Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks London  if I’ve read correctly the questionaire wants me to post his actual name on a public forum… is that correct.  I’ve only had a quick read so far
    • Plenty of success stories, also bear in mind not everyone updates the forum.  Overdale's want you to roll over and pay, without using your enshrined legal right to defend. make you wet yourself in fear that a solicitor will Take you to court, so you will pay up without question. Most people do just that,  but you are lucky that you have found this place and can help you put together a good defence. You should get reading on some other Capital One and Overdale's cases on the forum to get an idea of how it works.  
    • In both versions the three references to "your clients" near the end need to be changed to "you" or "your" as Alliance are not using solicitors, they have sent the LoC themselves. Personally I'd change "Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept" to "Dear Kev".  It would show you'd done your homework, looked up the company, and seen it's a pathetic one-man band rather than having any departments.  The PPCs love to pretend they have some official power and so you should be scared of them - showing you've sussed their sordid games and you're confident about fighting them undermines all this.  In fact that's the whole point of a snotty letter - to show you'd be big trouble for them if they did do court so better to drop you like a hot potato and go and pursue mugs who just give in instead. In the very, very, very, very unlikely case of Kev doing court, it'd be better that he didn't know in advance all the legal arguments you'd be using, so I'd heavily reduce the number of cards being played.
    • Thanx Londoneill get on to it this evening having a read around these forums I can’t seem to find many success stories using your methods. So how successful are these methods or am I just buying time for him  and a ccj will be inevitable in the end. Thanks another question is, will he have to appear at court..? I am not sure he has got it in him
    • Here's a suggested modified version for consideration by the team. (Not sure whether it still gives too much away?)   RE: PCN 4xxxxx Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept, Thank you for your dubious Letter Of Claim (dated 29th April 2024) of £100 for just 2 minutes of overstay. The family rolled around on the floor in amazement of the idea you actually think they’d accept this nonsense, let alone being confused over the extra unlawful £70 you added. Shall we raise the related VAT issue with HMRC, or perhaps the custodians of the unicorn grain silos? Apart from the serious GDPR breach you’ve made with the DVLA and your complete failure in identifying the driver, we’re dumbfounded that the PCN is still not compliant with the PoFA (2012 Schedule 4 Under Section 9.2.f) even after 12 years of pathetic trial and error. We also doubt a judge would be very impressed at your bone idleness and lack of due diligence regarding parking periods. Especially with no consideration of section 13 in your own trade association's code of practice and the topological nature of the Cornish landscape versus a traditional multi-storey. And don’t even get us started on the invisible signage during the ultra busy bank holiday carnage, that is otherwise known as the random parking chaos in the several unmarked, unmanaged over-spill fields, or indeed the tedious “frustration of contract” attempting to get a data connection to Justpark.  We suggest your clients drop this extreme foolishness or get an absolute hammering in court. We are more than ready to raise the above issues and more, with a fair minded judge, who will most likely laugh your clients out in less time than it takes to capture a couple of useless ANPR photos. If you insist on continuing this stupid, money grabbing quest, after having all of the above pointed out, we will of course show this letter to the Judge and request “an unreasonable costs order” under CPR 27.14.2.g and put it toward future taxis to Harlyn Bay instead.  We all look forward to your clients' deafening silence. Signed, "Spot". (Vehicle Keeper's pet Dalmation).
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Mackenzie Hall & CCJ


Eddy3oy
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6431 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

 

I too have just recived a letter from Mackenzie Hall stating that they are trying to contact me on 'a personal matter'. There is no mention of any debt in the letter at all. After reading the rest of these posts is it safe to assume that this is just a fishing exercise on their part and can be safely ignored? Like some people here, I did have a loan and credit card that i walked away from around 7 years ago which resulted in a CCJ but since then no correspondance has been entered into with the repective banks or credit card company. I have sent off for my credit file just to check that there isn't anything on there that I'm not aware of.

 

It seems that I might be reciving a small red postcard next, and unless any figure or debt is mentioned i shall ignore that as well. I am planning to send the letter posted earlier in this tread should they continue and/or mention a debt or court action but untill then I'm planning to stay quiet.

 

Would anyone have any advise as to whether this is the best course of action? I'm guessing that alot of other people have had similar issues with this company and I'd be interested to hear what happend in their case.

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

Regards,

 

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Zooman

CCJs are not subject to the Limitation Act, but they have their own rules around enforcement. If the letter from Mackenzie Hall is about a debt that whet to CCJ please tell us when the Judgement was entered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Zooman,

 

As of yet though there has been no mention or reference of any debt at all. The letter just states that they would like to contact me on 'a personal matter'. Is it safe to ignore this and wait for them to actually mention a specific debt?

 

The CCJ judgement would have been put in place around 1998/99

 

Thanks,

 

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bizarre letter!

Like the person on this string said they were "Attempting to contact the above person or any member of his/her family (they should know my gender) about a personal matter."

 

The letter is addressed to "The Occupier" then lists my name and my address below it! Surely they know! Again, no mention of debt, no website address and the printed, rather than signed signature, leads me to suspect it is some kind of [problem] OR just some automated system to catch people they presume were born yesterday. Very suspicious...

 

Personal matter? His/her family? If they are debt collection they normally say so. If they are soliciters they say so. I smell a rat...:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just received a letter form MH about "matters personal". I was instantly suspicious when I saw the term "investigation team" and there were loads of visa/credit card symbols at the bottom of the letter. I did a Yell search for debt collection agencies and ,yup,there they were. I phoned them up (instantly regretting it as I put the phone down) and told them that I did not exist at that address. I have walked away from debt but they were about 9/10 years ago. Am I still liable for them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just received a letter form MH about "matters personal". I was instantly suspicious when I saw the term "investigation team" and there were loads of visa/credit card symbols at the bottom of the letter. I did a Yell search for debt collection agencies and ,yup,there they were. I phoned them up (instantly regretting it as I put the phone down) and told them that I did not exist at that address. I have walked away from debt but they were about 9/10 years ago. Am I still liable for them?

 

Depends whetehr you had a CCJ or not, and when you last acknowlefdged them by either making payment or in writing to creditor. If there is no CCj then they are statute barred which means you still owe the money but it cannot be enforced, if there is CCJ then you will always be laible as it is a court order.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how do I go about finding if there is a CCJ. Do I just go to the County Court and ask them?

 

They are registered here RTL Home for six years and I do not know how you find out about before then, but if you use the trust contact details I am sure they can point you in the right direction.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Technically a CCJ never lapses until its satisfied but if it doesn't show up on your credit file it strengthens your hand because the muppets at Mackenzie Hall will have tio go to court and persuade a judge to renew it.

 

From what you say it sounds very much as if our mates from Ayrshire are on a fishing trip and if Mackenzie Hall say there is a CCJ they will have to provide details it exists, simple as that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, just been sent the MacKenzie Hall "We are attempting to contact the above named person regarding a personal matter" letter.

 

Probably like a lot of people was tempted to call in to have a go and give them the whole 6 years thing (the only debt it could be is circa 1996). But thanks to this site had second thoughts a put the letter in it's correct place, the bin.

 

Anyway just wondering if anyone knows how MH generate these letters and where they source there info from?

 

Reason I ask if that I normally reside overseas and in the last 8 years have only returned to the UK for more than a visit (ie for 6months plus) on 2 occassions and it just seems that each time I do return I get the same letter. Possible a coincidence, or maybe something more sinister?

 

(Posted in other MH threads)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...