• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Mackenzie Hall - wont leave us alone. Help!

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mackenzie Hall - wont leave us alone. Help!

    Hi, I hope someone can advise me cos this is really stressing me out.

    My partner has been getting letter from various debt collection agencies for a few years now, over a debt of about £450 to 3 mobile from when he was 16 or 17 (he's now 23).
    We have always ignored these until recently we have had some letters from Mackenzie Hall, one said they would send bailiffs to our door and this scared me as I am pregnant and home by myself in the day while partner is at work.
    The next letter said we had to pay £40 a month until the debt was cleared, after receiving this letter we sent them a template Statute Barred letter as we thought after 6-7 years the debt was unenforceable. This morning have had a latter back from Mackenzie saying the debt is NOT statute barred and we have to phone them to discuss it.
    I'm getting so worried about this, partner only earns low wage, we have a child and one on the way, rent and bills to pay and having to pay an extra £40 a month is the last thing we need right now.
    Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thanks
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: Mackenzie Hall - wont leave us alone. Help!

    Originally posted by lnm2011 View Post
    Hi, I hope someone can advise me cos this is really stressing me out.

    My partner has been getting letter from various debt collection agencies for a few years now, over a debt of about £450 to 3 mobile from when he was 16 or 17 (he's now 23).

    Can you clarify the bit in bold. He cannot enter into a contract until he is 18 years old so did he lie on the application form(not casting aspersions on his character) or was it taken out by a parent?
    We have always ignored these until recently we have had some letters from Mackenzie Hall, one said they would send bailiffs to our door and this scared me as I am pregnant and home by myself in the day while partner is at work.
    The next letter said we had to pay £40 a month until the debt was cleared, after receiving this letter we sent them a template Statute Barred letter as we thought after 6-7 years the debt was unenforceable. This morning have had a latter back from Mackenzie saying the debt is NOT statute barred and we have to phone them to discuss it.
    I'm getting so worried about this, partner only earns low wage, we have a child and one on the way, rent and bills to pay and having to pay an extra £40 a month is the last thing we need right now.
    Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thanks

    What evidence did they send to state that it was not statute barred? Did they simply write, it's not statute barred so call us?
    "Family means that no one gets forgotten or left behind"
    (quote from David Ogden Stiers)

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Mackenzie Hall - wont leave us alone. Help!

      I wouldn't worry unduly as Mackenzie Hall specialise in unenforceable and uncollectable debts. They are highly unlikely to involve bailiffs, but are highly likely to continue to make all sorts of threats. Usually these are best ignored and they go away.

      Do you recall when the contract was actually taken out? As Leclerc has pointed out there is a bit of a discrepancy as if they are pursuing him now for a phone he had when he was 16, then the contract cannot have been in his name and so they shouldn't be pursuing him, they should be pursuing whoever took out the contract.

      Perhaps this would be the best way to get rid of MH - write and tell them they must be pursuing the wrong person as at the time the contract was taken out he was under 18, so could not have signed up to a mobile contract.

      It would be good to have this discrepancy cleared up, but I wouldn't worry about MH as they are spineless.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Mackenzie Hall - wont leave us alone. Help!

        Hi,
        thanks for quick replies.
        The letter says

        "Upon investigating this matter, based on your comments and the data held on file regarding the above reference account; I conclude that said account has NOT deemed to be statute barred."

        As far as I know the contract WAS in my partner's name, I always thought it strange myself that they let someone under 18 have a phone contract but apparently they did. I don't know if he lied about his age or not, I'd have to ask him.

        Can we still say that they cannot chase him for the debt as he was under 18, as we have already sent the statute barred letter? In hindsight maybe should not have sent it, as maybe it constitutes acknowledgement of the debt.

        We have been ignoring this for the last 3 or 4 years since the letter started, there have been so many different companies claiming to be managing this. I'm scared their bailiffs will turn up and bust in my house if I open the door and take our stuff!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Mackenzie Hall - wont leave us alone. Help!

          Originally posted by lnm2011 View Post
          Hi,
          thanks for quick replies.
          The letter says

          "Upon investigating this matter, based on your comments and the data held on file regarding the above reference account; I conclude that said account has NOT deemed to be statute barred."

          As far as I know the contract WAS in my partner's name, I always thought it strange myself that they let someone under 18 have a phone contract but apparently they did. I don't know if he lied about his age or not, I'd have to ask him.

          Can we still say that they cannot chase him for the debt as he was under 18, as we have already sent the statute barred letter? In hindsight maybe should not have sent it, as maybe it constitutes acknowledgement of the debt.

          We have been ignoring this for the last 3 or 4 years since the letter started, there have been so many different companies claiming to be managing this. I'm scared their bailiffs will turn up and bust in my house if I open the door and take our stuff!

          Their letter is a pile of hogwash because if they believed that to be the case then they would have provided evidence of this.
          "Family means that no one gets forgotten or left behind"
          (quote from David Ogden Stiers)

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Mackenzie Hall - wont leave us alone. Help!

            I agree with casper MH are a spineless lot, they will bluster and bluff all they can. It is for them to prove that the account is not statute barred. The OFT guidance is clear debtors must be sure that an account can be enforced. I'd send one more letter to them asking for their proof as to why they think the account is not barred and that you will not communicate with them again until they do. Inform them that you will also produce this letter in court if it comes to that
            Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

            Nemo me impune lacessit - No one provokes me with impunity. (Motto of the Kings of Scotland)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Mackenzie Hall - wont leave us alone. Help!

              Personally I would totally ignore them. I would not respond at all. As a certain DCA expert on here would say, file under I (for Ignore!)

              IF you feel you have to respond, send something along these lines:

              Dear Sir,

              I am puzzled by your allegation that I owe this debt to 3. Please could you let me know the exact date on which you believe I took out this contract. I have no recollection of doing so and in no way acknowledge the debt, so please provide solid proof that I do indeed owe a penny to 3.

              You will be aware that legislation and guidelines state it is unfair to pursue someone if there is doubt as to whether or not they are really the debtor.

              I would therefore ask that you provide concrete proof of my liability for this alleged debt. If you are unable to do this, I would respectfully ask that you stop writing to me and pursue someone else.

              Yours faithfully,




              You then keep your ace card up your sleeve, so if they reply saying it was taken out in 1995, then you play your trump and write again saying they must have the wrong person as he was under 18 then, so would not have been allowed to take out a contract as this requires proof of identity and a credit check.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Mackenzie Hall - wont leave us alone. Help!

                Or just tell those blatherskites to look up the reply in the matter of Arkell v Pressdram.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Mackenzie Hall - wont leave us alone. Help!

                  Dealt with Mack Hall before. They have a bad track record with the OFT, i would send Caspars letter and after the legislation and guidelines part, i would add in that you intend to report them to the OFT and Trading Standards. They dont seem to like that and usually crawl back under their stone.

                  Delilah

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Mackenzie Hall - wont leave us alone. Help!

                    Originally posted by lnm2011 View Post
                    The letter says

                    "Upon investigating this matter, based on your comments and the data held on file regarding the above reference account; I conclude that said account has NOT deemed to be statute barred."
                    They can "deem" until they go blue in the face, as their addled opinions aren't even worth a drop of tepid spittle. The law on this matter is quite plain and (remarkably) unambiguous - section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 - link - clearly states that, in England and Wales, no action may be commenced for an alleged debt which has neither been acknowledged in writing nor partly paid in the preceding six years.

                    As far as I know the contract WAS in my partner's name, I always thought it strange myself that they let someone under 18 have a phone contract but apparently they did.
                    More fool them if they did, as the only enforceable contracts that can be made with a person under 18 are for the necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter) or for education; all other contracts are voidable and can only be enforced by order of a court which the claimant would find it difficult to obtain.

                    I don't know if he lied about his age or not, I'd have to ask him.
                    It really should not make any difference whatever, as it would mean the telephone service provider had not carried out the necessary checks.

                    Can we still say that they cannot chase him for the debt as he was under 18, as we have already sent the statute barred letter? In hindsight maybe should not have sent it, as maybe it constitutes acknowledgement of the debt.
                    Even if it did, it will not make a scrap of difference to the alleged debt as section 29 (7) of the Limitation Act 1980 - link - states that once a debt becomes statute barred, it remains barred. Mucky Hall might pretend otherwise but, as lawyers used to say before M'Lord Woolf's reforms, Mucky Hall are full of stercus bovi.

                    We have been ignoring this for the last 3 or 4 years since the letter started, there have been so many different companies claiming to be managing this. I'm scared their bailiffs will turn up and bust in my house if I open the door and take our stuff!
                    Relax. For all of Mucky Hall's brag and bounce bluster, they do actually know that the law does not permit that.

                    They should also know that the law does not permit harassment of debtors, even if the debt is real and can be lawfully enforced - which this seems not to be.

                    Comment

                    View our Terms and Conditions

                    LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                    If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                    If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                    Working...
                    X