PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

[PJ69]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

Received another letter from McKenzie Hall today, entitled Reduced Settlement Offer.

"Despite repeated efforts for payment by our client, the above account remains unpaid. Our clients are unaware of any legitimate reason for non-payment [obviously they're aware of the dispute or they would never have removed the default in the first place - which I assume only they can do, not by one of the collection agencies]. However, they are willing to accept a reduced settlefment figure in order to draw the matter to a close".

The settlement amound has to be paid no later than noon on 14th January.

"Our client would prefer an amicable settlement, however, should the settlement amount not be paid by the specified date, they will not hesitate to take such further action as may be appropriate".

I assume I should still ignore this? Any thoughts?

Thanks

[Tools]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

They also did not

"hesitate to instruct the appropriate action be taken to recover the outstanding balance in full" and "It is now imperative that I contact their office within 48 hours"

back in November did they :beagle:

Ignore Peej

[Curlyben]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

ROFLMAO.....

[PJ69]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

They also did not

"hesitate to instruct the appropriate action be taken to recover the outstanding balance in full" and "It is now imperative that I contact their office within 48 hours"

back in November did they :beagle:

Ignore Peej

oh yeah, so they did! lol.....I'd forgot what the last letter said!

[PJ69]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

Received yet another letter from Mackenzie Hall today, saying that they've written to me on numerous ocassions however the dept remains outstanding. To avoid further action, a monthly repayment plan must be in place within the next 7 days. As a gesture of goodwill, their client will accept the account to be paid by monthly nstalments providing I complete, sign, and return a Standing Order Mandate to them within the next 7 days. On receipt of this Mandate, MH will not take any further action against me prividing I do not default on payments. The mandate they've enclosed is for £20 per month, which I will not be setting up!

Is this another one I should just ignore, or would you advise differently?

Cheers

PJ

[Tools]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

File it

[PJ69]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

lol cheers - I have to ask every time just to make sure, cos you know what I'm like - a born worrier lol

[Curlyben]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

As tools says file it, but you'll need a new file for No Hope Idiots

[PJ69]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

Hi again - not been around for a while because everything seems to have been going hunky dory lately, for a change! lol

It looks like Mackenzie Hall have realised they're getting nowhere with me, but I have received a letter today from S.R.J Debt Recoveries today, informing me that their client, Phoenix, have attempted to contact me on numerous occasions to arrange repayment terms on the outstanding debt.

They go on to say that, as I have failed to respond to correspondence, they have found it necessary to make tracing enquiries and have confirmed that I am, in fact, a resident at the address they have and therefore conclude that I am choosing to ignore their requests [you don't say!! lol]. In the circumstances they are instructed that court proceedings may be issued without further notice.

It then goes on to say that in order to prevent this step, my next action should be to contact them urgently.

Is this something which I should take seriously, with them having done a trace, or is it just another scare tactic? I'm thinking the latter, seeing as it only says that court proceedings MAY be issued.

Any advice please?

Cheers

PJ

[Tools]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

Come on PJ, you should know by now what to do with that one.

Same as the rest.

BTW Legal Beagles Consumer Forum nudge.

[PJ69]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

I thought as much Jules, but ya know me! lol

Thanks for the 'nudge' - Di told me about it a while ago, but I won't be able to make it I'm afraid [several birthdays, including mi own, in October so fully booked [or read as 'skint' lol] I'm afraid.

[PJ69]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

Hi all, I'm back! Thought I'd heard the last of this, as I've not really heard anything since my last post [maybe the odd one or two standard letters from Mucky Hall, but nothing to worry about].

However, a couple of days ago I received a letter from Rockwell. I wasn't concerned, at first, and filed it with the rest. They also left a message on my answer phone yesterday [they don't say what it relates to, just a reference number to quote - but by seeing the amount on the letter I received, I could tell it referred to the same].

What is bothering me the most is that I came into work this morning to find an email from my boss, with a telephone message asking me to phone Rockwell. When this debt was originally with Intrum Justicia [way before I sent them the CCA letter and they passed it back to GUS] they were sent the harrassment letter, telling them to remove all telephone numbers which they held for me. At home I vet my calls, and don't answer if I don't know the number - if it's important they'll leave a message - but I'm worried it could cause problems if they keep phoning work.

Does anyone have experience with Rockwell and, if so, will their calls die off like Mucky Hall, or should I send the CCA letter [yet again] which Fredrickson never replied to??

I'd really appreciate any help, thanks in advance.

PJ xXx

[bluebottle]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

For starters, ringing your employer is a breach of OFT Debt Collection Guidelines. I've attached a copy of the most up-to-date edition for your information and use. Also, Rockwell could be in breach of Section 2, Protection from Harassment Act 1997 if they have done this on at least two occasions. Although Section 40, Administration of Justice Act 1970 is intended to be used against DCAs, the penalties prescribed are not a deterrent. The PfHA is more effective and prescribes a civil remedy, under Section 3, which enables you to obtain a "without notice" injunction against anyone engaged in harassment against you. However, within three working days of being granted an injunction, you must submit a claim to the court, which will be heard by a Circuit Judge, at a later date, and the injunction made permanent. You can claim for anxiety caused and any financial losses you have suffered as a result of the harassment.

However, case law has provided peeps with an effective weapon against the likes of Rockwell in the form of Ferguson -v- British Gas Trading Limited 2009. This means that companies can be held liable for harassment of individuals.

It would be a good idea to send Rockwell a Notice to Desist, basically, a "Stop It" letter, which is an essential pre-requisite to any further action against them. If that doesn't abate the harassment, you may have to go for their jugular and apply to the courts for an injunction.

[teaboy2]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

Just to add to bluebottle advice.

Your debt maywell be statuted barred now, though it depends on if your in scotland or england/wales. If the last payment you made was 6 years ago it is statuted barred in england and wales or if your in scotland it would be statuted barred if no payment has been more than 5 years since you last made payment.

[PJ69]

Re: PJ v Intrum Justicia/Great Universal Stores

Thanks for the input Bluebottle and Teaboy :tinysmile_grin_t: Cheeky so and so's managed to get hold of me at work today [I couldn't just ignore the call, in case it did happen to be something work related]. I wouldn't confirm my address [which I think they're cheeky to ask, seeing as they phoned me and wouldn't say what it related to lol] and told her that I couldn't take personal calls at work, and to remove my number [which she said she would] and told her that I didn't have a home phone and wasn't giving her my personal mobile number. Told her I'd look at the letter if I received it

Anyway, I've been looking through all my old correspondence, both sent and received, along with my original thread over on CAG. I stopped my standing order regarding this debt back in April 2007, so only one more year before it's statute barred. From reading over all my old posts [and advice received], both here and over the road, i understand that the debt is unenforcable anyway, due to them not complying with my CCA request back in '07 and just keep passing it on to various other collection agencies.

Is there a letter template which would point this out, to get them off my back once and for all, or would I be as well just hanging on and ignoring them still, for just one more year? [I've done it this long as, after three seperate CCA requests, they've all failed to comply and provide me with anything at all].

TIA

PJ xXX