OFT imposes requirements on Mackenzie Hall to improve handling of disputed debts

[ODC]

Hi cerebus, I was talking about where the DCAs have complained to the mods.

 

I'd just like to know what it was they were complaining about.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

 

As you know *** ******* from Reigate is a regular moaner to the Mods if we say a bad word about the company from Reigate who are currently under OFT scrutiny as well as their paramilitary wing who operate near a large airport and can CON nobody.

 

Now it seems a certain DCA from somewhere not a million miles from Kilmarnock who are now also the subject of an OFT scrutiny have made complaints to the Mods about some merry japes Mr 20 cwt was having with their online chat-simians and their inability to differentiate BEAR from BARE. As you know a number of print screens were posted showing the educational standards employed by said simians and **** ********* took exception to this. It would appear that the truth hurts. Still he will have enough to worry about now the OFT is on his case as well as East Ayrshire Trading Standards, CAG and the Doughnut shop.:grin:

[mr.ton]

On a more cynical note watch out for MHall setting up another collection firm under another name, possibly in another town, pretty soon.

 

They already go under many different names around the country

[NailPost]

I meant the MHall name will become too hot for many finance firms to be associated with. Tarred with the MHall brush firms like Meritfarce and J2 will become just the same. The chiefs will fire the indians and move the wagon train somewhere else. We just need to keep an eye on them.

[count orlok]

not just MH, this press release gives a great boost to all. now we can quote: "A DCA will not carry out Debt Collection Activity where it has been informed, in writing, that there is reasonable cause to believe that the debt is in dispute....Debt Collection Activity is defined as: a) sending debt collection letters; b) making of debt collection calls; c) the use of any other medium for the purpose of collecting an outstanding debt; or d) the acceptance of payments offered against a debt. A debt is considered as in dispute where: b) a request under section 77 or 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has not been complied with, and this prevents the agreement being enforced without the permission of the court;" this means a lot, and puts paid to their letters stating they do not consider the debt is in despute.

[Pinky69]

Great news and we have got to KEEP ON reporting every breach of consumer law and OFT guidelines to the OFT. I discovered a few days ago that Nationwide had entered a default on my credit reports in 2006 - for a debt that was paid off in 2005. I wrote to them demanding they remove it immediately - with a copy to the OFT, the Information Commissioner and a personal copy to the CEO of Nationwide. It doesn't take long to rattle off a few extra copies and the result is more than worth it! Onwards and Upwards CAGGERS!

[Richard Spud]

EXCELLENT WORK BY THE OFT AGAINST A DCA

See the latest action published on 21st April 2009 and valuable OFT opinions to cite to other DCAs and the County Courts.

http://www.oft.gov.uk:80/news/press/2009/44-09

“Under the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales, a debt is considered to be statute barred when no payments have been made against it or where it has not been acknowledged for six years. A statute barred debt cannot be legally recovered. Whilst the OFT accepts that the debt still exists, the OFT considers that it can be unfair to pursue the debt in the circumstances set out in our Debt Collection Guidance”

Quote from the OFT MACKENZIE HALL PDF document:

“REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE OFT REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO:

MACKENZIE HALL LIMITED

A debt is considered as in dispute where:

A request under section 77 or 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has not been complied with, and this prevents the agreement being enforced without the permission of the court”

I suggest that the above reference to ss.77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 is a very strong endorsement of the rights of consumers to be provided with true copies of Regulated agreements.

HTH

Regards – Richard.

[ODC]

EXCELLENT WORK BY THE OFT AGAINST A DCA

See the latest action published on 21st April 2009 and valuable OFT opinions to cite to other DCAs and the County Courts.

http://www.oft.gov.uk:80/news/press/2009/44-09

“Under the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales, a debt is considered to be statute barred when no payments have been made against it or where it has not been acknowledged for six years. A statute barred debt cannot be legally recovered. Whilst the OFT accepts that the debt still exists, the OFT considers that it can be unfair to pursue the debt in the circumstances set out in our Debt Collection Guidance”

Quote from the OFT MACKENZIE HALL PDF document:

“REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE OFT REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO:

MACKENZIE HALL LIMITED

A debt is considered as in dispute where:

A request under section 77 or 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has not been complied with, and this prevents the agreement being enforced without the permission of the court”

I suggest that the above reference to ss.77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 is a very strong endorsement of the rights of consumers to be provided with true copies of Regulated agreements.

HTH

Regards – Richard.

 

Oh dear look at this on the JB Recoveries site. Now correct me if Im wrong but JB recoveries are connected to Mackenzie Hall

 

 

Write-Off Debt Recovery

 

The JBDR knowledge base places us in a prime position to collect on behalf of debt purchase companies, post legal accounts and statute barred debt. Our strategy is suited to the particular history of these categories of debt. Again, address verification and tracing will play an important part in contributing to the successful collection of these accounts.

 

 

Looks like another letter to the OFT is required

[mr.ton]

Oh dear...tut tut, when will they ever learn

They think they can collect on statute barred debts do they?

[ODC]

They put tripe on their webs*ite for potential 'customers' such as other idiotic DCAs who may want to offload UNENFORCEABLE DEBT for a few pennies.

[Alphageek]

Sent this to the OFT about JD Debt Recovery

 

Dear sir/madam,

 

I have just accessed the website of a company called JB Debt Recovery who give their address as 176 Bath Street, Glasgow G2 4HG

 

As they are in the debt collection business and presumably hold a Consumer Credit License, I thought I should bring to your attention one of the “services” they purport to offer via their website’s Services page (JB Debt Recovery)

 

I quote: “Write-Off Debt Recovery

 

The JBDR knowledge base places us in a prime position to collect on behalf of debt purchase companies, post legal accounts and statute barred debt.”

 

It is clear that they are, by their own admission, involved it practices which go against the OFT’s Debt Collection Guidelines stated in sections 2.13 and 2.14 of OFT664.

 

I would expect you to investigate this company. No doubt they will tell you it is a “system error” and the content should not have been on their website but I would hope that you would see through this excuse and impose requirements upon them to cease attempting to recover statute barred debts.

 

I have captured the page via a screen-shot on 22nd April 2009 at 21:25 and show the picture here.

 

[PIC]

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Alphageek

Edited April 22, 2009 by Alphageek

[JonCris]

They complain to the Mods do they - well for those plonkers at Mackenzie Hall here's one to put in their pipe & smoke

 

MESSAGE to the staff (for want of a better name) at Mackenzie Hall

 

2 days AFTER (15th inst) you entered into an agreement with the OFT to cease chasing debts that are either disputed OR time barred you have sent one of your threatograms dated 17th inst to demand payment of a debt that is not only not owed but even if it was it would be 10 years out of time

 

Expect to hear from me very soon Oh I by the way am not the victim of your threats however the person who is is an officer of the court in other-words & in case your too thick to get it, they'er a lawyer - complain about that you morons

Edited April 26, 2009 by JonCris

[Richard Spud]

They already go under many different names around the country

 

I meant the MHall name will become too hot for many finance firms to be associated with. Tarred with the MHall brush firms like Meritfarce and J2 will become just the same. The chiefs will fire the indians and move the wagon train somewhere else. We just need to keep an eye on them.

 

Oh dear look at this on the JB Recoveries site. Now correct me if Im wrong but JB recoveries are connected to Mackenzie Hall

 

I can’t see any connection of Mackenzie Hall to JB Debt Recoveries Ltd; however see below public information available with regards to the following:

 

1. MACKENZIE HALL LIMITED REPORT 220409

 

2. MACKENZIE HALL LTD RETURN 08

 

3. MACKENZIE HALL HOLDINGS LIMITED REPORT 220409

 

4. MACKENZIE HALL HOLDINGS LTD RETURN 08

 

5. MERITFORCE LIMITED REPORT 220409

 

SEE NEXT 5 FILES IN FOLLOWING POSTING

 

6. MERITFORCE RETURN 08

 

7. J2 SOLUTIONS LTD RETURN 05

 

8. J2 SOLUTIONS LTD RETURN 06

 

9. J2 SOLUTIONS LTD RETURN 07

 

10. J2 SOLUTIONS LTD RETURN 08

 

You will see that JZ FINANCIAL SERVICES BV (a Netherlands company) is cited in the report of MACKENZIE HALL HOLDINGS LIMITED.

 

I hope that the lawfully obtained public information promulgated herein is of interest.

 

Regards – Richard.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Richard Spud

[Richard Spud]

6. MERITFORCE RETURN 08

 

7. J2 SOLUTIONS LTD RETURN 05

 

8. J2 SOLUTIONS LTD RETURN 06

 

9. J2 SOLUTIONS LTD RETURN 07

 

10. J2 SOLUTIONS LTD RETURN 08

 

Regards – Richard.

[ODC]

Richard I think if you compare the directors and company officers you may well find a connection.

[Richard Spud]

Richard I think if you compare the directors and company officers you may well find a connection.

 

Thank you ODC for your insight. I have not checked JB out fully as yet or cross referenced other directorships. However I did notice the following as quoted from the J2 Solutions Ltd website:

 

‘During 2008, J2 achieved two accolades. Gary Jones Managing Director was appointed as a Director of the CSA and in October 2008 J2 Solutions won the inaugural Credit Today award for the “Tracing Agency of the Year”’

 

So presumably Gary would ensure that CSA members strictly adhere to the CSA Codes of Practice – as attached hereto!

 

HTH

 

Richard.

[JonCris]

Init funny that's 2 directors of CSA who's firms have been sanctioned by the OFT for behaving badly - doesn't say much for the CSA does it when it's run by this lot

[Richard Spud]

Init funny that's 2 directors of CSA who's firms have been sanctioned by the OFT for behaving badly - doesn't say much for the CSA does it when it's run by this lot

 

And as you allude to in a post in another place JonCris; MH act for 1st Credit - both impositioned by the OFT!

 

Best - Richard.

[sillygirl1]

I wonder if that is the reason the court fees have increased - to stop these sharks going for the less informed of this sad country.

[cashins]

Init funny that's 2 directors of CSA who's firms have been sanctioned by the OFT for behaving badly - doesn't say much for the CSA does it when it's run by this lot

Well actually it does say a lot about the CSA

David

[ODC]

Gary Jones Managing Director was appointed as a Director of the CSA and in October 2008 J2 Solutions won the inaugural Credit Today award for the “Tracing Agency of the Year”’[/i]

 

So presumably Gary would ensure that CSA members strictly adhere to the CSA Codes of Practice – as attached hereto!

 

HTH

 

Richard.

 

A striking similarity with Najib Nathoo being president of the CSA as well as being a director of Worst Credit. (The same Worst Credit that is being sanctioned by the OFT). No conflict of interest there then. As Lord Gnome would put it ''Shome mishtake surely''

[JonCris]

Sigh.....so many targets, so little time:grin::grin::grin:

 

David

 

Yup it's certainly a target rich environment - cos they is all plonkers:rolleyes:

[babybear39]

They complain to the Mods do they - well for those plonkers at Mackenzie Hall here's one to put in their pipe & smoke it

 

MESSAGE to the staff (for want of a better name) at Mackenzie Hall

 

2 days AFTER (15th inst) you entered into an agreement with the OFT to cease chasing debts that are either disputed OR time barred you have sent one of your threatograms dated 17th inst to demand payment of a debt that is not only not owed but even if it was it would be 10 years out of time

 

Expect to hear from me very soon Oh I by the way am not the victim of your threats however the person who is is an officer of the court in other-words & in case your too thick to get it, they'er a lawyer - complain about that you morons

 

Very well said JC. Have you complained to TS and the OFT about it yet?

[JonCris]

No it'll be going straight to the OFT signed by the victim - cos TS are a joke

[ScarletPimpernel]

I've just done the same thing with 1st Credit. I'm acting for someone else and 1st Credit admitted, in response to a complaint, that they had breached the OFT Guidance. However, they've continued with the same non-compliant behaviour, so I've sent the details to the OFT.

[cerberusalert]

It really needs the OFT et al to stop pussy footing around, they have given enough warnings to these companies. It's about time they made an example of a couple of them and send shockwaves throughout the industry, letting them know in uncertain terms to either act within the guidelines or suffer the consequences.