MACKENZIE

Re: MACKENZIE

Sorry i find it better to reply to your posts in parts

Regarding the "prove it letter", I don't know what it really accomplishes in the case of a PDL. Yes i know they have been used for a long time, and when a bill drops on the mat that you know nothing about they can be very useful.
But people are using them to deny legitimate debts, apart from anything else it doesn't work. The PDL will have all your bank details , your work details your address etc, sending them a letter saying you have never heard of them, well it's frankly absurd.

D

Re: MACKENZIE

And how is demanding monet by threats of court action and abusive frequent phone calls a promotion, sale or supply of product? it is not therefore it does not fall under the definition of commercial practice, if your in breach of the CUPTR 2008, then not only are you in breach of the protection from harassment act 1997, coomunicatios act 2003, malicious communications act 1983 but also in breach of section 40 AOJ 1970 as a result. Or are you seriously saying that statute law protects a person committing a criminal act just because he/she was acting on behalf of a company at the time - Also as i said twice before, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if the AOJ did or didn't apply as the protection from harassment act 1997 is the one that really matters, so why carry on a pointless argument that you yourself started davyb? What exactly is the point in continuing the arguement?

As for you questioning the use of a prove it letter provided by militant, in regards to whether it actually works - My god davyb where have you been the last 10 years, as that exact same letter template (same with the telephone harassment letter i provided) is used by all the major consumer forums. It has been used millions of times, and has worked everytime. Why does it work you wonder? Because it puts the DCA on the legal spot to provide prove and makes it clear that you are aware that the onus of proof is on them and that they are legally obliged to provide such proof otherwise they can put up and shut up.

As for you suggest the OP write to them requesting proof of ownership and break down of the account etc - Well off course Mackenzie hall can proof the Mackensie hall own the debt if it was assigned to them. What the prove it letter does is force MH to prove the debt belongs to the OP's other halve.

As for " we know we do owe the money and ready to agree to pay them by monthly instolments."What part of the earlier statement "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...." - They are not admitting to owing £1011 but only the £206 - By expressing willingness to repay the debt when it currently stands at £1011, they would be deemed as acknowledging liability for £1011 not £206. Also for all we know this debt for £1011 may not even be the OP's to start with, hence why its expressing willingness to repay so early on would be dam right crazy and could leave the OP with a debt of £1011+ to pay as a result. Yes the OP wants to repay their debt of £206 (the original debt that they admit they took out, not the unknown debt of £1011), and thats the OP's choice if they do repay or not. But for making a repayment offer right or expressing the will to repay right now, when we don't know the facts about the account that this debt is connected to would be legal suicide. Because once they acknowledge the debt thats it, you have admitted liability to the full amount and to repay it.

If you borrowed £1,000 for a friend and they then asked you to repay £5,000 5 times the amount original borrowed, would you just say sure no problem can i pay you in installments? Would you hell! But thats exactly what your telling the OP do here by telling them to acknowledge the debt by expressing willingness to repay. Jesus as soon as the DCA sees those words "willingness to repay" their going to be rubbing their hands and immediately be on the phone pestering them for the first installment as soon as they get the letter from the OP - You clearly do not have much experience in dealing with DCA's if you think otherwise, despite your claims to the contrary!


Also if you were as experienced as you claimed to be, then you would also know that Mackhensie Hall are bottom feeders that specialize in collecting unenforceable and statuted barred debts. Therefore all though its not statuted barred it is highly likely the debt is unenforceable due to an invalid/unenforceable CCA. Have you asked the OP if they had a Default Notice from the original lender for the debt? No you haven't, and if they have not had a Default Notice or it was invalid, then guess what, the debt would be unenforceable as a result of the lack Default Notice or or as a result of the Default Notice being invalid. Your basically telling them to admit to a debt therefore admit liability, when you do not even know whether the DCA is legally entitled to claim the money. I know for a fact that if they are not legally entitled to the money that the OP, would have enough principles about them to say, hang on, if they are not legally entitled to it, then we should not be paying them something that they are not legally entitled to in the first place. Afterall, the only time they are not legally entitled to the money is when they themselves have failed to follow the letter of the law.

I don't really want to go into more of your legal errors, but suffice it to say, i did not say the OP must pay anything that is not due, i said that they must obtain a breakdown of the amount claimed before a repayment plan can be made.

D

Re: MACKENZIE

Not a pointless argument teaboy, just stating a fact, the AOJ section 40 no longer is applicable to charges of harassment against a consumer, therefore should not have been included in your letter, if anything it should have said CPUTRs.
As the act says the AOJ is no longer applicable.
Now, no matter how you try and wander off the point and seek to obscure your error the fact remains.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Again here is the modification to the act

(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 Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the other is a consumer in relation to that practice.]


Here is the definition of commercial practice in the CUPTR

“commercial practice” means any act, omission, course of conduct, representation or
commercial communication (including advertising and marketing) by a trader, which is
directly connected with the promotion, sale or supply of a product to or from consumers,
whether occurring before, during or after a commercial transaction (if any) in relation to a
product;

Notice,does not apply

Now given that national debtline the CAb and all other help agencies have altered the advice in accordance with this change to the legislature, i am afraid there is no argument.

D

And how is demanding monet by threats of court action and abusive frequent phone calls a promotion, sale or supply of product? it is not therefore it does not fall under the definition of commercial practice, if your in breach of the CUPTR 2008, then not only are you in breach of the protection from harassment act 1997, coomunicatios act 2003, malicious communications act 1983 but also in breach of section 40 AOJ 1970 as a result. Or are you seriously saying that statute law protects a person committing a criminal act just because he/she was acting on behalf of a company at the time - Also as i said twice before, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if the AOJ did or didn't apply as the protection from harassment act 1997 is the one that really matters, so why carry on a pointless argument that you yourself started davyb? What exactly is the point in continuing the arguement?

As for you questioning the use of a prove it letter provided by militant, in regards to whether it actually works - My god davyb where have you been the last 10 years, as that exact same letter template (same with the telephone harassment letter i provided) is used by all the major consumer forums. It has been used millions of times, and has worked everytime. Why does it work you wonder? Because it puts the DCA on the legal spot to provide prove and makes it clear that you are aware that the onus of proof is on them and that they are legally obliged to provide such proof otherwise they can put up and shut up.

As for you suggest the OP write to them requesting proof of ownership and break down of the account etc - Well off course Mackenzie hall can proof the Mackensie hall own the debt if it was assigned to them. What the prove it letter does is force MH to prove the debt belongs to the OP's other halve.

As for " we know we do owe the money and ready to agree to pay them by monthly instolments."What part of the earlier statement "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...." - They are not admitting to owing £1011 but only the £206 - By expressing willingness to repay the debt when it currently stands at £1011, they would be deemed as acknowledging liability for £1011 not £206. Also for all we know this debt for £1011 may not even be the OP's to start with, hence why its expressing willingness to repay so early on would be dam right crazy and could leave the OP with a debt of £1011+ to pay as a result. Yes the OP wants to repay their debt of £206 (the original debt that they admit they took out, not the unknown debt of £1011), and thats the OP's choice if they do repay or not. But for making a repayment offer right or expressing the will to repay right now, when we don't know the facts about the account that this debt is connected to would be legal suicide. Because once they acknowledge the debt thats it, you have admitted liability to the full amount and to repay it.

If you borrowed £1,000 for a friend and they then asked you to repay £5,000 5 times the amount original borrowed, would you just say sure no problem can i pay you in installments? Would you hell! But thats exactly what your telling the OP do here by telling them to acknowledge the debt by expressing willingness to repay. Jesus as soon as the DCA sees those words "willingness to repay" their going to be rubbing their hands and immediately be on the phone pestering them for the first installment as soon as they get the letter from the OP - You clearly do not have much experience in dealing with DCA's if you think otherwise, despite your claims to the contrary!


Also if you were as experienced as you claimed to be, then you would also know that Mackhensie Hall are bottom feeders that specialize in collecting unenforceable and statuted barred debts. Therefore all though its not statuted barred it is highly likely the debt is unenforceable due to an invalid/unenforceable CCA. Have you asked the OP if they had a Default Notice from the original lender for the debt? No you haven't, and if they have not had a Default Notice or it was invalid, then guess what, the debt would be unenforceable as a result of the lack Default Notice or or as a result of the Default Notice being invalid. Your basically telling them to admit to a debt therefore admit liability, when you do not even know whether the DCA is legally entitled to claim the money. I know for a fact that if they are not legally entitled to the money that the OP, would have enough principles about them to say, hang on, if they are not legally entitled to it, then we should not be paying them something that they are not legally entitled to in the first place. Afterall, the only time they are not legally entitled to the money is when they themselves have failed to follow the letter of the law.

As for "Now you can either engage in negotiation and arrive at a suitable arrangement, or you can deny the whole debt and let them barrage you with letters and phone calls, i know which seems the best option to my mind." - Well for a start they will not barrage the OP with letters and phone calls, once they have received the prove it letter, as doing so would be a breach of the protection from harassment act 1997, i have dealt with MH and many others many times and the phone calls do stop when you send the prove it letter and telephone harassment letters, so do the threatograms, as sending them without providing proof is classed as harassment too, as shown in the ferguson v British Gas case.

Re: MACKENZIE

I MYSELF HAVE DEFEBDED A CLAIM FROM A PAYDAY LOAN LENDER

the lender added about £1000 in charges and issued a claim. i myself defended and they pulled out at the last minute.
not only are the agreements they use are suspect (perscribed terms) but they do not want to explain their interest rates and charges infront of a judge by way of ubfair contracts.
they are terified that a precedence will be set in the court of appeal

all the op should be paying is the original amout owed plus one months interest as to the contract. the contract ends after thirty days.

if people do not stand up and say enough is enough, they will keep on doing it

lets get muckyhall to prove the amount they are claiming first, and their entitlement to collect, then acknowledge the debt with a payment plan on the original amount with one months interests

Me too , more than i can remember.(on the behalf of others)

As strange as it may sound Wonga are one of the best at making acceptable payment arrangements, unfortunately this has been transferred to MH.

What you say about enforceabiity may well be true, but with respect it is not the point. These companies do not make a living out of litigation they recover debts by the use of dca's(on the whole).

Now you can either engage in negotiation and arrive at a suitable arrangement, or you can deny the whole debt and let them barrage you with letters and phone calls, i know which seems the best option to my mind.
D

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

yes the letter has worked from ny own personal experience

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

I MYSELF HAVE DEFENDED A CLAIM FROM A PAYDAY LOAN LENDER

the lender added about £1000 in charges and issued a claim. i myself defended and they pulled out at the last minute.
not only are the agreements they use are suspect (perscribed terms) but they do not want to explain their interest rates and charges infront of a judge by way of unfair contracts.
they are terrified that a precedence will be set in the court of appeal

all the op should be paying is the original amout owed plus one months interest as to the contract. the contract ends after thirty days.

if people do not stand up and say enough is enough, they will keep on doing it

lets get muckyhall to prove the amount they are claiming first, and their entitlement to collect, then acknowledge the debt with a payment plan on the original amount with one months interests

Re: MACKENZIE

Hi M
Apart form anything else has such a letter ever actually worked. What i mean is on receipt of the above has a creditor ever said ,oh alright then we must have the wrong person, sorry for bothering you.
Not likely.

D

Re: MACKENZIE

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

Militant this is the OPs first post, i have highlighted the salient points, and what seems to be the OP's wishes.
D

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

davyb

i am sorry but i must disagree with your reasoning to acknowledge the debt by proposing a payment plan

by all means, take your sugestion of sending a prove it template to confirm they are legally entitled to pursue the debt

how do we know muckyhall have not added shed loads of charges and interest when the assignment is bad for instance

forget what went on last night with the debate

it is up to muckyhall to prove they own the debt and the debt is yours

i am sorry but to acknowledge the debt now is plain wrong

send the prove it template to begin with and see what comes out the woodwork

that is just my opinion, just like you are entitled to yours and the poster must decide what opinion to take

kind regards

millitant



Name/Address:

Date:

Dear Sir/Madam

You have contacted me/us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves.

I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name).

I am/we are familiar with the CPUTR 2008 and the Office of Fair Trading's Guidance on debt collection, which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

I/we would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. AND in not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

Furthermore ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question.

I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to Trading Standards and also inform the Office Of Fair Trading of your actions.

I/we look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully



SEND RECORDED DELIVERY

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

Yes sorry about the sidetrack basically you need to contact them, and tell them you require proof they own the debt and how the sum requested is calculated.
Personally i would express a willingness to pay once you have all the information and it is agreed, as i feel it may encourage them to cooperate, but that is a matter for you to decide.
Anyway best of luck and let us know how you get on, and what they say.

D

[lid]

Re: MACKENZIE

u all are amazing!!!!thank you so much for all of the suggestions

Re: MACKENZIE

Again here is the modification to the act

(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 Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the other is a consumer in relation to that practice.]


Here is the definition of commercial practice in the CUPTR

“commercial practice” means any act, omission, course of conduct, representation or
commercial communication (including advertising and marketing) by a trader, which is
directly connected with the promotion, sale or supply of a product to or from consumers,
whether occurring before, during or after a commercial transaction (if any) in relation to a
product;

Notice,does not apply

Now given that national debtline the CAb and all other help agencies have altered the advice in accordance with this change to the legislature, i am afraid there is no argument.

D

[bluebottle]

Re: MACKENZIE

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 would always be my first weapon of choice against harassment. It carries both civil and criminal sanctions, which is why it is so versatile. In one of its rare moments of sanity, Parliament conceived and enacted a very cleverly-drafted and well-written piece of legislation.

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Yep and she donated some of her award for damages and copensation for financial loss to charity too.