Mackenzie Hall

[Angry Cat]

Re: Mackenzie Hall

Find out how to access your personal information - ICO

------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Further, Mackenzie Hall are breaching many of the OFT guidelines on debt collection (issue:October 2011)

Report them to Consumer Direct and the Office of Fair Trading!

Trading Standards in Scotland - SCOTSS

[rikk26]

Re: Mackenzie Hall

I to am now having problems with MH with regards to an unpaid debt which is over 10 years old and don;t now what to do.

[Guest]

Re: Mackenzie Hall

Hi
Just skimmed the thread so please forgive me if I am covering old ground.
As I think has been mentioned the statute if limitations will apply if there has been no activity on the account for five years.
I don’t know if it has been mentioned that unlike England when a debt is statute barred in Scotland the debt is extinguished, not just unenforceable.
That means that should any claim be made by the creditor and there are sums paid after he barr, the op could counterclaim for all sums paid plus stat interest.
Also the is a chance of reporting the creditor under the harassment act as Blue Bottle says, as far as I know it is still up and running.
I think it was the Administration of justice act that was repealed by the CPUTR.
Peter

[Angry Cat]

Re: Mackenzie Hall

I to am now having problems with MH with regards to an unpaid debt which is over 10 years old and don;t now what to do.

Mackie, does like to chase statute barred debts!

National Debtline England Wales | Debt Advice | Factsheet 25 Liability For Debts And The Limitation Act

[ODC]

Re: Mackenzie Hall

Yet again the sheer greed of these DCAs is their undoing.. Had they settled on the £200 your friend would never have found Legal Beagles and would still be paying the mongrels. As Muck Hall have it its highly likely it was Statute Barred/Extinguished long before they got their paws on it.

She also need to report them to East Ayrshire Trading Standards as they are breaking all the guidelines by demanding she borrow money to pay them.


Tell her to stop paying them IMMEDIATELY and cancel whatever Standing Order or Direct Debit she may have with them

[bluebottle]

Re: Mackenzie Hall

Hi
Just skimmed the thread so please forgive me if I am covering old ground.
As I think has been mentioned the statute if limitations will apply if there has been no activity on the account for five years.
I don’t know if it has been mentioned that unlike England when a debt is statute barred in Scotland the debt is extinguished, not just unenforceable.
That means that should any claim be made by the creditor and there are sums paid after he barr, the op could counterclaim for all sums paid plus stat interest.
Also the is a chance of reporting the creditor under the harassment act as Blue Bottle says, as far as I know it is still up and running.
I think it was the Administration of justice act that was repealed by the CPUTR.
Peter

Absolutely correct, Peter, and I think our more learned members would concur with that. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is very effective in dealing with DCAs. Also, Ferguson -v- British Gas Trading 2009 means the company of DCAs can be held liable as well as DCA employees. Unpleasant, I know, but that's how the law works. It's there for everyone's protection.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Mackenzie Hall

I think it was the Administration of justice act that was repealed by the CPUTR.

It wasn't - link - but the penalty is so derisory that it is hardly worth the prosecution. The penalty should be increased ten-fold to have any effect!

On the matter of the limitation acts, the statutes are:

1. The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 - link 1, link 2
2. The Limitation Act 1980 - link 1, link 2 - paragraph 7

[shell]

Re: Mackenzie Hall

I to am now having problems with MH with regards to an unpaid debt which is over 10 years old and don;t now what to do.

Ignore them. There is nothing they can do if it's statute barred.

[Guest]

Re: Mackenzie Hall

It wasn't - link - but the penalty is so derisory that it is hardly worth the prosecution. The penalty should be increased ten-fold to have any effect!

On the matter of the limitation acts, the statutes are:

1. The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 - link 1, link 2
2. The Limitation Act 1980 - link 1, link 2 - paragraph 7

It was repealed by CPUTR section 13 as stated

Administration of Justice Act 1970

13.

In section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970(19) (punishment for unlawful

harassment of debtors), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) Subsection (1) above does not apply to anything done by a person to another in circumstances where what is done is a commercial practice within the meaning of the onsumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the other is a consumer in relation to that practice.”.

Peter

[CleverClogs]

Re: Mackenzie Hall

Ignore them. There is nothing they can do if it's statute barred.

I disagree.

There is something they can do.

They can apologise for the harassment they have committed and offer compensation or damages to make amends.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Mackenzie Hall

It was repealed by CPUTR section 13 as stated

Wrong!

Administration of Justice Act 1970

13.

In section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970(19) (punishment for unlawful

harassment of debtors), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) Subsection (1) above does not apply to anything done by a person to another in circumstances where what is done is a commercial practice within the meaning of the onsumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the other is a consumer in relation to that practice.”.

Paragraph 3(A) of section 40 (link) was an amendment brought in by a venal kakistocracy so as to weaken further an already weak and largely ineffective law.

But the law was not repealed. :tinysmile_hmm_t2:

Then there is the question of whether attempting to claim a debt that has become statute barred could really be considered a commercial practice rather than a variation of a game of Silly Buggers.

[Guest]

Re: Mackenzie Hall

Wrong!

Paragraph 3(A) of section 40 (link) was an amendment brought in by a venal kakistocracy so as to weaken further an already weak and largely ineffective law.

But the law was not repealed. :tinysmile_hmm_t2:

Then there is the question of whether attempting to claim a debt that has become statute barred could really be considered a commercial practice rather than a variation of a game of Silly Buggers.

CORRECT

The section no longer applies to credit agreements as it clearley states that function has been repealed. It does not weaken the effect on consume credit agreements , it removes any effect at all.


As far as people on here are concerned it is no longer relevant to qoute it, as it does not appply, this is all that matters.
Making silly points like this just confuses everyone.

Peter

[CleverClogs]

Re: Mackenzie Hall

I'd not bother citing it anyway, as the penalty is now so trivial that it would be like sentencing the malefactor to be thoroughly flogged with an ostrich feather boa.