I have been living and teaching in Slovakia since Sep 2005. I have informal agreements with 9 companies/credit card companies.

MBNA sold their debt to Link Financial. Despite sending them an income/expend. form in May 2008 and getting a letter from them in June, I got a letter from EOS, a debt service company in Slovakia saying they were acting on Link's behalf. I have spoken by phone to the international section of Link, scanned and emailed my income/expend. form, sent them copies of letters from other companies who have accepted my % offer of payment for their debts and asked Link to do the same.

My basic question is that can Link pursue a British company's debt of a British citizen through the Slovak court when the debtor is still negotiating with Link? I have sent a holding letter to the Slovak company stating that I will be requesting a CCA and that they should contact Link for clarification. I find it strange that Link could initiate what looks like a parallel, or twin track pursual of this.

Should I skip the CCA and just initiate bank payments of the same % into their account and say that I do not accept them using a Slovak debt collection agency pursuing this when I am still in contact with them?

Is it possible to start paying amount "without prejudice" to Link to stall any further action from the Slovak agency?

Finally, can I assume that I can ask Link for a CCA and that until they provide this, they cannot pursue the debt, AND THAT INCLUDES THROUGH A THIRD PARTY?[email protected]

Thanks for any quick advice you can give.

David

Bumping this up incase anyone can help. I have not heard of debts being passed on to overseas DCAs:eek:. But presumably the debt is still covered by British law, so if you have made or make a lawful CCA request then the foreign DCA should accept that. If they are acting on behalf of Link then whatever correspondence/dealings you have with Link should affect their behaviour towards you. I would send the CCA request to Link. Chances are that MBNA won't be able to find your agreement;)

I would reiterate to the Slovak DCA that you are in communication with Link and that you do not understand why they have been instructed.

Forgive my ignorance, but is Slovakia part of the EU or not?

Thanks for the reply.

Slovakia is part of the EU.

Link stated that it was sold to them by MBNA last year, and last month they also bought a Marbles debt which I has been paying off in an informal payment plan. (Presumably at a huge discount).

Given that they have bought two debts, I think I should ask for a CCA.

EOS in Slovakia haven't bought the debts, they are simply acting on Link's behalf. I'm assuming (I think I read this on another thread) that if Link (AND/OR A THIRD PARTY LIKE EOS?) pursue a debt without providing a CCA then it's a possible criminal offence.

(Just for anyone reading, I did not do a runner to escape. As mentioned before, I communicated my address abroad to credit companies and have an informal payment plan with each of them - except LINK).

Thanks to the platinum poster for escalating this thread.

I'm more nervous than I've ever been about any hint of the Slovak legal system getting involved. Not very transparent.

UPDATE!

EOS in Slovakia are claiming that I owe Link Financial a total of 6000EUR MORE (yes, MORE) than Link Financial wrote in their own letters. (That's taking into account the £/EUR exchange rate).

Unbelievable.

Hi Davidd, welcome to CAG. There is loads of information on this if you do search in the blue bar at the top Consumer Credit Agreements, Gizmo111 has a sticky on page 3 Basic Guide to Consumer Credit etc., there should be plenty of template letters for you to wack these foreign DCA's with on there. It is dreadful when you have been doing your best to pay and then this is what they do, be strong, fight back, don't forget you can also complain to the Office of Fair Trading and the Financial Ombudsman Service too! Its a real shame, here you are trying to start a new life and this problem has followed you over there. Read around and you will soon get the hang of things.

Thank you for your reply and pointer to Gizmo111's 'sticker'.

I tried searching as you said, but could find nothing on page 3. I then searched under Gizmo111's profile but he's something of a prolific poster.

Could you possibly paste the url for me?

(I'm sitting tight for the next 3-4 weeks waiting for the reply (if any) from Link. I've CCA'd them and made a formal complaint (using their, no doubt, rigorous and transparent internal complaints procedure). I've also translated the letter and sent it to EOS in Slovakia.

I'm continuing to make payments directly to MBNA and Marbles as this will show good faith.

Sorry Davidd, I've never mastered linkbacks yet, after all I've only been a member for about 3 years!:DThank goodness I have found it though, in the General Debt Forum, its in the stickys.

Sounds like you've been busy, well done, paranoid or what I got a call from MBNA at work to-day for the first time in ages, have a complaint due to non-compliance of CCA with FOS at the moment, it was recorded and said ring back MBNA - dream on MBNA what part of the account is in dispute don't you understand plus its against OFT guidelines to ring people at work, I can feel a nice claim for harassment coming on!;-)

Hi again Davidd, its your stalker here! Seriously there is another very interesting discussion between babybear ,42 man and others on the General Debt Industry section regarding the new commercial practices directive.

thanks...i'll ferret it out

GOOD NEWS.

I got an email from the Link Business Support unit saying they had instructed EOS to close their accounts in Slovakia (with the proviso that they can be reopened).

I think when they found out I was renting an apartment (I scanned the rental agreement) they probably realized they couldn't get a juicy charging order, or the equivalent.

Coincidentally, this morning I sent a CCA and complaint to Link by DHL...if they had replied sooner I could've saved £35!.

I emailed back saying that I wasn't paying Link anything, but that as a sign of good faith I would continue paying the original creditors directly, MBNA and Marbles. The Kafkaesque nightmare of the Slovak legal system getting involved has been lifted.

The Business support section had said that another dept. of Link will be getting in touch (prob. the dept. that so goads many other posters on here). I don;t think I'll lose much sleep.

Thanks to thsoe who offered moral and online support, even of the 'stalking' kind.

Great News Davidd, I'm going off to stalk my OH now, he's watching Bonkers sorry Bone kickers, cheers keep us in touch with any further developments.

Just think if they hadn't p*ssed you about you could have paid them the £35 instead of having to pay DHL. However I suspect it could be £35 well spent if they can't find your CCA.

I think it finding the CCA may prove difficult (regarding the MBNA details, anyway). Whilst Link claim to have bought the account from MBNA, the account was originally a Robert Fleming/Save & Prosper card which I took out ca. 1992/3; their credit cards were bought by MBNA in the mid-90s, so finding th paperwork will be interesting. (Even more interesting would be MBNA producing an MBNA agreement with my signature [following the anecdotal evidence on these forums]). I'm not out of the woods, but dealing with Link thru the UK system will be a lot more transparent.

Link replied yesterday with a (true) copy of my MBNA CCA from 1999 (and a holding letter regarding my HFC/Marbles account which is apparently taking longer).

The very next day, I got another letter from LINK (a DEFAULT NOTICE under section 87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 stating that they require £5390 by Oct 9. They already received by recorded delivery in May an income/expenditure form,proof of income and copies were scanned and emailed to the international department in July when I was trying (and managed) to get EOS ( a debt collection agency) off my back in Slovakia.

I think this default notice is pretty petty and deliberate because of the CCA request. The international dept. said someone would contact me (they named an individual) to discuss a repayment plan. I have emailed the individual back, assuming she still works for them (high turnover of staff?!) and will not deal with them by phone. Fortunately me email system has a delivery recording feature which shows that it has been received. The saga continues....Quite surprised they found the original CCA from 1999 as MBNA took over the Save & Prosper/Robert Fleming credit card services at around that time.

Oh dear David, thats a bit of a bummer. Are you sure its the real McCoy, you could ask for advice on here by using the image hosting site photobucket, removing any identifying details and posting on here for opinions. Also make sure the default notice is in the correct format, there is a sticky on here by Tomterm (basic guide etc)in the Debt forum. Also someone emailed me the following which may come in handy:

FSA Guidelines for Hardship

Annex 2 - Dealing with complainants in financial difficulty

1. The firm will be syumpathetic and positive when considering any financial difficulties claimed by the complainant. Firms will not subject a complainant to harassment or undue pressure when discussing their problems.

2. In making an assessment of financial difficulty the firm will take into account(a) evidences of changes in lifestyle, including loss of employment,disability,serious illness, imprisonment, relationship breakdown,death of a partner, starting a lower paid job, parental/carer leave and starting full-time education

(b) evidence of the following events

1. Items repeatedly being returned unpaid due to lack of available funds

2. failing to make loan repayments or other commitments

3. discontinutation of regular credits

4. notification of some form of insolvency or court proceedings

5. regular requests for increased borrowing or repeated rescheduling of debts

6. making frequent cash withdrawals on a credit card at a non-promotional rate of interest and

7. repeatedly exceeding a credit card or overdraft limit without agreement (and in this regard, where a complainant has incurred over £500 in unauthorised overdraft charges in the previous 12 months, that is to be treated as indicative of financial difficulty).

3. If during the handling of the complaint the firm becomes aware (including by notification from the complainant)that the complainant may be in, or heading towards financial difficulties, the firm will contact the complainant to outline their approach to financial difficulty cases and to encourage the custmer to contact the firm if the customer is worried about their position. The firm will also provide signposts to sources of free independent money advice.

4. The firm will make available to complainants straightforward information in plain English on the firm's procedures and systems for dealing with customers in financial difficulty.

5. If it becomes clear to the firm that the complainant needs specialist assistance, the complainant will be referred promptly to a specialist team that deals with customers in financial difficulties, if one exists. The firm will give a phone number on all communications that will put the customer in contact with a named person or a team dedicated to dealing with cases of financial diffiulty.

6. Where the firm does not have sufficient evidence to assess whether or not the complainant is in fact in financial difficulty the firm will seek such further relevant information as is reasonable required to make that assessment. In the event that the firm reasonably requires relevant information to be provided by the complainant and the complainant does not provide the requested information within a reasonable period of time, the firm shall not be obliged to treat such a complainant as being in financial difficulty.

They seem to be in a mighty hurry sending you the default notice so quickly, could it be there's something in there that does not bear scrutiny?

One really important bit about the default notice (I forgot to add last night) is that it should be in the original creditor's name and address, if its from Link they haven't got the right to pursue you, you have made no agreement with them!

Just got an email reply today (no personal signature) offering to accept the payment mentioned in May (which is in line with the % I'm offering other creditors).

They've also said it can start in November....October if pay-free....wahayyy!!

I will start the MBNA payment of £8.86 per month.

I will not start the Marbles payment (£18) as they have not yet provided the CCA and their earlier letter this month claimed that account was 'on hold'.

They've also said in the email that a financial review will be due in 12 months' time. That should mean I won't have them breathing down my neck.

These monthly payments are less than 0.25%...so after all the hassle since June it seems to be something of 'a result'. Maybe I've worn them down.

I have to say if I hadn't got the info, from the templates for CCA's and other advice from individuals, I wouldn't have had the bureaucratic wherewithal to battle with them.

In the meantime I'lls ave £18pm and I've saved £18 plus £ since January, so I have a slight buffer zone built up.

Hi,

I am in a similar (albeit slightly different) situation - I am also in living in Slovakia and have some credit cards still registered to my old address in the UK. I sold the house last year and thought I would be able to cover the card balances with the sale, this did not happen sadly. My wage doesn't exactly allow me to pay off the minimum payments and it is beginning to get me into a bit of a pickle! I do want to sort it out but don't know what to do, since I no longer have an addy in the UK and no one I know is willing to accept my cards at their addresses due to the possibility of affecting their credit ratings.

So my question is... how to I approach these credit card companies and what do I tell them? I am nervous about this and don't want to do a runner as I feel it will only catch up with me as I am still in the EU...

Help!

Thanks very much guys!

Tin

See http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/overseas-debt/250889-can-i-sued-overseas.html

Hello

I hope this helps and updates this oldish Thread

You should be aware that the courts interpretation of the CCA s77/78 has changed as a direct result of the HSBC v Carey case that was heard before the court late last year and its related appeal in early 2010.

Perhaps one of the most signification parts of this case is that the judge decided that the Bank/Lender does not need to produce a copy of the signed agreement (unless fraud is alleged) because clearly the lender has advanced the money and the borrower has spent it. What is important is the terms to which the borrower and the lender was bound. S77/78 of the CCA says that the lender must provide a copy of the agreement, the judge decided that provided an accurate and true copy of the terms can be reproduced in legible format this was sufficient to satisfy ss77/78.

Clearly the above changes the obligations of the bank and allows them to produce a reconstituted agreement, provided the terms are the same to those that were entered into by the parties at the outset then the bank has complied. If the matter goes before the court the lender is likely to sign an avadavat to confirm that it is indeed valid reconstituted agreement (even if it is not). I am sure that the day shall come when the bank sign an avadavat to this effect only to have the borrower produce a signed copy of the actual agreement that bares no likeness to the banks sworn reconstituted example. Then things will change again, but for now they stand.

Breach of S77/78 is one of six primary breaches as set out in the CCA 1974 and any one of these can render the an agreement unenforceable. I suggest that you have your agreement as supplied and or retained by you audited by an expert firm, the audit should be in light of the Carey case. If the audit proves successful then you probably have a good chance of success.

I also note that you are near the 6 year window, where any action maybe statute barred.

It is possible, and it maybe your trump card, I suggest that you seek from Link Financial a copy of the terms of their assignment of debt from Barclaycard. If the terms do not provide for them to issue proceedings against the Barclaycard holder, you are home and dry for now, I would not be at all surprised if they do not J

***Blatant advertising removed.***

I trust that this assists. GOOD LUCK

I'm worried by this. I understand that unsecured UK CCA debts can only be chased within the EU after first obtaining a valid UK CCJ. This UK judgment can then be turned into a EPO Euro Payment Order in the debtors current domocile country. Within the EU a default CCJ is enough for EPO process. Within the Lugano convention - Switerland for example proof of original service must be obtained to try and enforce a default CCJ.

Does this mean that any UK DCA chancer can partner with a local agent and try for enforment? I would have thought that the harresment that davidd received from EOS debt collection in Slovakia would have been illegal?

I think miss muppet and davidd would be better to stop paying any further monnies to UK DCA's (what is the point? sooner you stop the faster six years SB ticks over) and spend this instead on a local solicitor with knoweldge of EU cross border debt enforment laws to send back a nice letter.

I understand that unsecured UK CCA debts can only be chased within the EU after first obtaining a valid UK CCJ.

Does this mean that any UK DCA chancer can partner with a local agent and try for enforment?

The Carey case has clarified that the court has the power to declare whether there has or hasn’t been a breach of section 78 and each case will be considered on its own facts. It has clarified that a mere breach of section 78 will not of itself create an unfair relationship but that is not to say that such a breach is never going to be capable of creating an unfair relationship.

The emphasis in the Carey case on section 78 appears to have obscured the real claim that exists under section 61(1)(a) and 127(3) of the Act. These sections dictate that a creditor must be able to produce a signed document (not necessarily the credit agreement) that contains the prescribed terms. The document must include the credit limit, the interest rate and details of how and when a debtor is to discharge his payment obligations. A failure to produce such a document is still capable of rendering the agreement irredeemably unenforceable.

In addition the case of McGuffick v RBS [2009] EWHC 2386 may have also put many debtors off the idea of challenging their agreements. It’s true that this case has confirmed that enforcement does not include normal collection activities such as reporting to the credit reference agencies or even issuing court proceedings.

However consumers should remember that should a creditor issue court proceedings against them, without first locating a signed document, they would have a defence to that action. Without a signed document the creditor will have to convince the court that on balance a document signed by the consumer containing the prescribed terms would have been produced at the time of execution. The onus is on them to prove this.

Correct, although it is possible to use the legal system within a fellow EU member state to try and obtain a judgement albeit in most cases it would not be economically viable.As above.

How is this possible if unsecured debt was taken under the a UK CCA? The 1974 and 2006 UK CCAs are specific about UK, NI and Scotish courts - No mention of Europe.

Is there a framework, convention or precident for EU unforcment of UK CCA agreements without first obtaining UK judgement?

A case can be brought before a fellow EU court but it would have to heard under UK law, this is something which would make the majority of claims uneconomically viable.