Ruthbridge/BCW/MacKenzie Hall

[LutherBlisset]

I have been chased for an old alleged debt now for the last 2 years. Originally it was Ruthbridge who I CCA'd back in April 07. I got nothing back from them.

 

I then got a letter about the same debt from BCW in June 08. I sent them a letter stating the dispute with Ruthbridge. The letter that starts " I am rather bemused . . . . . "

 

I made a complaint to the ICO re BCW which has yet to be investigated as they have a huge backlog.

 

Yesterday i got a letter from MacKenzie Hall about the same alleged debt telling me they were going to come round to my house for a doorstep assesment in the next 10 days regarding the same alleged debt. I have no doubt this a scare tactic and they won't appear but still not very nice.

 

Are DC's totally above the law? Can they do what they want?

 

What do I do now with regard to Mac Hall?

 

The ironic thing is that I am pretty certain this alleged debt is statue barred.

 

Any help, as usual, very gratefully receieved.

 

LB

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/146029-cabot-ruthbridge-bcw.html

[LutherBlisset]

NB I didnt get any communication from BCW once I had sent my letter.

[sam614]

would sent statute barred to muck hall.

 

end of these road if its now with these hounds.

 

let them prove its not.

 

SAM:pLOWELL DETESTER

[42man]

If you have sent them the statute barred letter, then unless they can prove that the debt is NOT statute barred then they are NOT allowed to continue to pursue you.... - If you haven't sent it then you must do by recorded delivery - http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/599-letter-sent-when-debt-is-statute-barred

 

This is what the OFT say - Section 2.14 (b) -

• 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.

Did you see this - The Office of Fair Trading: OFT imposes requirements on Mackenzie Hall to improve handling of disputed debts

Send the stat barred letter ASAP as you need closure on this - and please report them to the OFT, as it seems blatantly obvious that these debts get thrown around without the previous debt collection agency providing ANY kind of record of previous correspondence whatsoever....this is a pretty shoddy business practice and unprofessional....

You can also add to the bottom of the letter this -

Furthermore, should it be your intention to arrange a “doorstep call”, please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make an appointment with you.

 

There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so, then you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance.

 

Yours faithfully/sincerely

[LutherBlisset]

Have just checked dates - if its 5 years in Scotland this is def statute barred.

 

Thanks for help

 

42 - 2nd part of post quotes English law as i am over the border up north i cant add to my letter but thanks anyway.

 

LB

[42man]

Ah in that case if you are in Scotland then you need to send them this letter here as it will be different - http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/577-statute-barred-letter-scotland

[42man]

Well you can certainly mention the OFT bit in the doorstep aspect Luther....