By MERANIA KARAURIA merania.karauria@wanganuichronicle.co.nz
A MULTI-NATIONAL debt recovery company has raised the ire of Wanganui locals.
They have received demands from Marshall Freeman Debt Recovery for bills they had already paid cash for to former Wanganui business Next Electronics.
Next Electronics was sold and is now Next?Tech Electronics, who it appears, unwittingly inherited
the debt when they bought the business.
One of the new owners approached by the Chronicle declined to be named and comment on the fiasco because of legal issues.
On November 28, Craig Verry received a demand for the sum of $46.80.
He did not remember the debt, was about to pay it, but then on closer inspection realised that in 2002 he had had to pay cash to Next Electronics or he could not uplift his video which he had taken in for the heads to be cleaned.
"It's not a nice letter to get just before Christmas ? and the wording is very strong ? and some people intimidated by the demand, might not have realised they had already paid and could have sent off cheques."
Mr Verry said he called Marshall Freeman before Christmas who advised they would send out a copy of the unpaid invoice but he has not received it nor has he received an apology.
Community Law manager Sandra Terewi said about seven people came into the office with the letter of demand. They insisted they paid cash at the time they collected their equipment from Next Electronics.
Another customer who took his video in for servicing said he was not allowed to uplift it until he paid cash. Citizens Advice Bureau manager Frances Dalziel confirmed that several people had also sought their advice on the matter.
The Chronicle spoke to a Marshall Freeman collection officer who answered the Auckland number ? she was actually on the Gold Coast in Australia.
She said the previous owners of Next Electronics had been spoken to about the debts they said were owing at the time they sold the business.
People who had paid, she said, could contact them and they would work through the issue.
However, the Chronicle suggested the caller would incur the cost of a toll call to sort out an issue that was not of their making, and for which they were not liable.
