MACKENZIE

[lid]

Heloo i was hoping to get some advice please.
my husband took loan from wonga last year for 206£ we have recieved letter today from mackenzie hall that they want £1011.33 to be paid in 7days etc....
now we know we do owe the money and ready to agree to pay them by monthly instolments....but there is huge different in the amount...
they have been ringing our landline but we never answered....
whats the best way to deal with them please?
thank you

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

HI
You can try the e-mail address on the letter but from all reports it wont work. So you have to write a letter.
Tell them that you are willing to arrange a repayment plan, which you will forward to them in due course together with in income and expenditure breakdown.

First however you require a breakdown of the amount claimed and confirmation that they have acquired the debt from wonga.

Tell them that all communication must be done by e-mail or post only.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Actually in your first letter do not state anything about a repayment plan. As doing so could be seen as acknowlegement of the debt, and you clearly do not want to acknowledge the debt of £1011, when your husband only borrowed £206.

Chances are the debt is made up of charges at £12+ per failed card payment. Payday loan companies are well known to try daily to take payments from your cards and charge you each time they fail.

Therefore simply ask Mackenzie for proof of your husbands liability for this alleged debt and for a statement of account showing all charges and what those charges were for. Then you can dispute the charges as being unfair charges. You should also send Mackenzie a CCA request in order to get a copy of the loan agreement. You may well find they send you more than just one, with the original one being the only one that would matter as the others will likely have been created by the payday loan company purely to extend the loan period to enable them to keep adding fees and charges, though they will have ticked the box to make it look like they were signed by your husband, when they were not.

Quick Quid tried to do the same to me from a loan they alleged i had taken out in early 2009 which i never even received which they got Motormile to chase me for. They soon backed off and went quiet.

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

Was this loan taken out on line?

In either case a cca request is less than useless.

The OP said that he wanted to repay what he owed, showing the lender that he was willing to enter a repayment plan, can do no harm if he is acknowledging a debt.

Yes you need a breakdown of charges and an agreed balance before you start any plan, but that is what i suggested.

My impression of the OP is that they do not want to be inconvenienced with phone calls, denying the debt will most certainly result in increased pestering, if you send a letter as i suggested they most likely will follow the path you request.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Davyb you miss the point. Acknowledging the debt now by offering a repayment plan would be acknowleging the full amount they are asking for. The priority here is not repaying the loan, but identifying whether the creditor is actually entitled to be repaid and just how much they are actually entitled too.

Yes i know the OP whats to repay, but if the agreement is not enforceable in law, then why should the OP repay anything when the creditor is not entitled to be repaid?

I did not tell the OP to deny the debt, but simply ask for copies of the agreement (CCA) and statement of account showing a break down of charges, i said nothing about denying the debt, but warned against offering a repayment plan at this time in case it is later deemed as acknowledgment of the debt of £1011, when the actual debt should be £206. Basically we need to estabilsh what the OP's other half actual owes before any offer of repayment plan is given. This means disputing the unfair charges that have increased the debt to £1011 so that all that needs to be repaid (should the creditor be legally entitled to it) is the actual debt of £206 plus any interest due.

Saying they should offer a repayment plan when the creditor or DCA is claiming £1011 5 times the original debt, is foolish as the DCA will keep taking repayments until the full £1011 is repaid, therefore resulting in the OP having to pay back 5 times more than the amount that the creditor is actually entitled too. Once the charges have been deducted from the £1011 to bring the debt back down to what is actually owed, then that is the time to make an offer of repayment, not before.

Also a CCA request is not useless, or do you personally know that the OP's CCA is legally enforceable? No you don't know! Only way to know if the loan agreement is legally enforceable is to get a copy and actually see it. And in my experience with payday loan companies, the CCA is not likely to be enforceable, which would also mean the debt would be unenforceable too, forcing the creditor to write off the debt.

Also just to add, although you yourself suggested getting the breakdown before making a repayment offer (i did not say you did not suggest that, nor did i suggest you did not). My post was not a direct response to yours, and was merely my own personally advice to the OP. Yes i disagreed with your advice to make it clear that they are willing to offer a repayment plan in the first letter, as that would be like acknowledging the full amount of £1011, especially if no mention is made in regards to disputing the charges, which the OP clearly can not dispute until they know what those charges are and how many. On top of that, at this time we do not even know if this is actually the OP's own debt that the creditor/DCA is chasing them for. Another reason why the CCA is not useless, as it maybe the creditor/DCA has got their wires crossed, which would also explain the difference between the original loan outstanding and the £1011 they are not pursuing the OP for.

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

simple thing is to respond and say you know nothing of any debt owing to xyz dca and to get them to prove the debt

they will not do that as under the data protection act, unless they are sure that you are the account holder, they cant discuss the account with anybody

thats why a dca wants a payment of £1 over the phone when you phone them, it acknowledges the debt, you are confirming you are the account holder, and negates the statute of limitations

just send them the prove it template

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

simple thing is to respond and say you know nothing of any debt owing to xyz dca and to get them to prove the debt

they will not do that as under the data protection act, unless they are sure that you are the account holder, they cant discuse the account with anybody

thats why a dca wants a payment of £1 over the phone when you phone them, it acknowledges the debt, you are confirming you are the account holder, and negates the statute of limitations

just send them the prove it template

I agree. But i disagree with your comment regarding the data protection act 1998 as they are may already be in breach of this, if the OP's other halve is not the real debtor or liable for the account in question. Plus if a person a makes an allegation against another person, it is for the claiment to prove the allegation is true. They therefore have a legal duty to provide proof that the OP's other half is the actual debtor and is liable for the debt. Not only that, but as they have already seen fit to write to them regarding the debt then the simple response to such a refusal by them to provide proof due to data protection act is this -

"Further, I note that you have sent statements (remove if statements have not been recieved) and correspondence containing sensitive private information to me at same address as that detailed in my request. If you are concerned that you are not corresponding with the correct person, then I wonder why you have not verified the information before.

As you are aware, disclosing data without adequate checks of identity is contrary to the 7th principal of data protection, listed in schedule 1 of the Data protection Act 1998. The time to confirm my identity was before you sent your first threat letter.

As you have seen fit to disclose sensitive information already then you clearly know exactly whom i am, therefore your refusal to disclose prove due to data protection act 1998 is unacceptable as you have already disclosed details regarding this alleged debt that you alleged is owed by myself, and as such the onus of proof is on you to prove such allegations that the debt is mine or that i am liable for it - You have a legal obligation to provide this information"

Along with sending the Proof it template also send them the following:

"Company Name
Road
Town
City / County
Postcode

Re: Harassment by telephone


ACCOUNT NUMBER: XXXXXXX

Dear Sirs

I am writing in relation to the quantity and frequency of telephone calls that I have received from your company, which I deem to be personally harassing.

I have verbally requested that these stop, but I am still receiving calls. (Delete if necessary)

I now require all further correspondence from your company to be made in writing only.

I am of the view that your continued harassment of me by telephone puts you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine.

Be advised that any further telephone calls from your company will be recorded. (**Even if you don‘t yet have recording equipment!!**)


Yours faithfully,



[NAME HERE]
Print your Name, DO NOT sign by hand."

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

If you do as i said in the first reply you will remove the need for any other correspondence, this is not complicated.
You are willing to repay but first you need to know exactly how the figure they have was arrived at, once you are agreed on a sum owed you will propose a repayment plan.

The other option is to refute the debt completely, which will mean they will pester you interminably, it is unlikely that they will take you to court, so if you can put up with that then militant and teaboys advice is for you

D

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

If you do as i said in the first reply you will remove the need for any other correspondence, this is not complicated.
You are willing to repay but first you need to know exactly how the figure they have was arrived at, once you are agreed on a sum owed you will propose a repayment plan.

The other option is to refute the debt completely, which will mean they will pester you interminably, it is unlikely that they will take you to court, so if you can put up with that then militant and teaboys advice is for you - Perhaps you did not see the Telephone harassment letter that was part of my last post!!

D

DavyB.

Your advising the OP to state willingness to offer repayment plan is acknowledging the debt of £1011. It is foolish, as 1 - you do not know if this debt is actually that of the OP's other halve and 2 - nor do we know what the actual amount is that is actually owed or whether the DCA or Creditor is entitled to be repaid. You advice would lead to the OP acknowegding a debt that is 5 times more than what they actually owed for the original loan that was theirs.

Not only that, following mine and militants advice will not lead to the OP or their other halve being pestered even more about the debt (For you to state such, it is a clear sign of your lack of expereince in the field). In fact it is a proven method for dealing with DCA and Creditors and has been proven to reduce the actual amount of phone calls and correspondence, e.g. if forces the DCA to constructively communicate in writing and provide the proof requested and forces them to stop the telephone calls and threatograms, whilst the account is in dispute, due to risk of being sued by the alleged debtor for breach of the protection from harassment act 1997.

I personally have dealt with hundreds of issues regarding DCA/Creditors chasing alleged debtors for debts and have used the same method each time. IF once the charges have been deducted and the DCA has proven the debt is that of the OP's other halves and that the CCA is enforcable, then that is the time to talk about making repayments, not before.

Its clear you do not have as much experience in dealing with these issues as myself and militant have. But to openly criticise and make post containg false claims about what will happen as a result of following mine and/or militants advice, just to get the OP to follow your advice - Well that is a step to far Davyb. There is a reason as to why i am a VIP working group member, and that is my experience in these matters and knowledge of the law itself.

To say this is not complicated is nothing more than an incorrect statement as this is indeed complicated and it is regulated by the law, showing any willingness (in writing) to enter a repayment plan, is deemed legally as acknowledging the debt and the current amount that is being demanded at the time such acknowledgment is made. Hence why it is vital no such acknowledgement is made at this time. Following your advice will result in the OP's other halve having to repay £1011 instead of £206 or in worse case scenerio, should it be that this is not the OP's other halves debt that they are being chased for, your advice could well result in the OP's other halve acknowledging liablity for a debt that is not even his, and having to pay a debt that is not his.

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

Hi
Gosh teaboy you do go on a bit


I also have dealt with hundreds of cases possibly thousands of debt issues in the last twenty years, in the last few years Wonga and Mc'y hall many many times.

So much for that.

Threatening with the admin of justice act wont work it no longer applies to commercial contracts like this hasn't since 2008(CUPTR's). Nor will the DPA nor will the sorry whatever. They wont care they will just keep pursuing the debt until they have some kind of repayment deal in place, or they give up.

In the first post the O,P said he wanted to repay the debt he owed, fair enough so he needs to find out how much it is and then set up a repayment plan, like i said not rocket science.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Hi
Gosh teaboy you do go on a bit


I also have dealt with hundreds of cases possibly thousands of debt issues in the last twenty years, in the last few years Wonga and Mc'y hall many many times.

So much for that.

Threatening with the admin of justice act wont work it no longer applies to commercial contracts like this hasn't since 2008(CUPTR's). NOr will the DPA nor will the sorry whatever. They wont care they will just keep pursuing the debt until they have some kind of repayment deal in place, or they give up.

In the first post the O,P said he wanted to repay the debt he owed, fair enough so he needs to find out how much it is and then set up a repayment plan, like i said not rocket science.

D

The highligted section above just proves your view is flawed. The administration of justice act still does apply if they knowingly act in breach of the protection from harassment act or have not yet proven that the debtor is the actual debtor. According to your view the DCA can frequently make phone calls to a person, purely because they believe they are the debtor. That is not the case, plus they must also respect the alleged debtors request for communication to be in writing only and their wish to not be contacted by phone. If they are contacting a person whom is not the alleged debtor on the believe they are, when it has not been proven as such then it is a breach of the administration of justice act 1970 via a breach of the protection from harassment act 1997. Not only that in order to not be in breach of the administration act 1970 the DCA must act reasonably. IN other words, they should not act in a way that amounts to harassment under the protection from harassment act 1997 as if they do then they will be in breach of section 40 of the administration act 1970 - The key word in section 3A that was inserted as a result of the Consumer protection from unfair trading act is the word "reasonable". I hardly say calling more than 3 times in one day or on a daily basis or when the alleged debtor has told them not to contact them by phone but in writing only as they find the calls harassing, as reasonable. As for the Data Protection Act 1998 not applying, well thats incorrect, the data protection act 1998 does apply and governs how the DCA uses the alleged debtors data, it applies all the time whilst the alleged debtors personal data is being processed by any one other than the data subject themselves.

As for me going on a bit - Well sometimes it is required in order for the OP to get the correct information.

As for your last sentence, i agree. But then that last sentence describes exactly what i have been saying all along, and is contradictory to your advice in regards to including a statement of willingness to offer a repayment plan.

As for your claims to dealing with hundreds of similar case - Well we only have your word to support that, don't we! But its clear to me that your way of handling the matter with your suggestions that they should show willingness to enter a replayment plan - which would result in the debtor acknowledging that they are liable for 5 times the actaul original debt and your complete disregards to the importance of requesting copies of the CCA which you in your own words said "In either case a cca request is less than useless." Which although is an ambiguous statement, my interpretation is that you do not believe they would have been of any usefulness, despite the fact they are what regulate the loan and if they are legally unenforceable then the DCA/Creditor can not enforce the debt and the debtor would not be legally required to pay anything back as the loan will have been made unlawfully. So that says to me you have a lack of understanding on how the law works in regards to these issues.

Basically Davyb - Your intial advice goes against the most used commonly used method used on all consumer forums when it comes to dealing with this issues.

Yes the OP wants to repay the debt, but then thats their choice. But at the same time they need to know whether they are actually legally required to pay anything back, and more importantly whether the debt is actually theirs in the first place before they make any mention of any repayment plan or offer to repay.

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

The op admits he is the debtor, Just disputes the amount owed, or so i thought ?

AJ act don't apply. No flaws in my logic, look it up

D

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

The key word in section 3A that was inserted as a result of the Consumer protection from unfair trading act is the word "reasonable".

evening teaboy

care to expand on this for my own knowledge base as this is a trident missle we can now use in harassment cases by over zealous DCA

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

I agree. But i disagree with your comment regarding the data protection act 1998 as they are may already be in breach of this, if the OP's other halve is not the real debtor or liable for the account in question. Plus if a person a makes an allegation against another person, it is for the claiment to prove the allegation is true. They therefore have a legal duty to provide proof that the OP's other half is the actual debtor and is liable for the debt. Not only that, but as they have already seen fit to write to them regarding the debt then the simple response to such a refusal by them to provide proof due to data protection act is this -

"Further, I note that you have sent statements (remove if statements have not been recieved) and correspondence containing sensitive private information to me at same address as that detailed in my request. If you are concerned that you are not corresponding with the correct person, then I wonder why you have not verified the information before.

As you are aware, disclosing data without adequate checks of identity is contrary to the 7th principal of data protection, listed in schedule 1 of the Data protection Act 1998. The time to confirm my identity was before you sent your first threat letter.

As you have seen fit to disclose sensitive information already then you clearly know exactly whom i am, therefore your refusal to disclose prove due to data protection act 1998 is unacceptable as you have already disclosed details regarding this alleged debt that you alleged is owed by myself, and as such the onus of proof is on you to prove such allegations that the debt is mine or that i am liable for it - You have a legal obligation to provide this information"

Along with sending the Proof it template also send them the following:

"Company Name
Road
Town
City / County
Postcode

Re: Harassment by telephone


ACCOUNT NUMBER: XXXXXXX

Dear Sirs

I am writing in relation to the quantity and frequency of telephone calls that I have received from your company, which I deem to be personally harassing.

The OP has said nothing about the quantity of calls, jumping the gun here a bit

I have verbally requested that these stop, but I am still receiving calls. (Delete if necessary)

I now require all further correspondence from your company to be made in writing only.

I am of the view that your continued harassment of me by telephone puts you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Not applicable, the 77 act may Apply but not with the present causality

If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine.

Insufficient Cause
Be advised that any further telephone calls from your company will be recorded. (**Even if you don‘t yet have recording equipment!!**)


Yours faithfully,



[NAME HERE]
Print your Name, DO NOT sign by hand."

You can send this if you want, but it will make absolutely no difference to what they do.

If you do not intend to pay then it would have the same outcome , if you just ignored them. Six months time they will sell it on and you will get a whole new set of calls and letters and so on, until it becomes stat barred in six years.
If that is the path you want to follow, then Teaboy is the man for you.

D

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

please elaborate davyb for my own education