The original agreement is with Egg so SAR should be sent to Egg, not Barclaycard,

There have been a number of such citations sent out on the back of B/C taking on Egg accounts and then passing them on to Marlin, normally to people who have ignored the usual marlin claims and demands and not responded with a CCA or even a prove it letter, I thought that under the Scottish system all claimants must have possession of the original agreement before bringing such a claim.

I was under the impression that in Scotland anyone wishing to bring such a claim would need to first have ownership of the original agreement - is this not the case?

Not really, if it states Ms Ian Smith instead of Mr Ian Smith then it's inconsequential, if however it states Ms Julie Smith instead of Mr ian Smith that is a different matter.

Bob, you should be able to edit the post by selecting "Edit Post" from toolbar running below the actual post. You need to be completely clear of your motives here, if you intend to use the split claim to your own ends, then you would need to ensure that they DO get a CCJ against you, so you will need to acknowledge the claim form and as you say, let the process take its course, ensuring that you settle in full before the thirty day deadline. do not "come to an arrangement" with them, let it go through the courts. This can only work if they get a CCJ for the claim, this then prohibits them from bringing a further (and potentially larger) claim for the same account

This is Brian Carter territory, They are attempting to split the claim, normally initially claiming for a lesser amount (ie their own fees) then attempting to return to the courts to claim a second amount which is normally larger (ie the actual debt) This is not allowed and is an abuse of process. They are relying on your lack of knowledge and ignorance of the law to get away with this. However: it can be used to your own benefit, if you are able to settle this lesser amount, let the claim proceed through the courts system and then ensure it is paid within the thirty days allowed, this would prevent you from having any CCJ on your record AND also prevent them from pursuing you for the remaining balance, as they are not allowed to claim for the same debt twice. Otherwise, you would need to defend the entire case. To do this you would need to create doubts about the debt, amounts, account number, unfair treatment, that type of thing. Also it would be a good idea to remove your name from your posts as DCA's and their cronies regularly trawl these forums and could easily identify you

Watched it myself and couldn't believe the whole "Hard man" image being portrayed, reinforced by the hiring of an ex pro boxer who "is prepared if it kicks off". Anyone who grapples a man from his car and then physically assaults him without even identifying himself as shown on this program is guilty of assault and should be arrested. Turned it off half way through as I started to think it was a complete fabrication engineered to stimulate the kind of outrage that is being displayed on here

Unless it is specifically stated in the Original Agreement, then no additional charges can be added You should send them a "prove it" letter in the first instance, if they have no right to collect the debt, then they have no right to add charges

Do not speak to these people on the phone, refuse to answer their security questions and tell them to put it in writing.

I think if we examined the moral and ethical arguments surrounding the behaviour of the Financial Institutions and the links between them and the DCAs without looking at the laws which governed them, I think the whole lot would be shut down and disassembled. Maybe that's why the financial institutions include MPs and other senior politicians on their boards and it is this that leads me to believe that these board members will not allow their gravy train to become derailed

the "writing off" of a debt has a direct effect on the liability held by the bank, effectively the bank posts profits which are basically calculated by offsetting credits and debits against one another. As such, the account is effectively devalued for accounting purposes in a particular accounting period - all legal and above board. However the defaulted account still has value and can be sold....in the same way a tangible asset can be devalued completely or amortised to a zero value, it still has value even though the balance sheet would correctly state that it has no value in the current period. The defaulted account can then be sold to a Debt buyer, or another agent, or whoever, for whatever value is deemed appropriate between the parties, HMRC has no interest as it is effectively the sale of a depreciated or amortised asset, the tax implications have already been accounted for in the reporting of the Original Creditor

I would suggest you take the time to read a few of the threads on here, try to gain something of an insight into what could, might, or may happen to your account. There are no hard and fast rules when dealing with Debt Collectors as they take no heed of your circumstances and generally act out of greed, so if they see that you won't put up much of a fight they will act differently to that if they think you are more informed and will be more difficult to pursue. The law states that upon receipt of a CCA request, all enforcement action must cease and the account cannot be sold or assigned until the CCA request is fulfilled, however we all know cases where they have continued to harrass people with such outstanding requests. Not trying to scare you, but be aware that these "people" are not your friends and will not act in your interests, the bottom line is how much can they get you to pay. Send the CCA and see what they come up with, read up and ask questions and post any replies on here with anything that can identify you removed

The debt may well not show on your credit file, but unless the last payment or acknowledgement was made at least six years ago then it may not be Statute Barred (you mentioned that it was included in a DMP) depending how long ago the DMP paid anything to Egg, that would greatly affect the SB status. Egg debts were sold en masse to Barclaycard, they have since been assigned to Marlins who have started to send letters out. I wouldn't bother with another "prove it" letter, instead, send Marlins a CCA request asap, ensure you include a £1 postal order made payable to Marlins Financial Services and send the letter Recorded. The CCA request should suspend any further action by their "solicitors" - but don't be overly surprised if they make further overtures against you.....nasty beggars

There have ben a number of conversations over the year about the immorality of selling a debt which has been written off against a tax liability. Meaning that the bank has lost nothing because at the end of the day they just pay a smaller tax bill, The DCA buy nothing for peanuts and then enforces the nothing with the blessing of the courts and parliament. immoral but as of yet not unlawful

I think they could - and would be allowed to substitute themselves as the claimant and you would possibly carry the burden of wasted costs when they circumvent your claim. I believe (and it may be a little late in the day for this) but I believe that when you were initially approached by the "new owner" you should have issued a "prove it" letter, forcing them to approach the courts with a view to substitution, whilst you would need to maintain payments to the OC irrespective of the demands of the"new owner" I think your first step should be a complaint to the court who issued the judgement

They (Banks) require proof of everything before making a decision, I asked NRAM for a maternity break and had to provide proof that I was the father, that my wife was the mother, that my wife was my wife and that she lived in the marital home. Basically in the current climate they don't believe anyone and want you to prove everything and ensure it is all documented to protect their backs

If at some time a 3rd party have purchased the account and associated judgement and then requested that the debtor pay them instead of the claimant named on the CCJ - As the judgement was obtained under certain terms and conditions, and in changing any element of the judgement, ie amount, frequency of payment, payee, surely they are effectively varying an agreement without the courts permission. obviously if they continue to use the OC solicitor or agent to obtain the payment then there would be no material change to the T&C of the judgement

Ignore CRS completely and contact Swinton, it is their fault and it is for them to sort it out. I would (in the first instance) try phoning Swinton to see if this can be resolved as a simple admin error, or mistake. Swinton are not a DCA so you should have no problems. Obviously if they cannot, will not resolve this then it should be put in writing by way of a formal complaint.

In my mind (and I stand to be corrected) This is a judgement ordered and potentially enforced by the HM courts, governed by UK statute and as such it cannot be changed, varied or otherwise altered without the permission of said courts. The claimant and assignee should have sought the permission of the courts prior to "selling" it, I doubt if the act of "selling" a CCJ in such a manner is even lawful at all. Surely the correct process would be to apply to the courts to change the name of the claimant creating a two part scenario where the actual "sale" would not be of interest to the courts as it would be a commercial or business related transaction ie selling the interest in the CCJ rather than selling the CCJ itself. If they are stating that they have sold the debt, I would suggest complaining as it could be seen as contempt

Overdrafts are partially exempt from the CCA, so such a request would not result in an agreement being provided, copy or reconstruction. However, upon the inception or opening of the overdraft facility you should have been provided with the Terms and Conditions of the Overdraft facility. Did you have any PPI or insurance on the account that you can reclaim?

Yeah, so I have heard, I have no experience of them myself, but as I said, the SAR produced a couple of twists that should stop them dead in their tracks

So CCA request has gone off and their reply came back very quickly, they don't have the docs but will get the online application from the OC, they don't state which OC they are contacting ...we shall see what they come up with I thought I would Revisit the SAR obtained a few years back and sure enough it threw up a twist or two which would make the production of anything by way of a copy of an original agreement all but impossible. Would love to see what they are going to base their inevitable recon on

They should back off, but they act with apparent impunity with regard to credit searches and the like, so I would keep an eye out, but you should have no trouble with Lowells. a 12 year absence should kill any claim stone dead, even a mortgage shortfall would be difficult to resurect after 12 years.

Then the CCA request is unfulfilled due to failure to produce the PPI T&C and not producing a copy of the agreement that you actually entered into They would be required to prove that the agreement or repo that they are relying on is accurate, this agreement is not accurate due to it having PPI attached where no PPI was applied. You can prove that this is the case without having to produce an original copy of the agreement yourself The figures re: Total amount of credit are incorrect due to the inclusion of PPI They would have to prove that they are right and you are wrong by producing an agreement with all amendments and corrections applied as stated in the SAR

If the PPI was included in the initial loan, then it formed part of the agreement (and is specifically referred to in the agreement) and you should have received the T&C for the PPI with the agreement and any subsequent CCA should also produce the same PPI T&C as they are specifically referred to in the agreement. - it is a minor point in itself.....but. Am I correct in assuming they did not issue a new agreement when they removed the PPI? if so then the agreement has incorrect values on it, the "total amount" and the payment amount are incorrect, When they revised the term of the loan and then revised again to revert back to lower payments... do you have any of this in writing?