Mackenzie Hall. Do any of you know of them?

[cerberusalert]

Once a default has been registered and it drops off your credit file it cannot be re-registered, if they try not only should you complain to the OFT but the ICO too.

[Barclaydaav]

Once a default has been registered and it drops off your credit file it cannot be re-registered, if they try not only should you complain to the OFT but the ICO too.

 

Thanks. I think I will wait and see what they do if anything. I am pretty confident that now they know where I live by phoning them this morning, that they will send a follow up letter demanding payment.

 

I will then hit them with the statute barred letter and also inform them that if they do not confirm in writing that the matter is now closed and my details have been removed from their computer system - I will inform the relevant authorities ie. The OFT for starters. I will also reference the requirements imposed on them by the OFT just recently.

 

Just out of interest has anyone sued a DCA for making an adverse addition to their credit file? I know I may be jumping the gun, but I have a business, mortgage etc and need to ensure my credit record remains clean.

[Dougal16T]

Good morning,

 

I have already said my piece on this, BUT I still insist you should report this matter to the Police, as an act of Fraud. Please read the Fraud Act 2006 - yes it's dull - I know!! However you will see why it is so important now, once you have read it!

 

They have no regard or respect for Civil Law whatsoever, and will never abide by it.

 

If you PM me I'll send you the two letters I sent to Mackenzie Hall, which sent them running over the hills and far away.

 

Just trying to help......WARNING they will take no notice of anything and will continue to hound you unless you deal with them (in a manner which some think severe:rolleyes:) by hitting them hard.

 

I know how badly they treat you, please reconsider your actions. They will even try for a Unilateral Charging Order on your property, which you will not be notified about until they have obtained it!!

 

Best wishes - if I can help, please ask...

 

Dougal

[brokebutnotbeatn]

Hi guys, a letter is simply that, a letter, so why the resistance to send what Dougal16T has advised? It sounds good to me! I took bits and bobs from this forum re harrassment et to the CEO of Barclays; I got a written apology, compensation (not asked for but received with thanks) and all the charges removed form the account (re BC). I couldn't have done it without this forum and all it took me was one letter (in this case an e-mail). I think what Dougal16T has suggested is excellent, particularly as this debt is statute barred. It will show you know your rights and will stand up for yourself???

[diddydicky]

Good morning,

 

I have already said my piece on this, BUT I still insist you should report this matter to the Police, as an act of Fraud. Please read the Fraud Act 2006 - yes it's dull - I know!! However you will see why it is so important now, once you have read it!

 

They have no regard or respect for Civil Law whatsoever, and will never abide by it.

 

If you PM me I'll send you the two letters I sent to Mackenzie Hall, which sent them running over the hills and far away.

 

Just trying to help......WARNING they will take no notice of anything and will continue to hound you unless you deal with them (in a manner which some think severe:rolleyes:) by hitting them hard.

 

I know how badly they treat you, please reconsider your actions. They will even try for a Unilateral Charging Order on your property, which you will not be notified about until they have obtained it!!

 

Best wishes - if I can help, please ask...

 

Dougal

 

we are both on the same side and i understand the frustration, and whilst I in no way condone their practices i think we need to keep a clear head and not sink to their level

 

It's just that your posts, with the capitals and underlining and bold red and larger typefonts sizing is more akin to a threatogram from a DCA and the subliminal message that they convey is that you are being a bit hysetrical!

[Barclaydaav]

Thinking about it, I am going to make a pre-emptive strike based on the phone conversation I had with their debt monkey yesterday.

 

I will send the statute barred letter and insist they write to me informing the matter is closed and that they will remove my details from their records. Furthermore, I will hit them with the telephone harrassment letter, so as they know not to even attempt to phone me.

 

In addition I will make it crystal clear that any messing with my credit file will result in legal action. Thankfully I am in a position whereby I can make good on this if I need to.

 

Finally I will also cc the OFT.

 

Will let you know what they come back with.

[JGJ]

I think that Dougal16T is absolutely right, the minimum response for these monsters is as reported in his/her posts and the sooner people who have been contacted by them realise that they are not nice people to deal with, the better.

 

They have absolutely no respect to the law or procedural rules and regs of their business, as they realise that the powers, that should be addressing their wrongdoings, are reluctant to take them on, which of course fuels their endeavours at intimidation tactics towards alleged debtors, who of course play their part by being allowed to be preyed upon, sometimes by force fear or fraud, mostly by a barrage of threatogrammes.

 

Never talk to these or any other DCAs on the phone, it will only fuel their predatory bloodlust, a golden rule THEY have to prove the debt is owing YOU do not.

 

diddydicky, I have the greatest respect for your endeavours on this site as you have helped thousands of people in need of your knowledge, (me included) but in this instance re these DCAs I have to wholeheartedly agree with Dougal16T, if you do not hit them with our best shots they WILL tear the weaker ones limb from limb (OTT or not) they will.

 

Hysterical or not well said Dougal and yes, I do like your colour emphasis.

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[Barclaydaav]

I am emailing, faxing and sending by recorded delivery this letter to Mac Hall.

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

RE: xxxxxxx

 

Your company wrote to me yesterday asking me to contact you quoting the above reference number. Upon speaking to one of your employees, he subsequently informed me that you wanted to contact me concerning an outstanding catalogue debt of approx £112, which was defaulted during the year 2000.

 

Therefore I am writing to inform you that I do not acknowledge ANY debt to either your company or that of your clients. Furthermore I would point out that under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 “an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”

 

I would also point out that the OFT say under their Debt Collection Guidance on statute barred debt that “it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period”.

 

The last contact of this alleged debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from us in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me to recover the alleged amount claimed.

 

The OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that “continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970”.

 

I would also inform you that I am sending a copy of this letter to your local OFT office, who I know are currently assessing whether to renew your credit license.

 

Furthermore, as my right under Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, I fully expect to not receive any phone calls from you on this matter.

 

The only form of correspondence I expect, is that in writing. Whereby I expect to hear this matter is now closed and my personal details are removed from your records accordingly.

 

Failure to comply, will leave me no alternative but to take further appropriate action against your company up to and including legal action.

 

My last point is regarding the verbal threat made by your member of staff who I spoke to yesterday, who implied my credit record could be affected by this matter. I would point out that should your company even perform a search of my credit record, that I will respond by legal recourse. In addition, the OFT, Trading Standards and the Information Commissioners Office will be informed.

[diddydicky]

I think that Dougal16T is absolutely right, the minimum response for these monsters is as reported in his/her posts and the sooner people who have been contacted by them realise that they are not nice people to deal with, the better.

 

They have absolutely no respect to the law or procedural rules and regs of their business, as they realise that the powers, that should be addressing their wrongdoings, are reluctant to take them on, which of course fuels their endeavours at intimidation tactics towards alleged debtors, who of course play their part by being allowed to be preyed upon, sometimes by force fear or fraud, mostly by a barrage of threatogrammes.

 

Never talk to these or any other DCAs on the phone, it will only fuel their predatory bloodlust, a golden rule THEY have to prove the debt is owing YOU do not.

 

diddydicky, I have the greatest respect for your endeavours on this site as you have helped thousands of people in need of your knowledge, (me included) but in this instance re these DCAs I have to wholeheartedly agree with Dougal16T, if you do not hit them with our best shots they WILL tear the weaker ones limb from limb (OTT or not) they will.

 

Hysterical or not well said Dougal and yes, I do like your colour emphasis.

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

 

perhaps we could get him an inside job with one of the dca's (lol)

[Dougal16T]

Good evening,

My thanks for your support and comments - ANYTHING I can do to help PLEASE JUST ASK!!

 

As always

 

Dougal

[Kraken1]

Could you elaborate on the fraud act point?

 

What is a unilateral charging order?

[diddydicky]

Hi guys, a letter is simply that, a letter, so why the resistance to send what Dougal16T has advised? It sounds good to me! I took bits and bobs from this forum re harrassment et to the CEO of Barclays; I got a written apology, compensation (not asked for but received with thanks) and all the charges removed form the account (re BC). I couldn't have done it without this forum and all it took me was one letter (in this case an e-mail). I think what Dougal16T has suggested is excellent, particularly as this debt is statute barred. It will show you know your rights and will stand up for yourself???

 

perhaps because putting your hand to a letter alleging fraud or criminal behaviour might be a tad contentious and come back to bite you on the bum i should think!

 

forget reading the "fraud act 2006" and read instead about "the dangers of controversy"

[brokebutnotbeatn]

But if the debt is SB'd how could it come back to bite you on the bum? Still, its easy to get hot headed over these things and yours is definately the voice of quiet calm and reason - actually its why I haven't yet sent my termination challenge letter to Egg! Softly, softly and all that...message heard and understood!

[Barclaydaav]

To follow up on my letter. The email copy I sent was deleted UnRead. I of course sent it back asking why it was deleted without being read.

 

I got a reply back stating it has now been read. So in addition to the letter I have sent recorded delivery I now have an electronic copy of proof that my letter has been received.

 

I am now waiting to see what they come back with.

 

I have checked in the meantime my credit file with Equifax and on both Equifax and Experian there are no searches made by Mac Hall. So this is a good thing.

 

However I do want written confirmation that the matter is now closed and they have removed my details from their records.

 

Again jumping the gun, but if they fail to respond to my letter or indeed do not comply and remove my details from their records, what should my next course of action be. Other than contacting a solicitor.

[diddydicky]

But if the debt is SB'd how could it come back to bite you on the bum? Still, its easy to get hot headed over these things and yours is definately the voice of quiet calm and reason - actually its why I haven't yet sent my termination challenge letter to Egg! Softly, softly and all that...message heard and understood!

 

i was referring to the act of making written accusations coming back to bite you on the bum - sorry for the confusion

[Dougal16T]

Dear all,

 

I think we need to get rid of any paranoid thoughts we might have concerning quoting the Fraud Act 2006.

 

The reason is simple:

 

Fraud Act 2006

 

(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),

(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information)

 

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

(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).

 

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

 

Now how much clearer should it be - it is not a question of 'anything coming back to bite you on the bum', IF you believe that you are right. It is your RIGHT to make a complaint to the Police, and your RIGHT to have it investigated.

 

Now my friends, Mack Hall, in this situation that we are discussing have breached the Fraud Act 100%. Where is the problem????

 

I hope this clarifies the Fraud Act point. A unilateral Charging Order is one obtained by application to the Land Registry and entered on the Register without your knowledge, and without you attending any sort of Court hearing - true it the entry can be removed, but it can be very difficult to do this.

 

Anyone with any views/ideas/thoughts on this???

 

As always my sincere good wishes to all

 

Dougal

Edited July 23, 2009 by Dougal16T
To add final sentence......!!!

[diddydicky]

nothing except that it fails to mention that the person does these actions

 

dishonestly and with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property

 

as with all theft bases accusations the "sticking points " are proving that the act was

 

DISHONEST

 

and more difficult the

INTENTION

 

an employee of a corporate body (not being a director or person who could make the fraud a part of the policy of the company) would be innocently doing what he has been told/trained to do

 

the chances of being able to prove that these people in these companies are doing what they are doing (however objectionable) is fraud rather than trying to hard to collect debts and breaking all the guidelines under the sun, are about the same as finding a bucket full of rocking horse poo!

 

I am sure that the voice of reason will not prevail so i will leave my contribution at that

[Kraken1]

yeah. sorry. DD's right. Half the elements of the offence are missing. Not sure where the mens rea comes into it. About as much chance of a court convicting as a lemming walking on the moon whilst singing 'dirty diana' and grabbing its crotch.

 

I also think you mean a charging order applied by unilateral notice under ss34 and 35 of Land Registration Act 2002. Remain to be convinced that such would be an issue.

[Dougal16T]

Good morning

 

I am sorry, but as a former prosecutor, I can tell you that the offences under the Theft Act are now in the Fraud Act....which means that it is no longer necessary to prove intent.

 

Dishonesty proves itself! More on this later.....and as for means rea, I tactfully suggest that if you can find it in the Fraud Act you let me know....!!

 

Directors and staff are jointly liable under Vicarious Liability legislation apart from any other. Plenty of famous cases on this...dull but good reading!

 

More later

 

 

Dougal

[Kraken1]

err...say what?

 

it is no longer necessary to prove intent.

 

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 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

 

As for looking for the mens rea....

 

Tell me, as a prosecutor, were you any good? Many convictions? Personally, I wasn't aware that the theft act had been subsumed into the fraud act. I must let westlaw and lexis know.

[diddydicky]

err...say what?

 

 

 

 

 

As for looking for the mens rea....

 

Tell me, as a prosecutor, were you any good? Many convictions? Personally, I wasn't aware that the theft act had been subsumed into the fraud act. I must let westlaw and lexis know.

 

last time he posted he was a former policeman !

 

now he is a former prosecutor and the intent has been taken out of the theft act!

 

I have been retired from the force for over 10 years and all my papers had toe be submitted to the CPS so perhaps when he was a prosecutor (unless he also worked for the CPS as well) perhaps the intent was removed from legislation and then put back in when the CPS took over!!

[cerberusalert]

In 1962, a Royal Commission recommended that police forces set up independent prosecution departments so as to avoid having the same officers investigate and prosecute cases though, technically, the prosecuting police officers did so as private citizens.

 

However, the Royal Commission's recommendation was not implemented by all police forces, and so in 1978 another Royal Commission was set up, this time headed by Sir Cyril Philips. It reported in 1981, recommending that a single unified Crown Prosecution Service with responsibility for all public prosecutions in England and Wales be set up. A White Paper was released in 1983, becoming the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which established the CPS under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, consisting of a merger of his old department with the existing police prosecution departments. It started operating in 1986.

 

In April 1999, after a review of the CPS carried out by Sir Iain Glidewell was published in June 1998, the CPS was reorganised from 14 to 42 geographical areas, following the boundaries of the police forces (except in London, where the area covers the boundaries of both the Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police).

 

The power of the police to charge for all but the most minor offences was transferred to the CPS following the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

[Dougal16T]

Good evening,

 

Well, all I can say is I apologise if I seem to have upset anyone. I (tactfully) suggest that you speak to a Criminal lawyer, who will tell you that it is no longer necessary to prove intent in cases of Fraud.

 

The Theft Act has been superceded by the Fraud Act 2006, and if you read the preamble you will see this.

 

Mens Rea is not a consideration where the evidence adduced is sufficient to prove the case. However we can argue this all day, I for one have better things to do.

 

The simple fact in this case is Mack Hall have clearly breached the Fraud Act 2006 - if no-one wants to tackle them on that point then that is their choice. I did and the result was they lost!

 

As always

 

Dougal

 

ps : I don't prosecute any more (now retired from that, but I am still litigating!!)

[Dougal16T]

last time he posted he was a former policeman !

 

now he is a former prosecutor and the intent has been taken out of the theft act!

 

I have been retired from the force for over 10 years and all my papers had toe be submitted to the CPS so perhaps when he was a prosecutor (unless he also worked for the CPS as well) perhaps the intent was removed from legislation and then put back in when the CPS took over!!

 

Hello,

Just thought you would like me to correct any misunderstanding:

 

Yes, I was a former policeman, and after that a prosecutor for the Department of Transport - I hope this clears that up!

 

PLEASE NOTE: I did not say 'the intent has been taken out of the Theft Act', what I said was it is 'no longer necessary to prove intent in cases of Fraud'!!

 

As ever

 

Dougal

 

Who said 'sarcasm is the lowest form of wit?' (NOT ME!)

[NailPost]

Dougal said "Mack Hall have clearly breached the Fraud Act 2006 - if no-one wants to tackle them on that point then that is their choice. I did and the result was they lost!"

 

Can you post details of how you did thais and how you won.