Letters from Mackenzie Hall / Buchanan Clarks Wells - advice please?

[symey]

Hi all

 

first posting after doing some readin on the forums, general advice seems to be to post your individual probs rather then jump on somebody elses post so...

 

Ive done various searches on the web and read lots of different things on MH & BCW, none of which is very positive!

 

Ive recently started receiving letters from the two above companies, in regard to a 'Cetelem Storecard account' for the amount of £1xxx.xx.

 

I can honestky say i do not know what this debt is, it doesnt ring any bells at all - neither the name nor the amount, which i dont consider to be small.

 

My experien credit report shows nothing outstansing on it, no defaults etc, and i recently did a credit score search and it came back as 999. It has been slowly increasing from approx 800 over the last year. i am slightly confused as to why this woukld be in perfect order if i was being chased for a legitimate debt.

 

Letters arrived as follows:

 

04/03/09 - MH 'FAILURE TO RESPOND' letter gave me a deadline of noon on 11/03/09 to pay in full. Told me it has wrote to me before but this was the first i had heard. I didnt like the sound of the letter so did a search and then started to read the info on MH. General advise was to sit tight and do not call these people, so i kept, but ignored the letter.

 

27/05/09 - BCW 'FORMAL DEMAND' letter said they had been instructed by Lowell Portfolio to recover the debt. Basically asked me to pay.

 

11/06/09 - BCH 'FINAL NOTICE' letter referring to previous leters, again telling me to pay.

 

29/06/09 - BCH 'LEGAL NOTIFICATION' letter telling me, despite repeated requests for payment. the anount was overdue. States documents are being prepared for issue of a claim against me in my local court.

 

Says once judgement or decreee has been granted, i will incur costs, credit being adversely affacted etc. It saus to avoid any of this action being taken i can pay them via monthly installments provided they get the enclosed direct debit mandate back by early July.

 

Im after some advice - not sure what to do really, do i ignore or writye to them?

 

I dont want this to get silly but i also hear some horror stories once people have made contact with this guys in tat they cannot shake them loose!

 

I would appreciate your advice and suggestions!

 

Manythanks in advance.

 

Symey

Edited July 3, 2009 by symey

[PGH7447]

Hi and welcome to the forum.

 

If you are certain this is not your debt then tere are a couple of courses of action.

 

1. Ignore these muppets

2. send a letter stating that you are unaware of this debt and make them prove the debt is yours, and until such time as proof is provided any further attempts to contact you will be classed as harrassment and you will report them to the relevant authorities for such a breach, these being the OFT and FSA.

3. Do not on any account call them, they lie and threaten.

4. report them anyway

[sam614]

as PGH says.

 

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/573-general-debt-letter-if-you-know-nothing-of-the-debt

 

send them this for proof,and report them.

SAM:pLOWELL DETESTER

[symey]

thanks for the relplies guys. As i said before, i am not 100% that i have nothng to do with this , its unliekly but if it indeed turns out to be something to do with me, id be happy to pay it. Id want proof first though!

 

The letter i was directed to, would still be ok to send? or should i modify it to at all first?

 

Many thanks

[PGH7447]

its ok to go just amend to suit you

[symey]

OK thanks, what im looking to do is get the proof and take it from there, guess i would be asking them to produce a copy of the signed credit agreement?

 

Are these guys actually lightly to pursue court action or in your experience, are they 'trying it on'?

 

Many thanks

[PGH7447]

No at the moment you are asking them to provide proof that the debt in questions is actually yours and not someone with a similar name in a similar town with a similar DOB

 

They are on a Phising Trip to see which person responds to their empty threats

[sam614]

yep. see what they come back with.

 

If it is yours then request cca.

 

SAM:pLOWELL DETESTER

[symey]

Understood - thanks guys, will send the letter and take it from there.

 

Should i send it recorded?

 

And should i be worrying about this court action? Is it likely or an empty threat?

 

Manythanks

[sam614]

yes recorded and DONT SIGN IT.

 

would not worry over anything till proved its yours.

 

then they would have to obtain cca;)

SAM

[symey]

OK, once again, thanks Sam - will update this thread when i have more news.

 

Has put my mind at rest

 

Have a great weekend

[symey]

hi there

 

thought i would post an update ..

 

Sent the letter as advised and received a response from BCW on 09/07/09 stating the account had been put on hold whilst they refer back to their client for further instructions.

 

Havent heard anything else yet but i guess its down to them to get back to me now.

 

Cheers

[42man]

Mackenzie Hall are well known for chasing debts that are statute barred....if you have not made a payment for 6 years towards a debt then it will be statute barred (5 years in Scotland - which requires a different letter to the one below).....this is the letter to send (recorded) - http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/599-letter-sent-when-debt-is-statute-barred

[42man]

You might find this of interest too

 

INITIAL SUBMISSION; CETELEM (UK) LIMITED

Full text with excisions

The Company and relevant markets

Cetelem (UK) Limited was created in March 1999 as a 50/50 Joint Venture between Halifax plc and Cetelem SA.

In September 1999, Cetelem began trading from its Head Office in Wallington (Surrey) with Halifax referred personal loans. Retail activity was launched a year later in September 2000 after a 6-month pilot.

At the end of 2001 Halifax and Bank of Scotland merged to create HBOS PLC, making Cetelem part of one of the biggest banking groups in the UK.

At the beginning of 2004 Cetelem SA purchased 100% ownership of Cetelem (UK) Limited, allowing greater focus to be given from a single direction.

Cetelem aims to become the preferred finance partner to UK retailers and a market leader within 3 to 4 years. To achieve this objective, Cetelem is using the proven approach to business, its tools, its systems (IT), methods and products. Cetelem uses Cetelem SA’s leading edge Risk Management tools, complemented by bureau services provided by Experian.

Competiton within the Store Cards market

Until 2003, Cetelem issued the Aura card, a network identifier for co-branded store cards accepted as a means of payment by 10 retailers. A generic Aura card was later introduced to be acceptable in some other stores. Dixons was the major Aura operator, and a number of furniture stores were also prominent in the network.

Some 161,000 Aura store cards were issued, of which some [ excised] ([excised]%) were active at the end of 2003. Dixon’s was by far the biggest operator, with about 149,000 cards but with an activation rate of just [excised] % and a cost of risk at [excised] %. [Excised] The activation rate in non-Dixons Aura was, [excised], even lower. [Excised].

Aura Accounts can either be opened directly, or can be opened in conjunction with other retail credit products.

In January 2003 Halifax Cetelem had decided to cease the Aura card operation ( card production and mailing initially), and began an exit strategy allowing the withdrawal of the card facility and its functionality with minimal disruption to day-to-day operations

The Aura Account was pitched as an overdraft with a Card that allowed ATM access and in store use. As such APR’s associated were set at 19.9% APR for all non-Dixons cards, and 23.9% for Dixons cards. These price points are

similar to those of overdrafts offered by many High Street Banks, and are significantly lower than other Store Cards issued by our competitors.

The only retailer with whom there was any contractual arrangement to issue a card was Dixons, this is in the process of being terminated. This agreement involved a profit sharing structure, which was never applicable due to low levels of activation on the card. All other retailer cards had no contractual agreement; there were therefore no merchant fees, profit sharing or other financial agreement associated. Cetelem paid non-Dixons retailers a fee of £5 for each of their cards activated.

Information available to customers

Not relevant, because Cetelem no longer issues store cards.

[pinklynne]

Hi, wondered if anyone can help. It appears that debts over 6 years old (if no contact has been made) are statue barred, but Macenzie Hall contacted my partner after 9 years and after threatening calls and letters he started paying a nominal amount, now they are wanting at least £200 per month or the debt paying off. Can anyone tell me whether he has to pay anything if at has already been statue barred. He has recently asked them about this, they told him yhat because he has started making payments it doesn't apply to him and demanded more money even suggesting he borrowed from a family member or sold MY car.

[PGH7447]

they have conned him into restarting the time period, I would in your shoes, stop paying and let them rant and rave, in the mean time gather all evidence of what they have said and done and report them to the OFT.

 

Also what was the debt if it was a credit card / loan hit them with a cca request for the roiginal agreement

[PGH7447]

Pinklynne - did he start the payment after the 6 years point if yes then read this

 

IHTM28384 - Law relating to debts: statute-barred debts

 

If a lender allows time to pass without receiving any payment an action for recovery may become barred.

 

 

 

 

 

Under the Limitations Act 1980 the time limits are

• in simple contracts, 6 years
  
• in contracts under seal, 12 years.
  

If the debtor acknowledges the debt in writing or makes a part payment within the original limitation period, then the time limits start to run again from the date of acknowledgement or the date of payment.

 

in other words if they conned him after the 6 years then defo stop paying them