Miss Muddle's UE Diary

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Guys --- I have just checked the register up to date at close of business yesterday and the data available for free from CH.

Mercantile Data Bureau Limited is a NON-TRADING COMPANY, i.e it is NOT allowed to participate in any shape or form in ANY commercial activity whatsoever.

It has two previous names: surprise surprise!!!!!

HILLESDEN FARMS LIMITED
NEATHOLD LIMITED

This is all a try on by Hillesden after being forced to back down under their own name it would seem. My reply would be along the lines of the infamous quote from Arkell v Pressdram.

regards
G

Yea we know this mate - we sent two letters to DLC arguing this exact point - telling them to go forth and multiply lol

Thing is they won't do anything, if they do we'll royally screw them

[garlok]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Guys --- I have just checked the register up to date at close of business yesterday and the data available for free from CH.

Mercantile Data Bureau Limited is a NON-TRADING COMPANY, i.e it is NOT allowed to participate in any shape or form in ANY commercial activity whatsoever.

It has two previous names: surprise surprise!!!!!

HILLESDEN FARMS LIMITED
NEATHOLD LIMITED

This is all a try on by Hillesden after being forced to back down under their own name it would seem. My reply would be along the lines of the infamous quote from Arkell v Pressdram.

regards
G

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Hillesdon own DLC & MDB, yes

[Miss Muddled]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Guys.

Just did a company number search on WebCheck and MERCANTILE DATA BUREAU LIMITED 01829604 says, the status is "active" but the company accounts submitted 30/04/12 says its dormant.

They have until 08/09/2013 to file an annual return and change its company status, so be interesting to see if its dormant or trading.

But im wondering if DLC are trying to mislead you by saying, the company is active (when it techically is) without admitting the trading status is dormant/non trading.

Thanks SXGuy for this. If you look up the Companies House rules on dormant companies which are dormant they may not participate in ANY commercial activity whatsoever. A number of the banks themselves operate debt collection companies which are on the register as "Dormant". Mercers the animals which belong to Barclays Bank plc are one of the notable ones. They are all committing serious offences against the Companies Act 1985 and 2006 and the authorities and regulators all turn a blind eye. If we did the same thing we would have long been arrested and imprisoned with the maximum penalties but as usual Banks and this filthy industry are untouchable and above the law.

regards
G

Your right, but i wonder if they are using a loop hole of sorts, one in which i will try and find out.

As far as i am aware, if the directors statement in the accounts says that the company is non trading/dormant, then the company status must also be changed to reflect the accounts. However that would mean that companies house would likely write to the company and notify them that no further accounts are needed, and will contact them again within 4 years to check the status of the company.

Now, by submitting accounts showing £0 balance sheet every year, could be some sort of loop hole to keep the company active, yet remain non trading. This to me, sounds logical, since the company isnt incurring expenses, or receiving a turnover, so is therefore not trading, however, its left open to trade should they wish to.

Although that being said, i do believe that this in itself is misleading, and is not the correct process under the Companies Act.

Either way, no one should receive any letters from MDB at all, who paid for the letter to be typed up? who paid for the letterhead stationery? if Miss Muddle paid MDB some money for example, would it be shown in the accounts? who would cash the cheque?

I do not believe that DLC could argue MDB incurred no costs or have gained no profit from issuing letters in their name.

They do not have a CCL either. That's the killer.

See my letter to DLC - that spells out their breaches

Its an interesting one really because a number of these companies are actually shown on the register at CH as "Dormant" and the rules are absolutely clear. I was told in skirmishes with Mercers that they and Barclays were I quote" Above the Law and no judge or court will dare move against us or our parent company". Pity I didn't record that. It clearly shows the arrogance and disregard for the law by the financial sector. That was the reptile I told to get up bend over and stick his head through his anal sphincter muscle so that he could talk less shite. I do hope that they produce that recording.

regards
G

Lol Garlok. Classic

You folks are just incredible, a minefiled of information, and even what you don't know you make it business to go find answers to help people like us, incredible people on here, we wouldn't even know where to start to look for this kind of info.

Unfortunately can't get my head round all the info, basically what DLC are trying to convince us, is yeah its states active on CH, however what they haven't mentioned is that the Accounts submitted is Dormant. Obviously DCL are trying to decieve us at some point and maybe thinking theyvcan pull wool over our eyes type of thing.


Also as said they have sent new copies of T & C's completely different to the ones Hillesden Securities sent to us in 2010, are Hillesden Securities and DLC same companies....we haven't a clue which companies belong to who or where, sure they do this just to confuse peeps like us.

Will send the copies of CCA and new T & C's to Niddy tomorrow, need Daughter here to help me, as you have realised not to techi on computer...

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Lol Garlok. Classic

[garlok]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Its an interesting one really because a number of these companies are actually shown on the register at CH as "Dormant" and the rules are absolutely clear. I was told in skirmishes with Mercers that they and Barclays were I quote" Above the Law and no judge or court will dare move against us or our parent company". Pity I didn't record that. It clearly shows the arrogance and disregard for the law by the financial sector. That was the reptile I told to get up bend over and stick his head through his anal sphincter muscle so that he could talk less shite. I do hope that they produce that recording.

regards
G

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

They do not have a CCL either. That's the killer.

See my letter to DLC - that spells out their breaches

[SXGuy]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Your right, but i wonder if they are using a loop hole of sorts, one in which i will try and find out.

As far as i am aware, if the directors statement in the accounts says that the company is non trading/dormant, then the company status must also be changed to reflect the accounts. However that would mean that companies house would likely write to the company and notify them that no further accounts are needed, and will contact them again within 4 years to check the status of the company.

Now, by submitting accounts showing £0 balance sheet every year, could be some sort of loop hole to keep the company active, yet remain non trading. This to me, sounds logical, since the company isnt incurring expenses, or receiving a turnover, so is therefore not trading, however, its left open to trade should they wish to.

Although that being said, i do believe that this in itself is misleading, and is not the correct process under the Companies Act.

Either way, no one should receive any letters from MDB at all, who paid for the letter to be typed up? who paid for the letterhead stationery? if Miss Muddle paid MDB some money for example, would it be shown in the accounts? who would cash the cheque?

I do not believe that DLC could argue MDB incurred no costs or have gained no profit from issuing letters in their name.

[garlok]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Thanks SXGuy for this. If you look up the Companies House rules on dormant companies which are dormant they may not participate in ANY commercial activity whatsoever. A number of the banks themselves operate debt collection companies which are on the register as "Dormant". Mercers the animals which belong to Barclays Bank plc are one of the notable ones. They are all committing serious offences against the Companies Act 1985 and 2006 and the authorities and regulators all turn a blind eye. If we did the same thing we would have long been arrested and imprisoned with the maximum penalties but as usual Banks and this filthy industry are untouchable and above the law.

regards
G

[SXGuy]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Guys.

Just did a company number search on WebCheck and MERCANTILE DATA BUREAU LIMITED 01829604 says, the status is "active" but the company accounts submitted 30/04/12 says its dormant.

They have until 08/09/2013 to file an annual return and change its company status, so be interesting to see if its dormant or trading.

But im wondering if DLC are trying to mislead you by saying, the company is active (when it techically is) without admitting the trading status is dormant/non trading.

Mercantile Data Bureau Limited is an Active, non trading business incorporated in England & Wales on 3rd July 1984. Their business activity is recorded as Non-trading Company. Mercantile Data Bureau Limited is run by 2 current members. and 1 company secretary. 1 shareholders own the total shares within the company. It is also part of a group.

The latest Annual Accounts submitted to Companies House for the year up to 30/04/2012 reported 'cash at bank' of £0, 'liabilities' worth £0, 'net worth' of £0 and 'assets' worth £0. Mercantile Data Bureau Limited's risk score was amended on 11/05/2009.

[Miss Muddled]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Just send me everything again please. Spell it out and I'll check Monday

Sorry internet been down (or something wrong couldnt get on to forum or send/recieve emails) Greatly appreciate you doing this Niddy,we feel terrible putting our troubles and woes on to you just now when you are so busy trying to upgrade forum. Just don't know how you cope with the stress and pressure and still find the time to help all of us on here. Will get everything over to you this weekend. Trust Apex and DCL to raise their ugly head at sametime... Probably be because they are ready to SB next year. Also not recieving emails from forum would it be poss just to post on here letting us know you get everything, when you get a mo, that is....

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Just send me everything again please. Spell it out and I'll check Monday

[Miss Muddled]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

Respond as follows (*edit the dates);

Dear Sirs,

Ref: xxxxxxxx

Thanks for your letter of xx July 2013, the content has been noted.

You are still trying to hoodwink me here, let me elaborate, in specific response to your letter;

1. MDB DO NOT have a consumer credit licence, I have asked you on two previous occasions for their CCL Number - you cannot provide it hence you ARE deliberately misleading me;
2. You opened a letter for another company and replied to me from your company, then you try and act clever by saying that the registered address is at the bottom of all letters - do you really think this is acceptable in line with the provisions of holding a consumer credit licence? I would argue you are doing everything you can to deceive and mislead me here;
3. Company Number 01829604 IS dormant/non trading - I suggest you get your facts straight;
4. As you are the legal owner, I will communicate with you but will never respond to, or reply to anything from an unlicensed dormant firm;
5. You then say you don't mean to deceive your customers yet reading your letter, I am still none the wiser - the thing is to date, all from one letter arriving from an unregistered and unlicensed company, I have been told you're part of the Faccenda Group who are part of Hillesdon Securities who own you (DLC) and MDB so please help me out, who the hell am I supposed to be writing to?
6. I have made it clear that you should NOT send anyone to my home address, no matter the reason. The Guidelines clearly state that so long as a debtor is communicating then you have no right to call at their home address - calling at my home address will result in severe consequences and I demand you acknowledge this point and DO NOT attempt to send anybody to my address. If you do then I will seek the full strength of the law and bring criminal proceedings against the person who authorises any such visit - you must heed this warning;
7. There is no balance, the account is unenforceable as previously explained. Please provide me with a signed copy of my agreement then, with the terms that I agreed to when the product was opened. Until such time you comply with this very simple request then this account is unenforceable in line with s.127 CCA1974.

I suggest you seek immediate advice regards this matter because you're not doing yourself any favours here.

Yours faithfully,




Sign Digitally.

Wee update...sent above letter 2 weeks ago still no reply from dlc, wonder what their thoughts were when they read above letter composed by oor Niddy. Will keep you all posted.

Well obviously spoke to sooooon....

Recieved reply today saying...

They understand that my complaint regarding them trying to decieve us has been fully addresses in their last letter.

They also sent us a copy of the entry for MDB which they shows this company as active.

They said we stated agreement was UE therefore also enclosed a copy of original agreement and copies of current and original at the time of inception T & C, different set of T & C, (but same CCA) they sent before that Niddy deemed UE.

So now got a copy of CCA and different T & C's maybe need to resend to Niddy for his professional opinion......

Also just found Default Notice for this account doesn't quite look right maybe Niddy could have a lok at that when he has a spare mo...also just realised that this account has approx £500 of charges on it, if they go to court could be counter defend with some charges especially if we could ass wee bit of interest on....

Blloming hell they just don't give up, do they, like leeches Only got 9 months till SB.

[Miss Muddled]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

I've not forgotten the other issue but you said no rush so remind me (PM) nearer to when you want it

Cheers Niddy.......know how busy you are and have been with forum upgrade, we greatly appreciate you taking time again to help us.....but as we said no rush as want to waste as much time as poss to help go towards SB date, they did say they would delay action for 21 days not sure if that's from date of letter or when i received it, so err on caution will do it from date of letter, so maybe the beginning of next week.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Miss Muddle's UE Diary

I've not forgotten the other issue but you said no rush so remind me (PM) nearer to when you want it