Mackenzie Hall/Colemans Solicitors

[CD36]

Re: Mackenzie Hall/Colemans Solicitors

^
Thanks, there's some useful comments there. I won't have access to the actual letter until the weekend, so the 14 days will have expired by then. Is it still worth responding?
Also, as it says 'anticipate' rather than 'will' take action I'm still wondering if it's a threatogram?
For reference what is LBA?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Mackenzie Hall/Colemans Solicitors

^
Thanks, there's some useful comments there. I won't have access to the actual letter until the weekend, so the 14 days will have expired by then. Is it still worth responding?

It is always worth responding, in case they were really getting ideas.

Also, as it says 'anticipate' rather than 'will' take action I'm still wondering if it's a threatogram?

It could be, but it doesn't hurt to let them know you are on the ball.

For reference what is LBA?

LBA= Letter Before Action, also known as Letter of Claim. For reference, this is what PT2537 :first: has written on the subject:

When you receive a letter of claim from a creditor threatening litigation there is often a temptation to dismiss it as a missive which is nothing more than a threat. Do so at your peril!!!!!!!

Firstly, the pre action protocol practice direction makes it clear if you fail to respond to a letter of claim you can and most likely will be penalised in costs and most likely you will be punished with an award of indemnity costs. so ignore no more unless your cheque book can afford it.

A Claimant must provide a letter of claim before he issues proceedings although the claimant can decide not to. If the Claimant fails to provide a letter of claim this can have adverse consequences for them. Normally most creditors will send a letter of claim in some form or another, its up to you to decide if the letter complies with the pre action protocol and more importantly its your obligation to reply to it. The Protocol does set out examples of non compliance with the protocol, see below and in particular para 1

Quote:

Examples of non-compliance 4.4 The court may decide that there has been a failure of compliance by a party because, for example, that party has – (1) not provided sufficient information to enable the other party to understand the issues; (2) not acted within a time limit set out in a relevant pre-action protocol, or, where no specific time limit applies, within a reasonable period; (3) unreasonably refused to consider ADR (paragraph 8 in Part III of this Practice Direction and the pre-action protocols all contain similar provisions about ADR); or (4) without good reason, not disclosed documents requested to be disclosed.

The point in para 1 is a double edged sword, if the Claimants letter is incoherent then this is something you can use against him later when the Defence comes around, however, if you chose to ignore the claimants letter of claim you may well fall foul of failing to provide a reply which gives sufficient information to enable the claimant to properly understand your issues. Do not ignore !!! even if others tell you to, just stop, read this again and make up your own mind on the basis of the facts as you see them!!.

And here are the sanctions which the Court can impose where it finds a party has not complied with the requirements of the pre action protocol.

Quote:

Sanctions for non-compliance 4.5 The court will look at the overall effect of non-compliance on the other party when deciding whether to impose sanctions. 4.6 If, in the opinion of the court, there has been non-compliance, the sanctions which the court may impose include – (1) staying (that is suspending) the proceedings until steps which ought to have been taken have been taken; (2) an order that the party at fault pays the costs, or part of the costs, of the other party or parties (this may include an order under rule 27.14(2)(g) in cases allocated to the small claims track); (3) an order that the party at fault pays those costs on an indemnity basis (rule 44.4(3) sets out the definition of the assessment of costs on an indemnity basis); (4) if the party at fault is the claimant in whose favour an order for the payment of a sum of money is subsequently made, an order that the claimant is deprived of interest on all or part of that sum, and/or that interest is awarded at a lower rate than would otherwise have been awarded; (5) if the party at fault is a defendant, and an order for the payment of a sum of money is subsequently made in favour of the claimant, an order that the defendant pay interest on all or part of that sum at a higher rate, not exceeding 10% above base rate, than would otherwise have been awarded.

[CD36]

Re: Mackenzie Hall/Colemans Solicitors

So does it have to state that it's an LBA or Letter of Claim? What differentiates it from the standard threatogram?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Mackenzie Hall/Colemans Solicitors

So does it have to state that it's an LBA or Letter of Claim? What differentiates it from the standard threatogram?

That's the problem, it's not always clear which is which, and even if a proper LBA was sent, that doesn't mean they will start proceedings, there is no legal requirement to issue a claim after a LBA, however not sending a LBA before issuing a claim can work against the claimant as seen above.

Even if it's a threatogram, it doesn't hurt to reply to a letter from solicitors threatening legal action, however, not replying can have consequences. Ideally it should be sent recorded delivery so you have proof you responded to their LBA in case they went on to start proceedings. :grin:

[CD36]

Re: Mackenzie Hall/Colemans Solicitors

^ Thanks again. I'll post the letter up once I have it, as I'm still in two minds what to do about this.

[CD36]

Re: Mackenzie Hall/Colemans Solicitors

I've now got the HL Legal letter which is headed Letter Before Action. The envelope has a Mackenzie Hall address on the back and it asks that I reply direct to Mackenzie Hall, either to arrange payment or advise why I dispute the debt. (As if they don't know!)
It says if I don't respond within 14 days (now expired) that they anticipate that they will be instructed to commence court action without further notice.
Is this bluff (I repeatedly read that Mackenzie Hall don't take anyone to court) or should I respond?
If I respond what do I say, bearing in mind that HBOS have yet to provide a credit agreement after nearly 5 years, and have also sent various letters offering settlement for under 50% of the alleged amount?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Mackenzie Hall/Colemans Solicitors

I believe I might ask them how the buggery they hoped to get past section 78 (6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - link

Or you could ask PT2537 to make mincemeat of them.

[bluebottle]

Re: Mackenzie Hall/Colemans Solicitors

If HL Legal is not an actual legal practice, Mucky could find the SRA's FIU doing some covert digging into their methods and activities. By the time Mucky get to know, it will be too late because it will have been passed to law enforcement agencies by then. DCAs may think they are being cute and clever doing things like this, but the truth is more that they are being crass and stupid. I would liken a DCA to a small-time con-artist and a bad one at that.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Mackenzie Hall/Colemans Solicitors

If HL Legal is not an actual legal practice,

I shall not comment on their legality, but they do employ three solicitors.

At least one of those might have once read the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

See attached file.

[CD36]

Re: Mackenzie Hall/Colemans Solicitors

If HL Legal is not an actual legal practice, Mucky could find the SRA's FIU doing some covert digging into their methods and activities. By the time Mucky get to know, it will be too late because it will have been passed to law enforcement agencies by then. DCAs may think they are being cute and clever doing things like this, but the truth is more that they are being crass and stupid. I would liken a DCA to a small-time con-artist and a bad one at that.

I don't doubt that they're a genuine legal practice. There are a number similar to them, who sell template letters to DCAs intended to intimidate recipients into payment.

[CD36]

Re: Mackenzie Hall/Colemans Solicitors

I guess they now have two options: Take action or sell it on to someone else. (Is there anyone further down the ladder?) From others' experience what are they most likely to do?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Mackenzie Hall/Colemans Solicitors

I doubt that there is anyone lower than Mucky Hall and, whilst it is possible they might try to sue, there is still the matter of the unsatisfied s78 request which must surely make the agreement difficult to enforce.

[CD36]

Re: Mackenzie Hall/Colemans Solicitors

Another point to mention; when I sent a SAR to HBOS I'm quite certain there was no Default Notice with it, so what are the implications if they either can't locate it or haven't issued it?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Mackenzie Hall/Colemans Solicitors

Another point to mention; when I sent a SAR to HBOS I'm quite certain there was no Default Notice with it, so what are the implications if they either can't locate it or haven't issued it?

See section 87 (link) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

[CD36]

Re: Mackenzie Hall/Colemans Solicitors

See section 87 (link) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

As the LBA 14 days has already expired, I'll wait and see what they do next. If they do sue, I guess I request a CCA, NOA (I don't trust the one they sent when they took over the account) and DN via CPR?
I'd still be interested to hear if anyone has ever actually been taken to court by them.