Mackenzie Hall. Do any of you know of them?

[Dougal16T]

Good evening,

 

Thought this might help to clarify matters:

 

The important point is the Fraud Act 2006 and as has been pointed out the way that it is worded.

 

Let's look at 'intent'

 

Intention is defined in R. v Mohan as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence".

A range of words is used to represent shades of intention in the various criminal laws around the world. The most serious crime of murder, for example, traditionally expressed the mens rea element as malice aforethought, and the interpretations of malice, "maliciously" and "wilfully" vary between pure intention and recklessness depending on the state and the seriousness of the offence.

A person intends a consequence when he or she foresees that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, will be achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intention can also come from the common law viewpoint as well.

 

The test of intention

 

The policy issue for those who administer the criminal justice system is that, when planning their actions, people may be aware of many probable and possible consequences. Obviously, all of these consequences could be prevented through the simple expedient either of ceasing the given activity or of taking action rather than refraining from action. So the decision to continue with the current plan means that all the foreseen consequences are to some extent intentional, i.e. within and not against the scope of each person's intention. But, is the test of culpability based on purely a subjective measure of what is in a person's mind, or does a court measure the degree of fault by using objective tools?

 

For example, suppose that A, a jealous wife, discovers that her husband is having a sexual affair with B. Wishing only to drive B away from the neighbourhood, she goes to B's house one night, pours petrol on and sets fire to the front door. B dies in the resulting fire. A is shocked and horrified. It did not occur to her that B might be physically in danger and there was no conscious plan in her mind to injure B when the fire began. But when A's behaviour is analysed, B's death must be intentional. If A had genuinely wished to avoid any possibility of injury to B, she would not have started the fire. Or, if verbally warning B to leave was not an option, she should have waited until B was seen to leave the house before starting the fire. As it was, she waited until night when it was more likely that B would be at home and there would be fewer people around to raise the alarm.

 

On a purely subjective basis, A intended to render B's house uninhabitable, so a reasonably substantial fire was required. The reasonable person would have foreseen a probability that people would be exposed to the risk of injury. Anyone in the house, neighbours, people passing by, and members of the fire service would all be in danger. The court therefore assesses the degree of probability that B or any other person might be in the house at that time of the night. The more certain the reasonable person would have been, the more justifiable it is to impute sufficient desire to convert what would otherwise only have been recklessness into intention to constitute the offence of murder. But if the degree of probability is lower, the court will find only recklessness proved. Some states used to have a rule that if a death occurred during the commission of a felony, sufficient mens rea for murder would automatically be imputed (see felony murder). For the most part, this rule has been abolished and direct evidence of the required mental components is required. Thus, the courts of most states use a hybrid test of intention, combining both subjective and objective elements, for each offence changed.

 

In English law, s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 provides a statutory framework within which mens rea is assessed. It states:

A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,

(a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reasons only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but

(b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.

Under s8(b) therefore, the jury is allowed a wide latitude in applying a hybrid test to impute intention or foresight (for the purposes of recklessness) on the basis of all the evidence.

 

Hope this helps....!

 

As always

 

 

Dougal

[metallicahead]

Hello everyone im new to these forums and am in need of some serious help regarding mackenzie hall. i received a letter from them saying i owed them £~~~~.++ and i had to make the payment immediately. I could not work out where this had come from so i rang them to which they told me it was a 1st credit limited account and my last payment was in 2006 which i do not remember at all. I have searched my paperwork from years ago and cannot find anything to do with this company. so i rang them and thay said they would only accept a full balance offer which i was not able to pay. the guy was very very rude and would not help yet a few days later i receive a letter wanting x amount of pounds a month so over a week passed i rang them to meet the deal they offered which they now say that because i never replied to within a week the deal is of and they want money paid in full or in 2 bit payment by the end of a certain month. im now getting worried is there anyone that can help me? what should i do cause after reading this website it seems like their conning money out of me??? any help would be grateful

[allswell]

Start your own thread and you will get all the help you need.

 

allswell

[metallicahead]

i have no idea how to do that lol useless at this stuff

[metallicahead]

ah ha i have worked it out thanks allswell

[InformedSearcher]

Hello everyone im new to these forums and am in need of some serious help regarding mackenzie hall. i received a letter from them saying i owed them £~~~~.++ and i had to make the payment immediately. I could not work out where this had come from so i rang them to which they told me it was a 1st credit limited account and my last payment was in 2006 which i do not remember at all. I have searched my paperwork from years ago and cannot find anything to do with this company. so i rang them and thay said they would only accept a full balance offer which i was not able to pay. the guy was very very rude and would not help yet a few days later i receive a letter wanting x amount of pounds a month so over a week passed i rang them to meet the deal they offered which they now say that because i never replied to within a week the deal is of and they want money paid in full or in 2 bit payment by the end of a certain month. im now getting worried is there anyone that can help me? what should i do cause after reading this website it seems like their conning money out of me??? any help would be grateful

 

Hint about DCA's - If you do not know about a debt they refer to then ignore them. The problem is that for example after 6 years a debt becomes statute barred - communication directly involving that debt (if valid) starts the 6 year process again.

MH would have been given but probably bought a debt. They are doing what they do best and that is 'scare you'. This is a time when you want details in writing only and if you feel concerned about speaking on the phone get someone to do it for you. f you call them then try and record the conversation Use something like Skype if you have no other means - you can then transcribe what they say and yes, they are rude. Tell them at the end of the conversation that you have recorded it and for Skype you need a n additional program called Pamela - trial, buy or otherwise. Be wary of what you are listening to - they as I said earlier are scaring you in the belief that you will pay them. IF you really believe you owe the money and even want to pay it then their answer to you is b**s**t and if they want the cash they'll take it. They are simply trying to get you to pay more.

This is a time when you should be checking CRA files. They will most certainly have a search listed. If not then my belief is that they are, yes, trying it on for as little cost to themselves as they can make it.

The end result - Do not feel threatened or concerned by them or, for that matter any DCA. Remember if they have a valid claim you will see data about it.

Michael

[Dougal16T]

Good morning

 

A look at all of the previous posts on this thread will give you a good idea of how to deal with these lowlifes, calling themselves 'Mackenzie Hall'.

 

They will go away as soon as you start to tell them that you will take action against them.

 

See my posts for some more information!

 

Kind regards

 

 

Dougal

[Belaflat]

If you do not know about a debt they refer to then ignore them. The problem is that for example after 6 years a debt becomes statute barred - communication directly involving that debt (if valid) starts the 6 year process again.

Not so...Once the 6 year milestone has passed, then it is statute barred no matter what. You may well admit the debt in writing but if it is 6 years and 1 day old when you do, it remains statute barred.

5 years and 364 days and you have restarted the clock so make sure of your timings.

 

And in reference to an earlier post,

 

the definition of theft is:

 

The dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

 

unauthorised using and keeping are not in the definition .

 

and/or is not correct -there is no either / or - ALL the points must be proved

 

for instance climbing over your neighours fence and taking his lawnmover and using it in your garden and keeping it in your shed for the 3 months that you neighbour was away in dubai on holiday may well be unauthorised and you may well be "keeping " it for three months but it would not amount to theft

 

This is correct.

Back in the mists of time (as others like to state) I was a Police Officer and that definition was the one applied to define what was theft and not. The point re the Lawnmower is valid and I compare that to the taking and driving away of a motor vehicle. It had been successfully argued, again back in the mists of time, that taking a motor vehicle for a joyride was not theft and so the specific offence of Taking a Motor Vehicle without owners consent was created.

 

The point I am trying to make is just because something does not appear to fit precisely into the definitions we are trying to apply, it is not always a lost case. There may be a slightly different angle to approach things from to achieve the same result.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Belaflat

[InformedSearcher]

Not so...Once the 6 year milestone has passed, then it is statute barred no matter what. You may well admit the debt in writing but if it is 6 years and 1 day old when you do, it remains statute barred.

5 years and 364 days and you have restarted the clock so make sure of your timings.

 

And in reference to an earlier post,

 

 

 

This is correct.

Back in the mists of time (as others like to state) I was a Police Officer and that definition was the one applied to define what was theft and not. The point re the Lawnmower is valid and I compare that to the taking and driving away of a motor vehicle. It had been successfully argued, again back in the mists of time, that taking a motor vehicle for a joyride was not theft and so the specific offence of Taking a Motor Vehicle without owners consent was created.

 

The point I am trying to make is just because something does not appear to fit precisely into the definitions we are trying to apply, it is not always a lost case. There may be a slightly different angle to approach things from to achieve the same result.

 

My apologies I ommitted to included the 'within' the 6 years bit. However so important one considers to/to not contact.

Michael

[diddydicky]

Not so...Once the 6 year milestone has passed, then it is statute barred no matter what. You may well admit the debt in writing but if it is 6 years and 1 day old when you do, it remains statute barred.

5 years and 364 days and you have restarted the clock so make sure of your timings.

 

And in reference to an earlier post,

 

 

 

This is correct.

Back in the mists of time (as others like to state) I was a Police Officer and that definition was the one applied to define what was theft and not. The point re the Lawnmower is valid and I compare that to the taking and driving away of a motor vehicle. It had been successfully argued, again back in the mists of time, that taking a motor vehicle for a joyride was not theft and so the specific offence of Taking a Motor Vehicle without owners consent was created.

 

The point I am trying to make is just because something does not appear to fit precisely into the definitions we are trying to apply, it is not always a lost case. There may be a slightly different angle to approach things from to achieve the same result.

 

and that always used to wind me up when i was in the job- whilst i accept (reluctantly) the case regarding the car itself it always "grated" with me that we did not charge them with the theft of the fuel-

 

no one but no one could ever argue when they took the car that they did not intend to permanantly deprive the owner of the petrol that was used during the "joyride"

 

Joyride being the worst expression ever countenanced in the field of criminal activity

[Dougal16T]

and that always used to wind me up when i was in the job- whilst i accept (reluctantly) the case regarding the car itself it always "grated" with me that we did not charge them with the theft of the fuel-

 

no one but no one could ever argue when they took the car that they did not intend to permanantly deprive the owner of the petrol that was used during the "joyride"

 

Joyride being the worst expression ever countenanced in the field of criminal activity

 

Good afternoon

 

Definitely a discussion we often had in the briefing room at my 'nick', so I agree entirely, and much along the same lines as when the charge was discussed at Crown Court between Counsel for the Defendant and Counsel for the Crown, with the discussion being 'If my client pleads to the lesser charge for this offence, will you accept that plea and not proceed on the more serious charge?'

 

Something I heard a lot of - and it used to make my hair stand up (I had hair then.....!!). If you take something from someone and keep it without their knowledge or consent, how can it not be theft....(in my view).

 

In my own opinion there is far too much 'soft touch approach' to all crimes and too many bodies worried about the 'rights of suspects'....what about the rights of the person who has been wronged........

 

Pet hate: Offenders on 'Road Wars' saying ...'these handcuffs are too tight'...tough luck, I say!

 

As always best wishes to all

 

Dougal

[Belaflat]

Seem to be a lot of us ex 'job' on here, lol.

Wonder how we managed to keep out of debt then given we were not allowed to be in debt in the first place when we joined.

have the rules changed..?

[Dougal16T]

Good morning,

 

Yes, I agree there are a lot of us about.....however my debts were not incurred until I retired from the job!!!! Then I got divorced, (costing me a small fortune), met someone else, and she took me for a large wedge!! Finally got remarried (yes even at my age!) and she ran off with the milkman (...I miss him so much!)

 

Get the picture...?

 

 

As always all the best to everyone

 

Dougal

Edited August 12, 2009 by Dougal16T
Missed out three words - another detention looming...!!

[diddydicky]

my first two wives died of food poisoning

 

the third died from gunshot wounds (she wouldn't eat the poison)!!

[Belaflat]

Ah Dougal, why does your situation seem so familiar.....

[Justroy]

Hello, I have just joined this Site and am particularly interested in this Mackenzie Hall stuff as they have been "contacting" me.

 

Basically, I was wrongly billed by a Company called People's Phone in 2002, they were trying to get about £400 for a phone bill, which was impossible for me to have run up as they had switched my Bill to Emergency numbers only some weeks before and I had already switched to BT.

 

I moved to the USA and lived there from 2002 to late 2004, and received letters from Solicitors and Debt Collectors, which I returned saying that I did not recognise them or the debt.

 

Over the past couple of years I have been pestered by Mackenzie Hall over the same thing, but have simply told them verbally and bya scribbled note that I do not recognise them or their jurisdiction in respect of a debt that doesn't exist.

 

Should I do anything more? I never answer the house phone to them any more or answer their letters.

[brokebutnotbeatn]

Statute barred.

[Justroy]

Thank you, I was hoping that was the situation, should I tell them that or just simply continue to ignore them?

[brokebutnotbeatn]

Personally I don't think it does any harm to write and tell them that. You should find an appropriate template on here or someone will pop along with the wording I'm sure! Althugh it does sound as if you ahve alrady done so so a final letter with a note re harrassment should suffice.

[JGJ]

Here is another little love letter/phishing trip received from everybodys friends, sorry

[InformedSearcher]

LOL to the naieve who might not be the person I bet it conjours a 'finders fee' type of thoughts. Little does the receipient know the reality. However one might question the card icons and the words 'debt recovery' as being 'the edge' of disclosure. This is though, typical MH - let's go as far as we can, type of concept.

Michael

[brokebutnotbeatn]

Clearly in breach but hey ho. No-one who regulates these people seem to care.

[InformedSearcher]

A good try is to see if you can use the ICO with regards to these things. I contacted them when MH put searches on CRA's long after 6 years of debts from the year 2000! MH decided unlike other DCA's to refuse to remove the entries. They have now gone and I'm not sure if it was due the the ICO or time passing (2 years). DCA's tend to consier the edge of law as a challenge rather than sticking by it.

Michael

[stravencroft]

Hi, really new to this site but I have had snotty demands and telegrams from this company, which were replaced later on by snotty solicitor letters and official looking demands from Connaught Collections Uk Ltd. I thought it was illegal for people to receive letters from more than 1 collection agency? The debt they are chasing me for was a joint debt with my husband. We consulted an advice agency, and my husband did an IVA with all the companies we owed. The debt they are still chasing me for was part of the IVA, which we paid religiously for 5 years, and then paid an additional years payments in order to protect our house. The payments to the IVA were paid from our joint account, and the payments were based on our joint income. We have told these companies that the debt no longer exists as it was included in the IVA, but they are still persuing me!! If there is anyone out there who can offer me some advice i would really appreciate it, as I have now received a Statutory Demand!!!

[InformedSearcher]

Hi, really new to this site but I have had snotty demands and telegrams from this company, which were replaced later on by snotty solicitor letters and official looking demands from Connaught Collections Uk Ltd. I thought it was illegal for people to receive letters from more than 1 collection agency? The debt they are chasing me for was a joint debt with my husband. We consulted an advice agency, and my husband did an IVA with all the companies we owed. The debt they are still chasing me for was part of the IVA, which we paid religiously for 5 years, and then paid an additional years payments in order to protect our house. The payments to the IVA were paid from our joint account, and the payments were based on our joint income. We have told these companies that the debt no longer exists as it was included in the IVA, but they are still persuing me!! If there is anyone out there who can offer me some advice i would really appreciate it, as I have now received a Statutory Demand!!!

 

This might be a useful link (regarding Connaught) albeit a couple of years old:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/37604-connaught-collections-ltd.html

Dare I ask is there such a thing as 'telegrams' these days? The practitioner who did your IVA should be able to deal with this as they will have made a lot of income themselves for managing your IVA.

 

Michael