This isn't uncommon, not at all right, but not uncommon. When you said you "sent them a letter asking to see the Agreement" did you send a s78 CCA request and did you include the £1 fee?

They can charge for individual statements if it states as much in their terms and conditions, however a Subject Access Request carries a statutory charge of £10 and would include all statements, it looks like Natwest were involving themselves in a little wordplay

If you can prove that this debt is made up of bank charges and interest, then I would begin a claim on that basis.- the removal of the default should also be a condition of the claim. I would begin by sending a SAR to Natwest. getting a copy of the statements (if you don't already have them) would be fundamental to your claim

send them a prove it letter

you say that you moved to ROI 8 years ago, when was the account defaulted? when was the initial acarge applied to the account?

when was the last payment made against this debt? or when was the debt last acknowledged?

There is a difference between "negotiating" and "being seen to negotiate" You can use the time allowed to enhance and build on your defence

Please bear in mind this is not an area that I am familiar with, cross border debt collection is a complex matter and is subject not only to EU laws and statutes, but also the laws and statutes of the individual states. This is where the difficulty arises, not just for you, but also for them. The normal requests you would use from this site are for UK debts only and I would presume that they are irrelevant to EU issued accounts, but equally the UK sanctions will only be available for collection of UK debts, unless there is a court order already in force (from the country or origin) The European Order for Payment (EOP) sets out a uniform procedure to obtain a judgment that will be automatically recognised in all EU countries. It will only apply to uncontested claims. If the debt itself is contested, it will still need to be adjudicated by civil court processes. I found this wonderful snippet of information here: http://creditcontrol.co.uk/features/analysis/00001.htm "Another problem is that some foreign agencies, for example in Belgium, cannot obtain judgments by themselves for a client. This is simply a feature of their legal system which needs to be accepted. They would, therefore, be of little use to a UK debt collector wishing to instruct a Belgian debt agency" It would appear that the chimps who have contacted you, not only have no jusrisdiction to bring a court claim in the UK but are also disallowed in Belgium from bringing a court claim under their own steam, any claim would need to be brought by the original creditor. Whilst you cannot use UK statute to obtain copies of agreements and the like from this bunch, ity doesn't mean that you shouldn't write a straightforward matter of fact letter requesting: A copy of the original agreement (as signed by your partner) A copy of the full terms and conditions prevailing at the time the agreement was entered into A breakdown of any charges, interest or insurance applied to the account A breakdown of how the amount claimed has been arrived at Documentary proof that the company pursuing your partner have a legal right to do so, are lawfully representing the original creditor, or have a lawful assignment of the account look at it objectively, it cannot harm you to request this information and without it, this company could be anyone, you have absolutely no proof that they are who they say they are.

Although not specifically referred to in the POC, most claimants will send it with this request as it normally underpins their claim You can always send them a s78 request (CCA request) to obtain a copy of the agreement and terms and conditions, although not always necessary, it cannot hurt.

You should establish the legality of their claims, ideally a copy of the agreement that was signed (ideally a copy of the signed agreement) a breakdown of any charges or interest applied to the account a breakdown of how the figure claimed has been arrived at. Whilst there is statute in place to allow eu member states to enforce court orders and judgements, it is more difficult to enforce a debt where such an order or judgement does not exist. so lets not panic too much just yet. they seem to be following the standard rule of "put the debtor on their back foot and scare them into making payment"

When Egg create an agreement they produce a set of Terms and Conditions which have "your name" printed on them, this is not a statute, nor is it laid out in law, it is just something that Egg do. Because the T&C supplied to you do not have your name on them and have actually had the (different?) name redacted, it could be assumed that these were not the correct T&C applied at the time of the agreement being taken out, the DCA would have to prove that they were the same T&C. They could do this without producing "the" named T&C and as stated they could produce a generic set of T&C, however the doubt would still exist because Egg always produce "named" T&C to link them directly to the agreement, it doesn't in itself make the agreement unenforceable, it merely adds a doubt.

and as the ones issued to you have been redacted, it creates a doubt that they are the same ones, why would they redact "your" name? they would surely only redact if it wasn't your name at all and if it isn't your name, then they cannot be the correct T&C as they belonged to someone else

Yes it means that they would have a difficulty getting a CCJ as the debt is not covered by UK law. they would have to use the more recent EU law to enforce the debt, have a look at the previous link, it offers up information of the EU reciprocal agreement on collection

I find that humming "the star spangled banner" annoys them, especially if you keep on humming when the "call centre employee" starts reading from their script. Their are some of these employees who are not allowed to terminate a call and have to wait until you hang up, since they are paying for the call and unless you are in a hurry or have an appointment or similar, I suggest that you hum yourself silly at their expence. every now and again say "hello" until you have their attention, and when they answer, start the humming again

You should keep a log of times and dates of calls, refuse to answer their security questions, they will then be obliged to terminate the call. There are several options open to you. You can send the Harrassment letter from the template library, whilst not guaranteed it has had some success in reducing incoming calls You can complain to Oftel You can contact your telephone provider and ask them to block the number You can purchase a truecall device (or similar) and bar their calls You can request that you number be changed With regard to how they got the number, they can only have it if you gave it out to someone, perhaps you have opened a bank account, bought a new contract phone, all of this would be recorded on your credit file and they will claim a legal right to search on the basis of the outstanding agreement

Don't worry too much, this is not as straight cut as it appears Just to clarify, was this account originally opened in Belgium? You might wish to have a look at this thread, it may just answer your query http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?250889-Can-I-Be-Sued-For-An-Overseas-Debt&p=3181455

and five months later they still haven't provided you with anything, but want you to hold everything up on the off chance that they do manage to come up with something? I don't think so - otherwise no will would ever be settled, they could simply keep this up for years. You have been more than fair with the time you have allowed them, they have exceeded how many deadlines. I would suggest maybe taking legal advice on what a reasonable deadline would be if youneed further assurance

any documents you are going to rely on in court, if you have letters or statements from the creditor for instance demonstrating that the balance claimed is incorrect.....

Morgans will receive a copy of the same order, you need do nothing other than follow the order yourself, ie make sure you disclose your own documents, it is up to them to disclose theirs

In my opinion you have givern them ample time to resolve this, simply stating that you (or a family member) owe something, but they cannot/will not prove anything is not recognised as a lawful position. You owe a duty to the estate and also to all other creditors to establish the lawful status of all claimants against the estate, as previously stated, they have failed to prove anything at all I would tell them where to get off, you have done everything in your power to assist, have waited an awful lot longer than certainly I would have and have extended them every courtesy whilst they procrastinated and failed to establish/prove their status, I cannot see how any case brought by them would succeed. Make sure you retain copies of all correspondence, both ways, just in case they should be foolish enough to try anything

The redeaction of the terms and conditions proves that these were not the terms and conditions issued with the agreement, whilst this in itself doesn't prove that they are invalid, it does open up the question, if the documents are legitimate, why have they had to recreate the T&C? If AK have added interest to the account, is there any clause in the terms and conditions which allows a thrid party to do this? You should also be following up by demanding proof of assignment from AK

Egg have a wonderful habit of actually typing your name in the original terms and conditions which pretty much c@cks up any attempt to replace the T&C with a different set. at the top of page 1 of the terms and conditions there is a blacked out area where "your name" should appear, have you blacked this out or was it blacked out when you got it? Is the amount as claimed by AK the same that was outstanding with Egg? Are their any charges or PPI on the account? When Egg "sold" or otherwise passed this debt on to AK, they would have been required to notify you of the assignment under the Law of property (LOP), if they did not do so then it may be an idea to refute their claims of ownership and request (nicely) that they prove ownership of said debt. It may also be worth sending Egg a Subject Access request to see what they produce

Whilst the law says that they can't, don't be surprised if they do, they seem to be bringing claims at the drop of a hat and then relying on the ignorance of the defendant and the judge to get their judgements. The scary thing is, they seem to be winning a few

Certainly they have no right to be requesting personal financial details from you. Complain to Trading Standards about this latest company, your CCA request is still outstanding and they will continue to ignore you until you act in some way Write to them (The debt collection Agency) and request a copy of their complaints procedure, make sure you head the letter OFFICIAL COMPLAINT, do not sign the letter. You have nothing else to say until they prove their status, ie that they have a right to contact you, that they have a right to enforce the debt and that they can prove your liability for this debt

some of these companies are more pig headed than others, they will not drop a case until they have to, up to now it has cost them nothing. They rely on your ignorance and hope you don't know enough to allow them to get the judgement. Also there is a worrying trend of judges accepting the argument of the claimant rather than that of the defendant even when the relevant statutes are underpinning the defendants case. According to the findings in Carey vs HSBC (1) A creditor can satisfy its duty under s78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself; (2) The s78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement. But the creditor can provide the name and address from whatever source it has of those details. It does not have to take them from the executed agreement itself; (3) The creditor need not, in complying with s78, provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as to form, as at the date the agreement was made; (4) If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms; (5) If a creditor is in breach of section 78 this does not of itself give rise to an unfair relationship within the meaning of section 140A; (6) The Court has jurisdiction to declare whether in a particular case, there has been a breach of s78. Whether it will be appropriate to grant such a declaration depends on the circumstances of that case; (7) In assessing whether Prescribed Terms are "contained" in an executed agreement the principles set out at paragraph 173 above are relevant. On the assumed facts set out at paragraph 177 the Prescribed Terms were so contained; ( The claims that there was an unfair relationship and an IEA in Adris should be struck out or dismissed. The claim that there was an IEA in Yunis should be struck out or dismissed. The absence of any positive pleaded case or evidence as to the circumstances of the making of the agreement by the debtor concerned was fatal to the IEA claims. The absence of any positive plea or evidence as to particular facts relied upon in support of the unfair relationship claim other than failure to provide a s78 copy, was fatal to that claim. It should be noted that this only applies with regard to fulfillment of s78 - in court they would need to provide a copy of THE actual agreement, complete, as you say, with signatures etc, It is this second bit that the claimants are deliberately attempting to blur so that the judges will misdirect by accepting a reconstituted agreement in court, basically they are saying that Carey trumps the CCA which it does not