welcome finance issues - now MKDP

[DonkeyB]

Misrepresenting the true legal situation is a serious offence in the eyes of the regulators. Get complaining.

[dx100uk]

certainly if welcome paid themselves some of your PPI reclaim

then 'just because' you 'instigated' that process, it does not make it a payment by 'you'

 

 

dx

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Brigadier

 

 

the debt became statue barred 18 months ago.

 

 

3 months ago MDKP wrote and said that we had paid £3000 to welcome finance last year.

 

 

All I did was write and back and informed them that the amount paid in was a PPI refund paid in by welcome finance

so I do not see how this is admission of the debt.

 

 

But on saturday we received a further letter from MDKP which says:

 

Further to our previous correspondence

will you please telephone our office with your proposal for payment of the debt.

 

Furthermore as we informed you in our previous correspondence we do not view the debt as statue barred because;

 

1) You queried the amount on the default notice.

 

2) You informed us that the amount paid in was a PPI refund.

 

So therefore you are liable to pay this debt.

 

 

 

 

 

Ok Angel,

 

 

Try this.

 

 

Ms Sarah Lambert,

CEO The Compello Group.

 

 

Date:

 

 

MKDP Ref: xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

 

Dear Ms Lambert:

 

 

Formal Complaint.

 

 

I refer you to correspondence from MKDP dated xx. xx. xxxx. in reference to an alleged debt arising from an account with Welcome Finance.

 

 

I have informed MKDP that this alleged debt is Statute Barred and that I will not make any payment or offer of payment now or in the future.

 

 

However MKDP has stated that the alleged debt is not statute barred because of a PPI Refund payment was paid to this account.

 

 

1.This was not authorised by me and therefore has no effect upon the status of the alleged debt.

2. The repayment of PPI premiums is an entirely separate matter from any alleged debt.

 

 

I now require you as the CEO of the Compello group to fully and properly investigate MKDPs conduct in this matter as it seems clear that MKDP staff totally misunderstand what they have been told about this matter.

 

 

I am aware that a formal complaint allows Compello 56 days to investigate and respond to this complaint however considering the seriousness of this matter I would expect an earlier reply.

 

 

Use signed for post check delivery date;

 

 

 

 

The attitude that " we do not consider the debt to be statute barred, therefore you are liable" staggers me! It is not for MKDP to decide on the law, they can try their argument before a judge their stance is arrogant beyond reason.

[dx100uk]

as a side note

 

 

when did you take out the first agreement

 

 

and s this the account number MKDP are chasing?

 

 

dx

[Angel104]

I am now being chased by MKRR.

 

 

They are insisting that when I informed them that the money paid in was a PPI refund I acknowledged the debt.

 

 

The agreement was taken out in 2006.

 

 

Their latest letter that arrived this week claims that due to MY misunderstanding of the situation they cannot assist me any further.

 

 

I asked them in writing to stop phoning me because I was getting up to 5 calls a day to which they replied that they will continue to phone

until I offer them a payment.

 

 

Things got so bad that I have had to buy a call blocker.

[dx100uk]

call blockers like truecall are always useful anyway.

 

 

can you scan up the letters

 

 

just remember MKRR are the same bunch

 

 

a PPI refund carried out by the OC does not reset the SB clock.

 

 

and they know that too well.

 

 

dx

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I am now being chased by MKRR.

 

 

They are insisting that when I informed them that the money paid in was a PPI refund I acknowledged the debt.

 

 

The agreement was taken out in 2006.

 

 

Their latest letter that arrived this week claims that due to MY misunderstanding of the situation they cannot assist me any further.

 

 

 

 

Reply to MKRR in a Formal Complaint.

 

 

Perhaps as follows:

 

 

Private & Confidential

 

 

FAO: Ms Sara Lambert

CEO the Compello Group

 

 

Same address as MKRR

 

Date:

Ref: use theirs

 

Dear Ms Lambert

 

I refer you to a letter from MKRR dated xx.xx.xxxx regarding an alleged debt originating from an account with Welcome Finance. Please not I do not acknowledge any debt to any company within the Compello Group

 

MKRR is claiming that a refund of PPI payments by the original creditor paid to this account restarted the 6 year period set down in the Limitations Act 1980 as you must be well aware this type of refund is not an admission of liability nor is a payment made by me and therefore has n effect on the becoming statute barred.

 

 

MKRR is making an unreasonable and unnecessary number of telephone calls to my number to an extent that this now amounts to harassment.

 

 

You are reminded of the 2014 Appeal Court Judgement in Roberts - v - BOS which laid down what amounts to harassment once a creditor has been informed in writing that contact by telephone must cease.

 

 

The alleged debt became statute barred some 18 months ago and I restate for clarification and for the avoidance of any misunderstanding; This alleged debt is Statute Barred and I will not now nor at any time in the future make any payment or offer of payment.

 

 

I now suggest that Compello/MKRR closes the file on this matter immediately and confirms in writing that it has done so, failure to do Will result in the matter being referred to the FCA and a complaint being made to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

 

This is my final response.

 

 

Use signed for post: Check delivery date:

[ims21]

Angel...did you not lodge a formal complaint in late August?

 

If so and the response you got from this is the one in post #167 above then there is no point on sending another formal complaint. You could end up in a cycle of simply sending formal complaints ad nauseam.

 

If you did send a formal complaint back in late August then the 8 weeks allowed for a final response will be reached ion the next week or so.

 

If you have received a letter which has a "final response" paragraph on it or after 8 weeks you have not received such "final response" then you are free to open a complaint with fos. That would be your next step rather then enter into letter ping pong with them.

[Angel104]

I wrote to MKDP and asked them to stop processing my data and got the following reply:

 

As the balance remains outstanding we do not have to comply with your request to stop processing your personal data, as credit referencing is necessary for putting into effect the contract you signed with Welcome Finance.

 

The debt is statute barred. Are they correct with what they say.

[fkofilee]

Yes they are correct. They are allowed to process your data.

However if its 6 years from the CORRECT default date, then they shouldnt be anywhere near your credit profile.

 

We need more info though, tell us more please

[AndyOrch]

If the status is now barred ...it really shouldn't be showing on your CRA,s anyway.

[Angel104]

So they should not be still processing my data.

[dx100uk]

no

but the debt is 6yrs since the default

it should not be on your credit file

 

 

the ICO say:

 

 

All references to a defaulted debt must be removed from your credit files after 6 years

has passed from date of default, whether paid off or not.

.

the WHOLE ACCOUNT WILL VANISH, never to return.

.

however, this does not mean the debt itself is not still owed

consider a CCA request.

.

This is so that someone who continues paying something

- even after 6 years from default

- should not be at a disadvantage to someone who pays nothing after default

and ends up with a clean file after 6 years.

[sillygirl1]

Either way you look at it 6 years is FAR too long, why we don't have 3 years like many other countries I don't know. We have robust (although much abused) laws in place to protect creditors (and delinquent debtors) so this recording to an unlicenced, unregulated 'authority' should not be used against anyone.

[Angel104]

Following my problems with MKDP chasing a statute barred debt. A notice of intended legal action has now arrived from keynes collections. Part of it reads:

 

This letter is made in accordance with the Practice Direction - Pre Action Conduct of the Civil Procedure Rules. Your attention is drawn to Paragraph 4 of Annex A of the Practice Direction concerning the court's power to impose sanctions for failure to comply with the Practice Direction.

 

Can someone please explain what the above paragraph means.

 

They also go on to say that I can pay the debt by credit card.

[SabreSheep]

Ignore it untill an envelope form northampton bulk court turns up with a claim form

[ericsbrother]

It is a threat of legal action. The quickest way of sinking it is to tell them the debt is statute barred. It might not make them stop writing rubbish but it will give a paper trail that will scupper any actual claim.

[Angel104]

I have been telling them since last year it is statute barred. I have also found out that Keynes collections and the compello group are the same people. Does anybody know if a court is allowed to touch your state and private pensions?

[jb000]

I have been telling them since last year it is statute barred. I have also found out that Keynes collections and the compello group are the same people. Does anybody know if a court is allowed to touch your state and private pensions?

 

If it is statute barred then it is statute barred. No amount of them moaning and stamping their feet is going to change that. If you do get any court papers from Northampton, they are surely flogging a dead horse because it forms a complete defence. They tried it on with me with an old Welcome Finance debt and it got them completely nowhere apart from wasting their time. This lot have vexatious litigant written all over them and the sooner they realise they have bought a pile of lemons from welcome, the better.

[Stigman]

I have been telling them since last year it is statute barred.

 

How have you told them? If via the telephone then this needs to be in writing as suggested above by Ericsbrother.

 

Stigman

[Angel104]

They have been told about 4 times in writing. They are a joke. I was first contacted by the compello group who also use the name MKDP LLP. They state that keynes collections are a servicing agent for compello group without stating that the two are the same. And someone has told me that they have been misrepresenting themselves.

[oleg]

They operate under a variety of names. Others include Raven and M K Rapid Recoveries. However, why let them get to you? Have they ever challenged your assertion that the account is statute barred? If not, that is as good as an admission that they know it is. In which case they will get nowhere with it.

 

Your telling them four times is three too many, even if they've told you under four of their names. They may read that as worry on your part, so keep poking you to scare you about what may happen to you if you carry on with your "attitude". In fact, nothing can happen.

 

What else have you been writing to them about? We generally don't encourage this practice but if you're S B you're safe. Just wasting energies which might be better used elsewhere.