01563556057

Office of Fair Trading takes action against Mackenzie Hall

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

44/09    21 April 2009

The Office of Fair Trading has taken action against Mackenzie Hall Ltd, a debt collection company, requiring it to improve its practices.

Download Mackenzie Hall requirements (pdf 47 kb).

The OFT has used its powers under consumer credit legislation to impose 'requirements' on Mackenzie Hall after an investigation found that some of its business processes failed to meet satisfactory standards. As a result of these requirements, Mackenzie Hall must not:

   * pursue a debt where it has been notified in writing that there is reasonable cause to believe that the debt is in dispute, and
   * pursue a debt where it has been notified in writing that the debt is statute barred.

Failure to comply with a requirement could lead to a fine of up to £50,000 and/or possible revocation of Mackenzie Hall's consumer credit licence.

Following an application by the company to renew its existing consumer credit licence, the OFT carried out an in-depth investigation into Mackenzie Hall's business practices and procedures, including a visit to its offices.

got a telephone call (08444115601) - left no message, and a text from these people on my mobile number saying that I needed to make payment - giving me a ref number and a web address to visit to pay!! what for  ?? how much ?? when calling them on there apparent help line 01563 566520 )as im aware I have no debts)...it was a FAKE number!! Im annoyed at these people and you shold both ignore them and reoprt ur experiences!!!! idiots................

Have just received a letter from Mackenzie hall asking for my husband to contact them immediately, saying they have been attempting to contact a person of my husbands name regarding a personal matter tel Louise Graham 08444115638 where upon they will give him more info.  I know we have no debts outstanding with any one should I just ignore the letter?

Hi

I also recived a letter yesterday (5th November) to my place of employment, got me as a Mrs when I am  a Miss but they have the surname right!! How can they write to my place of employment!! how do they know I work there?   I have had no phone calls or text yet but am petrified that they will start and also at my place of work.  I have no old debt that I know off!  I did try to ring the number on the letter yesterday and got an answer phone message saying that due to unforeseen circumstances their offices where closed untill 8am on Monday!! after doing my research now I am really thinking of ignoring them!!! but I am worried after all the all the horror stories I have read about them serving notices on your house!!!  I have kids to worry about dont want people turning up at the door!!  The letter states "we have been provided with your address as the possible business details for our subject" "We are attempting to contact the above named person reagrding a personal matter"  "if you are not the above named person then please contact the office quoting a refernce number........  "  it is from CHRIS FOX ACCOUNTS MANAGER.  It is a printed signature and the letter does not look very propfessional, but it does have information on the back about "HOW TO PAY YOUR BILL" by post debit card telephone etc.  I really need some advice on what to do.  I am so worried they will contact work, its so embarssing  (through no fault of my own as I owe nothing) but also I manage accounts at work what will they think if debt collectors are chasing me!!!!  If any one can help please let me know. billy p

It's a 'phishing' letter.  Ignore it.  And no-one will be coming to your door (MacKenzie Hall don't have field collectors, for one), or taking you to court.  The only way MH will turn up in court will be themselves in the dock.

Research them online, on debt advise forums, and it makes revealing reading on how they go about their (dodgy) business.

Someone at Orange must be selling account details to this company as the number they have rung and sent txt messages to i have never given out, even to the wife. Its the number for my smart phone which is used only for accessing the net....

The latest number for these muppets is 01563 554540

i have been receiving txt messages from mckenzie hall too! i have no idea who it is, im not in any debt either i am 16 years old!!!! i dont know how they got my number as i brought a brand new sim card a few weeks back.. very confusing!

thanks for link to newspaper article. had call from MH this am but they hung up immediately. Will defo ask them re the doughnuts if they ring and stay on the line long enough  next time!!

i agree with the orange account  numbers being given out...i git the same sorta crap  yet orange is the only company who has my mobile number....no one else has it....

got a call on my landline from 01563554540 saying it was important to get back to them (mckenzie Hall) when I rang back they tried to say they must have rang a wrong number ????

got a call on my landline from 01563554540 saying it was important to get back to them (mckenzie Hall) when I rang back they tried to say they must have rang a wrong number ????

We received a telephone call we are ex-directory. How did they get our telephone number.As person they are looking for dosnt have the same name. We then received a letter for the person they are looking for. These people are bullies from what i have been reading.
I will be passing this on to office of fair trading. They are not allowed to harras people in this way.

I do not have any debits. Someone at Orange must be selling account details to this company as the number they have rung and sent txt messages to i have never given out, its my wife account.

The latest number for these muppets is 01563 546300

I also have no debts at all and have had numerous calls from this number which is reall starting to pee me off, we have only been in this house and had this new number for 4 months and we are already getting these kinds of calls. I wish they would stop!!!!

I changed my mobile phone contract in November 2010. Since then, I have received texts from mackenzie hall and as i am writing this message, I have received a call 0n 01563546300 followed by a  text message from them asking a Graham Pearce to ring them on 08444115601. I don't accept calls on my mobile from numbers i don't know, and I have no idea how they have got this number. I can only think that vodafone have reused a number once belonging to Graham Pearce and that he is in some debt. What do I do now? I have only been looking with curiosity up till now but the general consensus is that Makenzie Hall are an absolute mob and that the best thing to do is ignore them. However, I don't want a continual once a week call and text from them.

I rang vodafone and they have changed my number for me. They were very helpful actually, the young lady I spoke to was not being deliberately ignorant about the possibility of a re used number, I don't believe she knew one way or the other. However, I gave her the details of the company and of the person they were trying to contact and she put a marker against the number. They have agreed to change my number with no charge. Apparently it is normally £25 unless you have had 3 consecutive calls? ?? texts or a police incident report? As they only had the last telephone call followed by a text,(i deleted previous calls and texts) I should have paid.

Apparently, Mr Pearce, or whoever had my number before, is protected by data protection and vodafone will be able to do very little else than take the number out of circulation. I have read much MacHall and It strikes me as odd that they can continue to harrass people without compromising data protection laws and still remain in business. I've not had my number long so it is no real hardship for me to change, I only use it for friends and family but even so it is irritating.

I'm fortunate not to have any bad debt and it would be easy to be sanctimonious about those who do. However, there but for good fortune go I. This company resurrect  very old debt and furthermore, sometimes debt that never existed in the first place. They rely on the fact that people who have incurred debt in the past are extremely nervous about being chased for money. I say pass it onto the banks, they owe the tax payer billions

Leaving repeated messages on my answerphone for someone who isn't me and has never lived at my address...will not bother to call back after this

Press releases 2009 -

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

44/09    21 April 2009

The Office of Fair Trading has taken action against Mackenzie Hall Ltd, a debt collection company, requiring it to improve its practices.

Download Mackenzie Hall requirements (pdf 47 kb).

The OFT has used its powers under consumer credit legislation to impose 'requirements' on Mackenzie Hall after an investigation found that some of its business processes failed to meet satisfactory standards. As a result of these requirements, Mackenzie Hall must not:

pursue a debt where it has been notified in writing that there is reasonable cause to believe that the debt is in dispute, and
pursue a debt where it has been notified in writing that the debt is statute barred.
Failure to comply with a requirement could lead to a fine of up to £50,000 and/or possible revocation of Mackenzie Hall's consumer credit licence.

Following an application by the company to renew its existing consumer credit licence, the OFT carried out an in-depth investigation into Mackenzie Hall's business practices and procedures, including a visit to its offices. The investigation found that whilst the company's procedures were of a satisfactory standard, complaint evidence received by the OFT showed that some of these procedures were not always followed.

The OFT raised its concerns with Mackenzie Hall and confirmed that it would be looking to impose requirements to improve compliance. Mackenzie Hall acknowledged the problems and, as allowed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, made a proposal to address the OFT's concerns.

Ray Watson, OFT Director for Consumer Credit, said:

'Persisting with debt collection activity when debts are in dispute can give rise to significant consumer detriment, particularly where vulnerable consumers are involved.'

'In this case Mackenzie Hall has co-operated fully with the OFT and has taken steps to ensure that the business follows correct procedures for handling disputed and statute barred debts.'

'We will continue to use our licensing powers to take action to protect consumers where debt collectors fail to ensure full compliance with our guidance.'

NOTES

1. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) requires debt collectors, businesses that offer goods or services on credit and/or are involved in activities relating to credit or hire, to be licensed by the OFT.

2. In 2003 the OFT issued the Debt Collection Guidance (updated December 2006) which sets out minimum standards for those intending to collect debts. Failure to comply with the Debt Collection Guidance may call into question the fitness of a business to hold a consumer credit licence.

3. Following implementation of the OFT's new powers under the Consumer Credit Act 2006 on 6 April 2008, where the OFT is dissatisfied with any matter in connection with a business, a proposal to carry on a business or any other conduct by a licensee, associate or former associate, the OFT may impose 'requirements' on the licensed business. Requirements may require a business to do or not to do (or to cease doing) anything specified for the purposes connected with addressing the OFT's dissatisfaction, or securing that matters of the same or a similar kind do not arise.

4. Two different processes exist for imposition of requirements. One is where an adjudicating officer issues a notice to the trader that the OFT is minded to impose requirements to address dissatisfaction. The trader is then given the opportunity to make representations to the adjudicating officer. The adjudicating officer makes a determination and the trader has the right of appeal against the determination to the Consumer Credit Appeals Tribunal. Alternatively, a business may offer a proposal to address the OFT's dissatisfaction pursuant to section 33D(4) of the Act. In these circumstances the OFT is not required to issue a notice that it is minded to impose requirements if the proposed determination is in the same terms as the proposal made by the business.

5. The fact that requirements have been imposed on Mackenzie Hall appears on the consumer credit register. We will monitor Mackenzie Hall's compliance with the requirements. Any complaints about non-compliance should be sent to:

Enquiries
Office of Fair Trading
Fleetbank House
2-6 Salisbury Square
London
EC4Y 8JX

Email: Enquiries@oft.gsi.gov.uk

6. 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 (pdf 116 kb). In Northern Ireland, statue barred debts are governed by the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. In Scotland, statute barred debts are governed by the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 which states that the debt itself ceases to exist after five years providing that it has not been acknowledged and that no relevant claim against it has been made by the creditor.

7. The OFT's advice for those being pursued by debt collectors is: don't panic or ignore the problem, seek help and advice from your nearest Citizens Advice Bureau and contact those who you owe money to as soon as possible.

Press releases 2009 - http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2009/44-09

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

44/09    21 April 2009

The Office of Fair Trading has taken action against Mackenzie Hall Ltd, a debt collection company, requiring it to improve its practices.

Download Mackenzie Hall requirements (pdf 47 kb) http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_lea ... equirements.pdf

The OFT has used its powers under consumer credit legislation to impose 'requirements' on Mackenzie Hall after an investigation found that some of its business processes failed to meet satisfactory standards. As a result of these requirements, Mackenzie Hall must not:

pursue a debt where it has been notified in writing that there is reasonable cause to believe that the debt is in dispute, and
pursue a debt where it has been notified in writing that the debt is statute barred.
Failure to comply with a requirement could lead to a fine of up to £50,000 and/or possible revocation of Mackenzie Hall's consumer credit licence.

Following an application by the company to renew its existing consumer credit licence, the OFT carried out an in-depth investigation into Mackenzie Hall's business practices and procedures, including a visit to its offices. The investigation found that whilst the company's procedures were of a satisfactory standard, complaint evidence received by the OFT showed that some of these procedures were not always followed.

The OFT raised its concerns with Mackenzie Hall and confirmed that it would be looking to impose requirements to improve compliance. Mackenzie Hall acknowledged the problems and, as allowed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, made a proposal to address the OFT's concerns.

Ray Watson, OFT Director for Consumer Credit, said:

'Persisting with debt collection activity when debts are in dispute can give rise to significant consumer detriment, particularly where vulnerable consumers are involved.'

'In this case Mackenzie Hall has co-operated fully with the OFT and has taken steps to ensure that the business follows correct procedures for handling disputed and statute barred debts.'

'We will continue to use our licensing powers to take action to protect consumers where debt collectors fail to ensure full compliance with our guidance.'

NOTES

1. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) requires debt collectors, businesses that offer goods or services on credit and/or are involved in activities relating to credit or hire, to be licensed by the OFT.

2. In 2003 the OFT issued the Debt Collection Guidance (updated December 2006) which sets out minimum standards for those intending to collect debts. Failure to comply with the Debt Collection Guidance may call into question the fitness of a business to hold a consumer credit licence.

3. Following implementation of the OFT's new powers under the Consumer Credit Act 2006 on 6 April 2008, where the OFT is dissatisfied with any matter in connection with a business, a proposal to carry on a business or any other conduct by a licensee, associate or former associate, the OFT may impose 'requirements' on the licensed business. Requirements may require a business to do or not to do (or to cease doing) anything specified for the purposes connected with addressing the OFT's dissatisfaction, or securing that matters of the same or a similar kind do not arise.

4. Two different processes exist for imposition of requirements. One is where an adjudicating officer issues a notice to the trader that the OFT is minded to impose requirements to address dissatisfaction. The trader is then given the opportunity to make representations to the adjudicating officer. The adjudicating officer makes a determination and the trader has the right of appeal against the determination to the Consumer Credit Appeals Tribunal. Alternatively, a business may offer a proposal to address the OFT's dissatisfaction pursuant to section 33D(4) of the Act. In these circumstances the OFT is not required to issue a notice that it is minded to impose requirements if the proposed determination is in the same terms as the proposal made by the business.

5. The fact that requirements have been imposed on Mackenzie Hall appears on the consumer credit register. We will monitor Mackenzie Hall's compliance with the requirements. Any complaints about non-compliance should be sent to:

Enquiries
Office of Fair Trading
Fleetbank House
2-6 Salisbury Square
London
EC4Y 8JX

Email: Enquiries@oft.gsi.gov.uk

6. 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 (pdf 116 kb). In Northern Ireland, statue barred debts are governed by the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. In Scotland, statute barred debts are governed by the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 which states that the debt itself ceases to exist after five years providing that it has not been acknowledged and that no relevant claim against it has been made by the creditor.

7. The OFT's advice for those being pursued by debt collectors is: don't panic or ignore the problem, seek help and advice from your nearest Citizens Advice Bureau and contact those who you owe money to as soon as possible.

===
Company Details & Ratings:  http://www.levelbusiness.com/doc/company/uk/SC255891

had two messages asking for a man i do not know within five minutes told them we are a cat rescue and it says so on the answer machine where do they get their phones nos from
obviously do not listen to answer machine said they will take no off