DOORSTEP VISIT THREAT - MacKenzie Hall threat letter

Re: DOORSTEP VISIT THREAT - MacKenzie Hall threat letter

There's little to be gained in papering all DCA's with CCA requests when a more simple approach often gets better results.

Such as referring them to the case of Arkell v Pressdram?

[Curlyben]

Re: DOORSTEP VISIT THREAT - MacKenzie Hall threat letter

Actually Teaboy I disagree with the CCA course of action, especially when dealing with Mucky Hall.

Save the lawful requests for a real DCA and not bottom feeders like this.

If they fail to respond to a simple Prove It then a more formal request will gain nothing.

There's little to be gained in papering all DCA's with CCA requests when a more simple approach often gets better results.

Also I don't believe that CCA covers payday loans due to there limited nature ie repayable in one go within a month.

[teaboy2]

Re: DOORSTEP VISIT THREAT - MacKenzie Hall threat letter

Noushkis send them the CCA request, i can gaurantee since its Quick Quid it will be unenforceable anyway, as what they do when people fail to repay is change the original loan agreements loan period from i.e. 1 month to cover 2 months (therefore making it a non true copy of originally executed agreement) Also they will set up a second loan agreement as a result of the unofficial loan extension as a completely new loan agreement covering the period after the original loan period was due to end, for the same amount on money - i.e. a completely seperate loan agreement, that was fruaduently applied to your account in which they will have entered your name in the signiture area to, though any claim on the second loan account would be unenforceable to as for that to be enforceable they will have had to have paid the money into your account for it on top of the money from the first original loan.

So they will never take this to court, and best way to get rid of them is to send a CCA request then send a reply once you receive the CCA outlining the above that i have mentioned. Also make clear that if you have not received a Default Notice from Quick Quid themselves, which you probably haven't then that means Quick Quid unlawfully terminated the loan agreement and as they have sold it the failure of the Default Notice can not be rectify, and therefore the loan can not be enforce due to the lack of any Default Notice from Quick Quid.

Then send them a section 10 notice under the Data Protection Act for good measure.

[mr.ton]

Re: DOORSTEP VISIT THREAT - MacKenzie Hall threat letter

Yes..still waiting for my visit from Meritfarce from so many years ago now.

[Noushki]

Re: DOORSTEP VISIT THREAT - MacKenzie Hall threat letter

I appreciate that. I gave them the last chance to correct the balance and renegotiate the repayment. But it seems that they are not bothered. They prefer to continue wasting money on paper No probs, I've got time....alll 6 years!

[Curlyben]

Re: DOORSTEP VISIT THREAT - MacKenzie Hall threat letter

Three YEARS and counting.
As ever best to Ignore Mucky's steaming piles..
Responding only encourages them.

[Noushki]

Re: DOORSTEP VISIT THREAT - MacKenzie Hall threat letter

ha ha ha, really? How long has it been?

[Curlyben]

Re: DOORSTEP VISIT THREAT - MacKenzie Hall threat letter

*Yawn*

I'm STILL waiting for my visit from them !!

[Noushki]

Re: DOORSTEP VISIT THREAT - MacKenzie Hall threat letter

Another letter from Mucky Hall threatening me with Merit Force visit at home, unless, of course, I pay money back within 10 days. I know those guys have no rights to come inside my house, so my boyfriend and I agreed that when someone comes asking for me, he will announce we split up and I do not live here anymore

As I mentioned before, Mucky Hall claims money based on incorrect balance, so I sent them a letter with a proof attached confirming I paid off part of this balance to the company that originaly owed the debt. I also added that if they won't correct the balance I will assume they claim the money unlawfully and I will take legal actions

They threaten me, so I will respond!

Re: DOORSTEP VISIT THREAT - MacKenzie Hall threat letter

HI

The "default notice" is totally none compliantand would not enable enforcement on a conventional loan.

I do not think that it is ever the idea to enforce anyway to be honest, although i could be proven wrong. I think they use the DN as just another tool to intimidate lenders.

Unfortunately the CCA is completely inadequate on these agreements in my view, as are the OFT debt collection guidlines. Something neds to be done.

Regards
Peter

[Rosiebowen]

Re: DOORSTEP VISIT THREAT - MacKenzie Hall threat letter

The county court in Northampton is the "summons factory" for debt collection. I think the offiical title is bulk processing centre.

If you were to get a CC summons, apply immediately to have it transferred to a local court nearer your home.

[Noushki]

Re: DOORSTEP VISIT THREAT - MacKenzie Hall threat letter

I agree

Re: DOORSTEP VISIT THREAT - MacKenzie Hall threat letter

NOT TRUE! OFT does help, maybe not as often as they should, but they do act on complaints.

Last year in September I filed a complaint against Yes Loans. Since then OFT have been in touch with me regularly and recently called me to ask my permission to use my letters as a proof in the court. So I think something is being done, which is great!

I might begin to believe they are slightly less use than a chocolate teapot when that company is prosecuted or Mucky Hall's licence is revoked.

[Noushki]

Re: DOORSTEP VISIT THREAT - MacKenzie Hall threat letter

NOT TRUE! OFT does help, maybe not as often as they should, but they do act on complaints.

Last year in September I filed a complaint against Yes Loans. Since then OFT have been in touch with me regularly and recently called me to ask my permission to use my letters as a proof in the court. So I think something is being done, which is great!

Re: DOORSTEP VISIT THREAT - MacKenzie Hall threat letter

The OFT cannot take on individual cases, that's the FOS's job. The OFT will however, register the complaint and compile a case against a company who breach OFT requirements on debt collection.

And then do precisely bugger all.