned that I had made a few payments towards the account MH are trying to collect on, but to Cabot. I wasn't 100% on the dates but was pretty sure that that it was SB as payments were made after 6 years of the default.

 

Of course, MH kept insisting that it is not SB and will not be until 2010... well, looking at my statements, it defaulted as provided in writing by them in Feb 98, and the first payment I made was in Mar 04, so that was definitely after it became SB! So, when they commit an offence under S78 of the CCA, I will report them to TS and notify them of my action. Plus I remember someone mentioning the Fraud Act 2006.

 

I'm positive that MH would have known the date of default and of first payment, so I'm sure that Sections 1 and 2 would apply in this case:

 

2 Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

(2)

A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

To add to that, any defaults that they may have registered... I feel a nice letter coming on. ;-)

[babybear39]

Is it the calendar month deadline Thursday? If so, report them to Trading Standards and the OFT quoting the CPUTR 2008 on the day after they default

[mr.ton]

What address are they using. Since being first set up a number of other companies have been set up. Some are based in Ayrshire while some have registered offices in London.

 

Muck hall would not even show up at someone's address who lived right next door to 1 of their offices - thats how useless they are

[ftolad]

Is it the calendar month deadline Thursday? If so, report them to Trading Standards and the OFT quoting the CPUTR 2008 on the day after they default

 

Hey BB, yes I'm going to ring them later this week, but there is one thing that concerns me. I looked at the letter you received from TS about CPUTR and it's the same guys I have to deal with.

 

The thing that concerns me is that, on a separate issue, I called them to complain about another DCA but they refused to help as the DCA (Scotcall) had not bought the debt, they were acting on behalf of another company.

 

They told me that I would have CCA the new one, and stupid me, I did. Is that right? Surely the regs should apply across the board?

[babybear39]

What date did the other CCA request go into serious default? The CPUTR 2008 came into force on 26th May.

[ftolad]

What date did the other CCA request go into serious default? The CPUTR 2008 came into force on 26th May.

 

Default date for that one with Scotcall was 30/05/08. They still continued to send threatening letters even when they admitted that they couldn't get the agreement. That's when I put an official complaint in about them and they got scared and passed it back to Debt Managers Ltd.

[babybear39]

Unfortunately, the CPUTR is not retrospective and as your defaulting DCA doesn't own the debt, TS's advice is descretionary.

 

When 1st credit defaulted on mine, they were the owner of the debt, but TS still refused to act

 

The CPUTR 2008 changes all that and any complaint re non compliance of CCA requests that fall after 26th May should be accompanied by a polite reminder to TS of their obligations under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive which is part of the CPUTR 2008

[ftolad]

That's great, thanks BB.

 

Back to MH, this is what I am considering sending them at the end of the week. It's a bit long at 4 pages, but I think it covers most things. I've pinched various bits particularly the one about invoicing them:

 

IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANY TERMS SET OUT IN THIS LETTER SEEK LEGAL ADVICE.

 

10th July 2008

 

 

Mackenzie Hall

30 The Foregate

Kilmarnock

Ayrshire

KA1 1LU

 

 

FINAL COMMUNICATION

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Your ref: M

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY

 

 

IGNORING THIS MATTER WILL NOT MAKE IT GO AWAY.

 

 

I refer to your letter dated 20th May 2008, the contents of which have been noted.

 

I note that you still claim that this alleged account that you have attempted to collect is not Statute Barred. Furthermore, you state that the last payment received in respect of this account was dated 29/07/2004.

 

In my letter to you, dated 7th April 2008, I stated that under the terms set under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5, I claimed that you are unable to take any court action against me to recover the alleged amount claimed.

 

Under Section 5 of the Limitations Act 1980, it clearly states:

 

“An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of 6 years from the date on which the cause of the action accrued.”

 

I note from your initial letter dated 4th April 2008, you state that the account defaulted on 02/02/98. Following further investigation, you will no doubt be aware from your own records that the first payment received on this account was on 01/03/04, over six years after the initial default. At no time during this period was I contacted. Therefore, the retrospective payments already made in respect of this account occurred AFTER it became Statute Barred.

 

Please note that once a debt has become Statute Barred, acknowledgement of it by way of any payment or other means, does not reset the time limits as set out in the Act.

 

Further to this, I believe that you will have been aware of these facts at the outset of your claim, and as such can advise you that I believe you to have now committed an offence under the Fraud Act 2006.

 

In the interests of simplifying any research you may have to conduct, I have outlined the relevant sections of the Act below for your convenience:

1 Fraud

 

(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

(2) The sections are—

(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),

(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).

 

Please note that I believe that you may have committed fraud by false representation. The Act goes on under Section 2 as follows:

 

2 Fraud by false representation

 

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

(a) the person making the representation, or

(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

 

As I believe that you have already been a party to the full facts of this alleged claim, it is my belief that you have committed an offence under Section 2, Subsections 1 (a) and (b), and Subsections 2 (a) and (b).

 

3 Fraud by failing to disclose information

 

A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and

(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

I believe as noted above, that you have already been a party to the full facts of this alleged claim, and therefore suggest that you have also committed an offence under Section 3, by not lawfully disclosing information pertaining to my previous letters, insomuch that I already advised you that this alleged claim is Statute Barred, and that you continued to pursue the matter unlawfully.

 

Therefore I conclude that Mackenzie Hall has acted outside of the law in this particular case, and as such I will be bringing this to the attention of the Office of Fair Trading, Trading Standards, Financial Ombudsman Service and as a fraud has been committed I shall be referring this matter to the Police for them to investigate fully.

 

The Act continues:

 

12 Liability of company officers for offences by company

 

(1) Subsection (2) applies if an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate.

(2) If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of—

(a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or

(b) a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

he (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(3) If the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (2) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.

Please note that I shall NOT be paying any amount towards this alleged claim, either now or in future as this account is most certainly Statute Barred, and as the alleged claim is not enforceable, I now consider this matter to be closed.

 

Further to this, I must also draw to your attention the fact that you have also committed an offence under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 78 Subsection 6, insomuch that Mackenzie Hall has still failed to provide a valid and legally executed Credit Agreement in respect of my request under the aforementioned Section of the Act. For your reference, Mackenzie Hall defaulted on my request on 10/06/08 and will commit an offence on 10/07/08. I will also bring this matter to the attention of the regulatory bodies.

 

Please also find enclosed a Section 10 Notice under the Data Protection Act 1998, in that I now require Mackenzie Hall to stop processing ANY data regarding this claim, or any other business to do with myself. Furthermore if Mackenzie Hall has consulted my credit file or made any amendments of this with ANY of the Credit Reference Agencies, it is hereby notified that this data is not only incorrect but also unlawful and as such MUST be removed forthwith. This is to be a complete removal of any adverse data, not merely an amendment. I shall be consulting the Credit Reference Agencies to ensure compliance, and give Mackenzie Hall 28 days from the receipt of this letter in order to carry out these actions.

 

Failure by Mackenzie Hall to correct any incorrect data as outlined above will result in my applying for a Court Order which would require Mackenzie Hall to respond.

 

As I noted above I now consider this matter to be resolved. I only expect Mackenzie Hall to reply confirming the above points and that this matter is now closed.

 

If Mackenzie Hall still continue in pursuing this matter, I reserve the right under the Administration of Justice Act 1970 to insist that Mackenzie Hall only contact me in writing. I will have no further communications with Mackenzie Hall, particularly by telephone. If you choose to send letters that require a reply, my terms are as follows:

 

 

• Each letter I write will be accompanied by an invoice for £60.00 plus postage to cover my time wasted.
  
• Payment of said invoice will be due in seven (7) days of receipt
  
• Any telephone calls received will be followed by an invoice of £50.00 to cover time wasted and stress.
  
• Non-payment of invoices as set out above will result in proceedings issued against Mackenzie Hall in the Small Claims Court without further notice, and could result in court costs and/or a judgment.
  
• Any telephone call or letter received following receipt of this recorded delivery letter will be deemed acceptance by Mackenzie Hall of the above terms.
  

 

Finally, please note that under the Section 10 notice enclosed, I do not give my consent for you to pass my personal data to any other third party, affiliate, client or any other body that may have an interest in attempting to collect this alleged claim. Furthermore, under Section 78 Subsection 6 a, you are NOT entitled to carry out any action whatsoever in relation to collecting on this account whilst my Section 78 request remains in default.

 

Also, as noted above as the account is Statute Barred, you will be contravening the OFT’s Debt Collection Guidelines should you pass this alleged account to any other body or company as outlined above. Should you continue your actions, I will commence legal proceedings and advise the Court that I believe your actions to be both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

I trust this outlines the situation, and that you will give it your utmost attention.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

ftolad

[babybear39]

Very impressive. They won't understand it so you should add a line suggesting they seek profesional advice

[ftolad]

Very impressive. They won't understand it so you should add a line suggesting they seek profesional advice

 

First thing I put on the letter, right at the top in capitals.

[NailPost]

Are they still using the Foregate Street address? Their registered address, which must be on every letter they send out, is 58 PORTLAND STREET KILMARNOCK AYRSHIRE KA1 1JG according to Companies House.

[Folara]

Hi

 

Just a quicky I wanted to say about MacHall as I have had a VERY similar situ.

 

They kept phoning me and I said 'sorry its statute barred'. A couple of weeks later they phoned me again saying that I had made a payment of £40 so the debt was not statute barred.

 

Now the debt was for 1997 to Barclaycard, they said the payment was made in 2006. Weirdest thing is I have NEVER made ANY payment to them and can prove that.

 

As of the last phone call (last week) they are taking me to court. To which I said 'oh good, looking forward to meeting you' and they put the phone down. Not heard anything yet ... but have had about 4 more letters and a doorstep collection one!

 

Glad I found this thread cos now I KNOW I am in the right!

 

BUT how to hell do I stop them keep calling me at work and sending me letters at work?

 

So cheers guys.

[babybear39]

Hi Folara,

 

It's best to start your own thread as replies can get mixed up

 

Have you sent the Statute Barred letter and telephone harassment letter yet?

[Folara]

Hi

 

No I havent. Will do that and start my own thread. Thanks.

[ftolad]

Best of luck Folara.

 

Yes, BB they're still not putting their registered company address on their letterheads, so maybe I'll amend the above letter to include that point as well. I know it's covered somewhere in the Companies Act 2006 put can't remember where... and it's a pretty lengthy piece of legislation. Oh well, one thing to do in work if it's quiet tonight.

[ftolad]

MH have been pretty quiet up until a few weeks ago, I hadn't received anything at all from them.

 

Now they've sent another final demand, but it's still on behalf of the same client as before, but they've given this one a different case number.

 

I sent the usual opening letter advising them to prove it, to which they replied quickly. They asked me to call them to help their investigations whilst the account would be on hold for 7 days.

 

I sent a second reply back advising them of their responsibilities and that I would not be calling them. I also reminded them that if they failed to provide any information and still demand payment I would make a second complaint to TS. I added in there that the original complaint for the above SB claim has been accepted by the OFT.

 

What strikes me as odd is that the amount they are claiming this time is only slightly different from the last one as above... I'm suspecting some kind of skulduggery. If so, then it's plain fraud and I'll definitely go to the Police and this time report them to the FOS.

 

I'll have to wait for their next reply, but I'll update when I have it.

[alanalana]

Hello all this is also posted on another MH thread.

 

I paid MH over £500 on behalf of my daughter after a multitude of letters, threats and threats of court and bailiffs so I paid up. I still have the receipt from the RBS. I requested a receipt but none forthcoming and yes guess what MH sold the debt on so we have been fighting another DCA. No Court action yet but when it comes it could be embarrasing for MH when I produce the receipt for full payment of the debt.

 

I post this just to make you all aware and I am sure you all are aware of the underhand way DCA's operate:eek:

 

aa

[ftolad]

Another update in this ongoing saga!

 

MH failed to get back to my letter sent at the start of October so I sent them a formal complaint along with a SAR request to get all data they hold... just to check if my hunch was right.

 

Within 2 days they've replied regarding my S78 request under the CCA 1974(!) stating that they cannot complete the request as the file has been returned! They also returned the postal order for £10.

 

Yet again MH are not playing ball, and are seriously in breach of another law if they continue to ignore me.

 

I'm thinking of sending them a polite reminder of their duties as a Data Controller, and also remind them that if they ignore my complaint I will contact the FOS.

 

Does anyone agree with me or am I being unreasonable? I'm just not happy that when things don't go their way they attempt to wash their hands of it. All comments would be gratefully accepted.

[NailPost]

They have to comply with an SARN request. They have your details which means they are processing your data.

 

They also have to comply with a request for their complaints procedure.

 

Methinks a complaint to the Information Commissioner is in order. You could also make a complaint to the Financial Services Ombudsman about their attempts to sort out a reasonable complaint.

[ftolad]

Thanks NP, that's the kind of impetus I guess I needed. I didn't want to forget about it and let them pass it on to another DCA if helped.

 

I've drafted a new LBA to them and advised them to obtain legal advice, and that if they do not comply with the SAR, I will pass to the ICO and consider legal action to make them comply. I've also advised that I believe they are breaking the terms of their license by not answering my complaint and that if they do not respond I will make a further complaint to TS and pass to the FOS... plus send them an invoice for all the letters, etc as advised in my initial LBA above.

[stormy0231]

I love it have just finished reading the whole post as i recieved a letter from mh myself dated the 5th november, they have used all the above tactics.

when i recieved the letter i stressed out and couldnt for the life of me understand how or why. when i have never recieved a ccj or defualt in my life.

 

now after reading this i'm really looking forward too our future communications as i'm sure there will be. well tom i send the £1 postal order.

[ftolad]

Best of luck, Stormy. I hope that some of the stuff in this post has been helpful, you should find plenty of other posts about MH. You may want to start another post of your own so you can keep us up-to-date with what's happening.

 

Only one bit of advice (if you didn't know already)... don't sign you're name, just print it.

 

[evancosmo]

Just to bring a smile to all those who hate MuckHall as much as i do!

 

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT imposes requirements on Mackenzie Hall to improve handling of disputed debts