MACKENZIE

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

yes the letter has worked from ny own personal experience

[Guest]

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

[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.

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

[lid]

Re: MACKENZIE

davyb thank you for ur helpwe know we owe some money but not over grand n we do willing to pay but... what we owe.miliitant thank you too!!!we will write a letter tomorrow n ask for all the paper work they have on us etc.and then when we have black on white we will write that we will pay what we really owe +the monthly fee and will go with davyb 1 suggestions re. instolments etc....
also they have send us another letter yday(demanding money) regarding one company we have complain about to financial obudsman...bunch of idiots ....they do trying they luck...
guys thanks for all ur help u all r making good team will keep u posted x

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

davyb thank you for ur helpwe know we owe some money but not over grand n we do willing to pay but... what we owe.miliitant thank you too!!!we will write a letter tomorrow n ask for all the paper work they have on us etc.and then when we have black on white we will write that we will pay what we really owe +the monthly fee and will go with davyb 1 suggestions re. instolments etc....
also they have send us another letter yday(demanding money) regarding one company we have complain about to financial obudsman...bunch of idiots ....they do trying they luck...
guys thanks for all ur help u all r making good team will keep u posted x

Yes when you get the reply, you can dispute anything that you should not have to pay.

As Teaboy says the general rule is the principle under any agreement plus one months interest, but if you let us know what they come back with we will advise.

Good luck

D

[teaboy2]

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

As i said Davyb - How is demanding money, making threats of legal action and using frequent phone calls and using abusive language, an act of promotion, sale or supply of goods under the definition of commercial practice under the CUPTR 2008?

In Fact let me answer that for you. It is not, as the DCA is not selling anything, they are not promoting anything, and they are not supplying anything under a consumer contract as for a start in all debt cases, the consumer has not had any business with the DCA and has not had any coonsumer contract with the DCA proir to the account being assigned to the DCA. Demanding money under threat of legal action or by abusive language does not fall under the definition of commercial practice as they are not selling, promoting or supplying goods, they are simply demanding money, making threats and in many cases being abusive and using frequent phone calls to intimidate, harass and bully people into paying up.

Also as i said my company operates a call centre in sales, so i think i have a dam sight better understanding as to when something is deemed a commercial practice and when something is not. Especially when i have had compliants made under section 40 from a PCT's solicitors and another solicitor acting for a government body about the nature of calls made by certain former employee who stepped out of line and lost their job as a result, where they had been abusive down the phone purely because the customer wanted to return some goods that the employee had sold to them, which they no longer needed due to mistakenly ordering to many (which yes it would have effected the employees commission as a result of the goods being returned) - Fortunately the customers are happy to continue to trade with my company, but only as a result of my quick action in dealing with the former employee, so my dismissing the employee was enough to statisfy the customers along with flowers, chocolates, a personally writting card containing an apology and a guaranteed discount on future orders - So, so much for the section 40 not applying. off course i can not provide proof of this due to privacy, confidentiality, security and data protection reasons. But if i had 2 solicitors acting on behalf of 2 seperate customers in one week threating court action under section 40 as well as other related legislation, then am more inclined to agree that section 40 still does very much apply.

[lid]

Re: MACKENZIE

teaboy2 thank you too
husband applayed 4 a loan on the internet... we didn't got any default notice thru the post or via email....wonga kept quiet for a year till the mh got in touch...x

[miliitant]

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

but davy

they can do diddly quat unless you acknowledge the debt, that then gives you a better barganing power to go back to the oc and set the terms

the assignment in 95 % of the time is equitable so the dca will just send it back to the oc anyway

THEY CAN HAVE YOUR LIFE STORY FROM BIRTH

BUT UNLESS YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT, IT MEANS NOTHING (DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998)

IF A DCA IS TRYING TO SCREW YOU OUT OF AN ACCOUNT WITH £1000 IN UNLAWFUL CHARGES, (UNFAIR CONTRACTS) THEN I DO NOT CALL IT DEBT AVOIDANCE, I CALL IT FRAUD ON BEHALF OF A DCA

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

davyb thank you for ur helpwe know we owe some money but not over grand n we do willing to pay but... what we owe.miliitant thank you too!!!we will write a letter tomorrow n ask for all the paper work they have on us etc.and then when we have black on white we will write that we will pay what we really owe +the monthly fee and will go with davyb 1 suggestions re. instolments etc....
also they have send us another letter yday(demanding money) regarding one company we have complain about to financial obudsman...bunch of idiots ....they do trying they luck...
guys thanks for all ur help u all r making good team will keep u posted x

Hi Lid

Am glad you have decided to not show willingness to pay until you have it all in black and white and have first disputed any unfair charges and interests. Also you still need to send the telephone harassment letter, regardless of the section 40 part (as i said it doesn't matter whether it still applies or not as the Protection from harassment act 1997 is the main legislation). Let us know what you get back in response to the prove it letter that militant provided.

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

teaboy2 thank you too
husband applayed 4 a loan on the internet... we didn't got any default notice thru the post or via email....wonga kept quiet for a year till the mh got in touch...x

Hi Lid

If their was no default notice then the debt is unenforceable in law. In otherwords they can not enforce in court, should they take it that far, which Mucky hall, never do as they themselves know it is unenforceable hence why they have it since they specialize in such debts. If it did though, all we would have to do would strict them to proof that the default notice was served and received by you, which would be impossible to prove if you did not receive it. Plus with all the unfair charges, they would likely get their arses kicked out of court by a judge.

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

but davy

they can do diddly quat unless you acknowledge the debt, that then gives you a better barganing power to go back to the oc and set the terms

the assignment in 95 % of the time is equitable so the dca will just send it back to the oc anyway

THEY CAN HAVE YOUR LIFE STORY FROM BIRTH

BUT UNLESS YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT, IT MEANS NOTHING (DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998)

IF A DCA IS TRYING TO SCREW YOU OUT OF AN ACCOUNT WITH £1000 IN UNLAWFUL CHARGES, (UNFAIR CONTRACTS) THEN I DO NOT CALL IT DEBT AVOIDANCE, I CALL IT FRAUD ON BEHALF OF A DCA

I could also be deemed blackmail, given they make threats of legal action etc, if you do not pay within the timescale given - Blackmail under the theft act 1968. It may also be classed as false accounting under the theft act 1968 too.

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

Hi Lid

If their was no default notice then the debt is unenforceable in law. In otherwords they can not enforce in court, should they take it that far, which Mucky hall, never do as they themselves know it is unenforceable hence why they have it since they specialize in such debts. If it did though, all we would have to do would strict them to proof that the default notice was served and received by you, which would be impossible to prove if you did not receive it. Plus with all the unfair charges, they would likely get their arses kicked out of court by a judge.

Sorry teaboy but this is incorrect. This is a fixed sum agreement that has gone beyond it's term. There is no need for a default notice under section 87 as all amounts due under the contract will be arrears and the agreement would have been terminated. Sometimes they send a DN but there is no requirement , they just need a letter before action as required under CPR.

The main defense on these is unfairness of charges and the application of default interest at the exorbitant contractual rate.
D