MACKENZIE

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

Sorry for completeness i should show the CUPTR's definition of cemmertial practice. i think yo9 will identify the OP in there.

“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;

D

[bluebottle]

Re: MACKENZIE

Although Section 40, Administration of Justice Act 1970 is still in force, it no longer carries the clout it did when it was originally enacted. A £400 fine in 1970 was a lot of money, but it is pocket money now. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, although originally intended to dealing with stalking, has proved very effective in dealing with bullying and anti-social behaviour. Majrowski -v- Guys & St Thomas's NHS Trust 2005 and Ferguson -v- British Gas Trading Ltd 2009 are proof of that. In my considered judgement, it is much more effective against DCAs and bailiffs than the Administration of Justice Act 1970 was or is. It has more flexibility and the provision to legally restrain persistent DCAs and bailiff companies who have been asked the question, "What part of 'No' don't you understand?" and have not provided an answer.

The Malicious Communications Act 1988 was originally intended to address the activities of those who targeted people who work at places like Huntingdon Life Sciences with threatening letters. It can be used against DCAs and bailiff companies who send threatening communications through the post.

Section 127, Communications Act 2003 was originally intended to deal with those who send offensive material by email, but has proved very effective against cyber-bullying.

Hope you didn't mind me making that small contribution.

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

please do bluebottle

i am loving it

for all the right reasons, gets the grey cells going

i have taken more inn tonight than hitting selwyns for a week

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Davyb

I repeat again, the act does still apply to those that use Unfair commercial practices, all section 3a does is protect those that uses commercial practices deemed under the CUPTR as fair and acceptable standard commercial practices. Hence why it only refers to "where what is done is a commercial practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008" I does not saying anything about what is considered an unfair commercial practice which is deemed a breach of the CUPTR (aswell as an offense) and not deemed as a commercial practice but as an unfair commercial practice by the CUPTR 2008 as per sections 3 through to 7 and schedule 1.

Now as i said before, it would not matter is section 40 still applied or not as any offense committed under the CUPTR in relation to using misleading, agressive, commercial practices to harass a debtor is automatically a breach of the protection from harassment act 1997 (aswell as a breach of the CUPTR 2008, comunications act and Malicious Communications Act), which puts the perpretator in breach of section 40 of the AOJ 1970. A person does not have to make a claim under both acts, and protection from harassment act 1997 is just as powerful as section 40 AOJ is, in fact more powerful.

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Although Section 40, Administration of Justice Act 1970 is still in force, it no longer carries the clout it did when it was originally enacted. A £400 fine in 1970 was a lot of money, but it is pocket money now. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, although originally intended to dealing with stalking, has proved very effective in dealing with bullying and anti-social behaviour. Mjrowski -v- Guys & St Thomas's NHS Trust 2005 and Ferguson -v- British Gas Trading Ltd 2009 are proof of that. In my considered judgement, it is much more effective against DCAs and bailiffs than the Administration of Justice Act 1970 was or is. It has more flexibility and the provision to legally restrain persistent DCAs and bailiff companies who have been asked the question, "Which part of 'No' don't you understand?" and have not provided an answer.

The Malicious Communications Act 1988 was originally intended to address the activities of those who targeted people who work at places like Huntingdon Life Sciences with threatening letters. It can be used against DCAs and bailiff companies who send threatening communications through the post.

Section 127, Communications Act 2003 was originally intended to deal with those who send offensive material by email, but has proved very effective against cyber-bullying.

Hope you didn't mind me making that small contribution.

Don't mind at all BlueBottle as a totally agree with you.

The arguement here though was whether it still applied or not, Davyb wrongly claimed it does not, when it does indeed still apply. Off course its a pointless arguement given the protection from harassment act 1997 and unfair practices (which may amount to harassment) under the CUPTR 2008 are classed as an offence under CUPTR. Which means, regardless of section 40 their actions whether under a commercial operation or not, they are still an offense if it amounts to harassment or to a breach of the CUPTR 2008.

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

and protection from harassment act 1997 is just as powerful as section 40 AOJ is.

fergusson v british gas is testament to that statement

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

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

[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.

[Guest]

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

[lid]

Re: MACKENZIE

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

[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

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

[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

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

[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