Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I would say so yes but ofcourse only in the years the charged it not running till today.
    • please complete this:     and scan up the PCN bothsides to one multipage pdf read upload   dx  
    • Must satisfy POFA if they want to ground Keeper Liability, so no Keeper liability, their RoboClaims always try to sue both as if they can jointly and severally, but the Courts should be looking at the was Driver or Keeper and chuck the claim out for being vague, but they don't  They might if POFA fails and they know they are onto a loser, might have a last gasp and try to rely on Elliott v Loake a criminal case so not applicable to a Civil claim, and CPS v AJH Films, again not applicable as is about employer/employee, they will do this to try to get someone to cough up before a case they know they are going to lose to salvage what they have already paid ou to go to court.  I would delete the  line   As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline as is my right to name the driver (s) at this time"  That is an oblique reference to the duty to name driver in a Criminal case, and is the Elloitt v Loake scenario.   Others will have better ideas, but lloking decent.
    • Good morning request sent off yesterday to moriarty law  but today got this load of tosh  Combine Jul 17, 2019.pdf
    • In response to your question, I have a copy of the title deeds showing ownership and also the leases. No idea what to do with that info though!   I should be most grateful if you would review the attached brief draft defence on page 1. The page 2 thoughts are a work in progress.   The POFA point is weak in my opinion, but having read a lot of analysis of the requirements, I haven't managed to come up with anything beefy.   I should be grateful for any ideas on that, as it seems like a failure to follow procedure would be a strong defence.   Also it asks for the driver's details on the PCN and then the claim states the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver, but I don't really understand whether there's a point of defence there.    DRAFT DEFENCE 1)      The claimant has failed to prove that VCS had a contract with the landowner (The West London Property Corporation Ltd.) in August 2015, and therefore failed to show either a legitimate interest in controlling parking at the Berkeley Precinct, or the authorisation to make charges on their own behalf, for any overstay in the carpark, including for first-time offenders (relevant to Tesco lease). (no response to CPR 31.14 request delivered and signed for at 10.32a.m. on 9th July) 2)      The claimant has failed to prove that VCS obtained a planning permit from the Sheffield Planning Department under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007 (also requested in my CPR 31.14 letter) and that there were prominent signs in existence at that time, showing clearly the terms and conditions for parking and the charge payable for any breach. Therefore, the three elements of offer, acceptance and consideration required for a contract were not met, and no contract existed. 3)      The claimant failed to issue the PCN in the timescale required under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for keeper liability and, allowing for the 2 day delivery time afforded to Royal Mail, it arrived a day later than the 14 day deadline. The parking company has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, I submit I am not liable to any charge.    
  • Our picks

shikyra

Mercantile Data Bureau Ltd old egg debt

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2697 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

That licence is not listed in the OFT website. The address on their stationary os defimitely false and I hope you report that to the OFT, plus the fact that tyhe number given on the letter is a divertionary number so you are not supposed to know they are really Hillsden Securities. The name given in MDB's registration is T Locke but under Hillsden it is A E Locke - it's the same man.

If he doesn't get payment as Hillsden, he waits a while the tries to make put it is another company.

 

I'll tell you what happened after I told him as MDB to bog off. He referred it to a solicitor, going back again to the Hillsden name, without a hope of enforcing the rubbish he sent me. I have just told the solicitor to bog off too. If they even attempt to raise this in court - they have absolutely nothing to go on - I am going to sue Hillsden and the Solicitor for vexatious harrassment, with a claim for my wasted time and compensation.

 

My advice is to let him know the agreement isn't worth tuppence then ignore him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you can see... the license expired in Nov 2008. Just thought I would copy what was on the OFT website for others...

 

 

CCA Search :: CCA Search Results :: Licence Details

Application / Licence Details

Licence Number:

0545676

Licence Status:

Current

Current Applicant / Licensee:

Business Name Company Registration Number

Mercantile Data Bureau Limited 1829604

Categories:

Consumer credit

Consumer hire

Credit brokerage

Debt collecting

Right To Canvass Off Trade Premises:

Yes

Trading Name(s) (Current):

MDB

Mercantile Data Bureau

Issued Date:

16-Nov-2003

Expiry Date:

15-Nov-2008

Legal Formation:

Body Corporate (incorporated inside UK)

Current Individuals that run the organisation:

Name Position

Robin Michael Faccenda OFFICER

Susan Faccenda OFFICER

Nature of Business:

Debt Adjusting

Other

Current Address(es):

Address Type Address

Principal Place Of Business ., Buckingham Road, Brackley, Northamptonshire, NN13 7DN

Registered Office ., Willow Road, Brackley, Northamptonshire, NN13 7EX

Historic Address(es):

Address Type Address

Registered Office ., Willow Road, Brackley, Northanptonshire, NN13 7EX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ps... at Companies House, their accounts were dormant for last year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanx for that Pinky...

 

referring to the company switch that they do... I did read somewhere that thy are not allowed to pass your details onto another company without your knowledge or authority... did I get the wrong end of the stick?.... Surely, if this is the case then MDB shouldnt be sharing our details with Hillesdon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not supposed to sell/reassign a debt in dispute but that doesn't stop them - DCAs think they are above the law and do it all the time. In this case the man doesn't even pass it to another office - he is Hillsden and MDB and thinks he can do what he likes. People need to report every incident of these cowboys to the OFT in the hope that blatant breaches of law are changed. Mmmm - I think there as some way to go yet:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Email from MDB today.... their follow up to my request for the CCA which they sent me last week....

 

 

 

From: Mark Davies

To: xxxxxxx

Sent: Friday, 13 March, 2009 8:50:44 AM

Subject:

 

Dear Mrs xx

 

I am still awaiting a response to my letter sent on the 4th March 2009.

 

Could you please advise if you have replied by letter, as it is possible that you have but I have just not received it.

 

If you haven’t replied and now that you have received the copy of agreement you requested, would you be willing to discuss this matter on the phone to speed up this process?

 

 

Mark Davies

MDB Debt Negotiator

Mercantile Data Bureau

Tel: 08445610913

Email mark.davies@mercantiledb.co.uk

 

 

 

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Thank You.

 

 

This email may contain confidential and proprietary material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and delete all copies. Mercantile Data Bureau Limited does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message, as the Internet is not secure and this message is subject to possible data corruption either accidentally or on purpose. This message has been virus scanned. Recipients are recommended to apply their own virus checks to this message on delivery as Mercantile Data Bureau Limited will not accept responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of this email or its attachments. Mercantile Data Bureau Limited - Registered office Willow Road, Brackley, NN13 7EX Registered in England, company number 1829604

 

 

 

AND MY REPLY.......

 

Hello Mark

 

I received the CCA, thank you.

 

I contacted a company for some advice and there are a couple of things I would like some clarification on.

 

1) MDB's license with the office of fair trading seems to have expired in Nov 2008 and from the OFT website, the renewal of the license is marked as pending. Can you send me a copy of your company's current license.

 

2) The letters that you have sent me have a CSA logo on the bottom, but MDB do not appear to be a member or associate member of the CSA.

 

3) OFT guidelines/regulations state that the telephone number should not be diversionary and when you phone me, the telephone number displays as withheld.

 

4) I understand the OFT is looking into your company regarding correspondence sent from the Banbury address and I have been advised to report MDB to the OFT, which I have done.

 

5) Details at Companies House reveal that the accounts for 2008 were dormant.

 

I also understand that the CCA from Egg is unenforceable.

 

Perhaps you could clarify the above points for me.

 

I do not wish to receive contact by phone as I am waiting delivery of my recording machine. All of my telephone conversations will be recorded. I am happy to receive contact via email or post.

 

Best regards

 

MRS XX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that I am looking forward to what they have to say. Will of course keep you posted....

 

Have a great weekend everyone x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

REPLY FROM MDB RECEIVED TODAY

 

Obviously beyond Mark's job instruction so he has got a Jason to reply.... here it is

 

 

Dear Mrs xx

 

I am happy to answer your questions to quash any doubts you may have that Mercantile Data Bureau is in anyway not a bonifide company.

 

1) Mercantile Data Bureau’s licence with the Office of Fair Trading was renewed on the 4th November 2008.

2) Mercantile Data Bureau is a member of the CSA and is therefore proud to have their logo on our letterhead.

3) There are no regulations or guidelines preventing us from withholding our telephone number on outbound calls.

4) The Office of Fair Trading has not notified us of any such investigation and as far as we are concerned all of our activity is within current legislation and CSA best practise guidelines.

5) Our full accounts were submitted to Companies House at the end of February 09.

 

I trust this will satisfy you to the nature of our business and we can now address the outstanding balance, which as you can see from the signed copy of your contract is enforceable.

 

I look forward to your proposals for re-payment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CSA reference is a red herring and has nothing to do with anything. They may be allowed to withhold a number but that is not what they are doing. They are using a divertionary number so you cannot identify that they are actually calling from Brackley and not Banbury. They have a false Banbury address on their stationary.The false address and divertionary telephone number are there in case they need to put more pressure on you as Hillsden Securities in Brackley, when in fact they are the same outfit. That is misleading and a breach of the CPUTR 2008.

 

I would tell them these Egg agreements have been found to be

unenforceable as the prescribed term referring to the credit limit should read "Credit Limit" and not "Approved Limit" and does not conform to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983. Tell them there is no leeway on this - the credit limit term must be worded precisely. You can also tell them that they are in breach of the CPUTR 2008 for giving a false correspondence address on their stationary. They wouldn't accept £1 a week of you but that is all you would be ordered to pay in court so it is worth sticking to your guns to see if the will got to court. You have nothing to lose by fighting back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from Companies House. You can check the lies in their letter against this:

 

Name & Registered Office:

MERCANTILE DATA BUREAU LIMITED

WILLOW ROAD

BRACKLEY

NORTHANTS

NN13 7EX

Company No. 01829604

 

spacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gif Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 03/07/1984

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

7499 - Non-trading company

Accounting Reference Date: 30/04

Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/04/2008 (DORMANT)

Next Accounts Due: 31/01/2010

Last Return Made Up To: 11/08/2008

Next Return Due: 08/09/2009

Last Members List: 11/08/2008

Previous Names: Date of change Previous Name 09/12/1997 HILLESDEN FARMS LIMITED 18/04/1986 NEATHOLD LIMITED Branch Details There are no branches associated with this company. Oversea Company Info There are no Oversea Details associated with this company.

System Requirements

 

Return to search page

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found this....

 

Available Reports Details

Company Name:

MERCANTILE DATA BUREAU LIMITED

Company No: 01829604 Registered Office:

Incorporated: 03/07/1984 WILLOW ROAD

BRACKLEY

NORTHANTS

NN13 7EX

Company Type: Private Limited

Legal Status: Striking off Notice

Report Status: Full Data

Accounts Type: Dormant

Latest Accounts to: 30/04/2008

Latest Return to: 11/08/2008

 

 

this is at Creditgate.com

 

Does anyone know what the "Legal status - striking off notice" means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry guys... just thought of this...

 

my friend is having debt issues as well. She is on income support, single with one disabled son. She receives a carers allowance which is deducted off her income support money and the child (who is 9) receives disability living allowance.

 

She is worried that if she declares the full income, which includes her son's disability allowance every month, that the debt collectors would take that into consideration... also, that if it did go to court, the court would make her use the disability allowance to pay off debts..

 

I am not in a position to answer her so wondered if anyone else would be able to shed some light on this.

 

thanx for looking :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

STRIKING OFF NOTICE - as a result of a voluntary application or the non-filing of company documents, a company can be struck off the register and dissolved by the Registrar of Companies.

 

 

 

e7y0eb.gif


Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your friend certainly doesn't have to give any financial information to a DCA other than stating what she is willing to pay them.

 

A court would look at her circumstances and probably order a minimum payment, usually £1 per month.


Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have just recieved one of these letters this morning and looking them up online has sent me here. must say this is very interesting. is it a con and what will happen if i just don't pay???? should i contact them or just leave it??? confused. any advice appreciated. thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their consumer credit licence is valid.

 

From the OFT database:

 

Mercantile Data Bureau Limited

Licence Number: 0545676

Renewal 20-Oct-2008 Status: Open

 

The 'open' status could be for a number of reasons. It could also be that the company is being investigated, but it's most likely that it's because the OFT has a backlog. They can trade whilst the renewal is being processed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

andilenoise Glad you found this site - the more the merrier and be sure to spread the word.

 

It's best if you start your own thread (replies get too confusing otherwise) and if you can, scan the relevant documents - editing out your personal details etc - and include them in your posts so others can give you more accurate advice.

 

Have fun! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - just found this thread since I got the same letter from MDB. Interesting.

 

I have sent a CCA request to the freepost address (did this before finding this thread) so what are the chances of them receiving it? From what I have read its a false address.

 

So what do I do next? Just wait until the "signed for" letter comes back to me which would prove the address doesnt exist? Or do I send one to "dlc" knowing its actually them in the first place? I did send a "prove it" letter to dlc months ago and heard nothing back until this MDB letter.

 

Any help would be gratefully received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did send a "prove it" letter to dlc months ago and heard nothing back until this MDB letter.

 

There you go then. They have nothing.

It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, you get from MDB.

Will be watching with interest, as they've started on me now.

 

;)


Barclays (2 accounts) WON

Lloyds TSB (Daughter's) WON

 

Cohen's: WON (discontinued)

DLC: Given up, gone away.

Eversheds: Trying!

Equidebt: In default

Intrum J: Return to OC

iQor: Stopped paying.

Link: In default.

ScotCall: Return to OC

Thames: Stopped paying.

 

 

I am NOT a legal or financial expert. There are many CAG members and staff who are better qualified. Please do not make major decisions based on my advice alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MDB, DLC and Hillesden are all the same company. MDB gives a false adddress on their stationary - there is no such address in Banbury and the phone number is a divertionary number so you won't know where they are. This is Tony Locke of Hillesden's pathetic attempt of trying to make you think it is another company. Do report them to the OFT - I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All, Ive also had a letter from Mercantile and my administrator is a Mary Kilgore, this letter came after I sent a CCA request to DL&C (for a mnba card taken out in 1996)

Hillesden replied, passed the 12+2 time limit saying they were waiting on mbna to forward the paperwork, I sent them the failure to supply to my request letter and im now at the mercantile stage.

Should I use the e-mail address supplied informing them of the fact im aware they are using a bogus address, divertionary phone number, that I will be reporting them to the OFT ?

Should I just ignore the letter and the threat of a doorstep visit ?

All advice appricated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would report them to the OFT and not bother to contact MDB. Every complaint that goes in about them is another nail in the coffin. You can add to your letter that this has been reported by other consumers before and nothing is being done about it. The OFT are there to ensure fair trading and they are not doing their job after they receive information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah just joined. we have been paying dlc 20 pcm for years and currently by standing order.. my wife who is quite sick got the first letter from them and the "dorstep specialists" freaked her out. dlc are aware she is vunerable and following the posts i have reported the matter to office fair traiding and a e mail to them.. some where on this site is a suggestion that their consumer credit licence ran out.. the are in fact a shadow company for dlc..

 

i will post developments in the mean time if any one can up date me should hep the poster of this thread... dont bee beaten down you have right on your side debit is not a crime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Pinky, reporting them today, that aside what about the threat of a doorstep visit ?

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...