Beachy's OH v Egg Card

[ken100464]

Someone wiser than me would be better to advise but think there was a court case where the approved limit line was thrown out to the detriment of the consumer.

 

Be interested if I have missed anything but all threads on this died post the ruling.

[jon888999]

Someone wiser than me would be better to advise but think there was a court case where the approved limit line was thrown out to the detriment of the consumer.

 

Be interested if I have missed anything but all threads on this died post the ruling.

 

I remember hearing that, but why did egg go quiet for so long? I've not heard anything since 2009? In fact to honest I'm only guessing that the accounts marlin have are egg accounts.

[ken100464]

No idea it is strange and presume we are just about to find out.

 

Apex just started to stir and then 2 weeks later this assignment. Plenty of duffers out there so wont be long before someone starts to create

[Robtor]

I am in exactly the same situation, had a ~£4k egg card default in 2008, have heard nothing since then except that it had moved to Barclays, and last week out of the blue a letter from Marlin appeared. Today I am over joyed to see the phonecalls from them have began.

 

I shall watch this thread closely, please keep us upto date with how you get on.

[beachcomber60]

Checking the CRA since they changed their format

 

I noticed that the original creditor filed a default,

debt then sold on to a DCA who then filed the same default,

 

looks like two defaults for the same debt (surely the original DN should be removed after the DCA took over the debt and filed a duplicate DN.

 

Challenged Experian & this is the reply I received :-

 

Thank you for your email, which we received on **/0*/2013.

 

*Egg Banking (Account started **/**/04)

*Apex Credit Management Ltd (Account started **/**/09)

 

The entry recorded by Egg Banking shows the name of the company that the debt was originally owed to. The second entry recorded by Apex Credit Management Ltd shows they were assigned the debt.

 

Although the debt is now being recorded twice, only the entry recorded by the debt collection agency will have an effect on your credit rating.

 

Both entries will be retained on your credit report for six years from the default date.

 

Kind regards

 

Still looks like two defaults recorded for the same debt , even though the Egg entry is marked settled when it was assigned to Apex.

[markstone]

I had exactly the same problem, but my 2 defaults for the same debt were recorded on Call Credit, when I queried it, they removed the default lodged by the original creditor, and just left the one lodged by the DCA which is fair enough

[beachcomber60]

I had exactly the same problem, but my 2 defaults for the same debt were recorded on Call Credit, when I queried it, they removed the default lodged by the original creditor, and just left the one lodged by the DCA which is fair enough

 

That's what I expected to happen but Experian says both must remain on the file until 6 years is up

[markstone]

In that case, I would write to the original creditor, ask ask them to remove their default, as they have now sold the debt on

[jon888999]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?383142-Marlin-Barclaycard-Egg(13-Viewing)-nbsp

[HP Mum]

Hi I think that it might be wise to just stick to the unenforceable debt angle rather than trying to reclaim charges etc. On one hand we are all trying to say "the debt does not exist, is unenforceable". So how could we all then try to claim back charges etc ? It makes more sense - imo - to just fight the debt balance to be written off/unenforceable rather than then putting our hands up to reclaim other charges. I would be very happy just to see the back of this egg debt rather than trying to be greedy...

Just my 2p worth.

[ajs444]

Greed never stopped them.

[ken100464]

Thats very true.

 

But tend to agree with HP mum here and I think seeing as its Marlin who are known litigators I think would be saving a charges claim up for if they have you by the short and curlys so to speak.

 

And the high court ruled Egg CCA's were enforceable. Now what happened for them not to chase is just about to be revealed. But I doubt poking them with a stick will prove a particularly good strategy. Just my two pence worth.

[HP Mum]

hi Ken100464 - can you please point me in the direction of the High Court ruling saying egg cca's are enforceable. I must have missed this. Was it recent ?

Thanks.

Everyone seems to have been defending their own corner against egg (various dcas, bc and now Marlin) for so long, that it could be good to post the high court ruling so everyone can check their own circumstances against the ruling.

[ken100464]

Nah it was when that guy was after the approved limit as earlier on in this thread. He lost. And the UE threads dried up. 2009ish I think. Few threads on here at the same time all stopped.

 

These accounts seem to be ones that fell through the cracks and just have had nothing done with them. So many of them aint UE as in the paperwork is wrong many are UE as no paperwork at all.

 

They are just like ours. But 3 years in and its turned up 2 weeks before this assignment. Coincidence???? Hmm I just wouldnt be underestimating this lot at all. If CCA's turn up out of the blue then some of the actions that saw egg off aint gonna wash with Marlin and Mortimer Clark.

 

I am hoping I am wrong and everything stays the same for everybody. But I certainly wouldnt be poking no bees nest just yet. I doubt the prove it letter is going to hold em back long but many seem to think just because they didnt have a Barclaycard then it aint their debt.

 

I am certainly not pro bank but feel many seem to think because they saw egg off and its been quite for years that this is going to be a stroll in the park. I somehow doubt it.

[beachcomber60]

Well update on this, two letters from Marlin, the first one was the same as Spamhead received yesterday - " please phone us to discuss payments to clear this debt, or if you don't want to telephone please use the I&E sheet.

 

Second letter was " We confirm that we do not hold the information that you have requested. We have requested this information from the original creditor - Barclays Bank T/A Barclaycard.

 

Beachy

[jon888999]

Nah it was when that guy was after the approved limit as earlier on in this thread. He lost. And the UE threads dried up. 2009ish I think. Few threads on here at the same time all stopped.

 

These accounts seem to be ones that fell through the cracks and just have had nothing done with them. So many of them aint UE as in the paperwork is wrong many are UE as no paperwork at all.

 

They are just like ours. But 3 years in and its turned up 2 weeks before this assignment. Coincidence???? Hmm I just wouldnt be underestimating this lot at all. If CCA's turn up out of the blue then some of the actions that saw egg off aint gonna wash with Marlin and Mortimer Clark.

 

I am hoping I am wrong and everything stays the same for everybody. But I certainly wouldnt be poking no bees nest just yet. I doubt the prove it letter is going to hold em back long but many seem to think just because they didnt have a Barclaycard then it aint their debt.

 

I am certainly not pro bank but feel many seem to think because they saw egg off and its been quite for years that this is going to be a stroll in the park. I somehow doubt it.

Ken, You are correct Marlin will issue claims at some point whether you dispute it or not. Best to be prepared so work out PPI and charges refund required!

Has anybody got Marlin to take a reduced settlement? Marlin don't care about things lke enforceable agreements, they just hope you won't defend or the DJ lottery comes up on there side! It's a numbers game to them. If they issue a hundred claims, probably only 10 will defend then it is really down to luck with the DJ!

All I can say is fight them, complain to OFT, TRADING STANDARDS ETC and hope you get a good DJ.

[jon888999]

If the default notice contained 75% ppi does that mean that it was invalid?

[seriously fed up]

Nah it was when that guy was after the approved limit as earlier on in this thread. He lost. And the UE threads dried up. 2009ish I think. Few threads on here at the same time all stopped.

 

These accounts seem to be ones that fell through the cracks and just have had nothing done with them. So many of them aint UE as in the paperwork is wrong many are UE as no paperwork at all.

 

They are just like ours. But 3 years in and its turned up 2 weeks before this assignment. Coincidence???? Hmm I just wouldnt be underestimating this lot at all. If CCA's turn up out of the blue then some of the actions that saw egg off aint gonna wash with Marlin and Mortimer Clark.

 

I am hoping I am wrong and everything stays the same for everybody. But I certainly wouldnt be poking no bees nest just yet. I doubt the prove it letter is going to hold em back long but many seem to think just because they didnt have a Barclaycard then it aint their debt.

 

I am certainly not pro bank but feel many seem to think because they saw egg off and its been quite for years that this is going to be a stroll in the park. I somehow doubt it.

Just one thing about the case round "approved limit" that was, I think, heard at Cardiff (High Court?). You are right that it was indeed lost, but - and I cant remember why - the outcome was never published so it would become a precedent in a lower court. Therefore, if someone raises the same issues then Marlin would have to start again and hope to succeed - and more importantly the same issues could be raised.

Now Marlin may well issue claims, relying on the Judge Lottery - I have little experience of them to date (so far, other than the letter and a couple of phone calls) - but I would agree as a matter of policy in dealing with people like this that its always better to err on the side of caution and I for one wont be poking any bees' nests either.

[jon888999]

Just one thing about the case round "approved limit" that was, I think, heard at Cardiff (High Court?). You are right that it was indeed lost, but - and I cant remember why - the outcome was never published so it would become a precedent in a lower court. Therefore, if someone raises the same issues then Marlin would have to start again and hope to succeed - and more importantly the same issues could be raised.

Now Marlin may well issue claims, relying on the Judge Lottery - I have little experience of them to date (so far, other than the letter and a couple of phone calls) - but I would agree as a matter of policy in dealing with people like this that its always better to err on the side of caution and I for one wont be poking any bees' nests either.

 

Also I think that the case related to trying to have a agreement ruled unenforceable Egg were the defendent. It may not apply for defending a claim, it really will be down to luck.

[seriously fed up]

that, as I recall is true as well, since failing to show that "approved limit" doesnt meet the requirements of stating a credit limit isnt the same thing (as Marlin would have to do) as showing that it does (that's the law for you! ) On the other hand, the language I recall being used in the judgement was that it was obvious in ordinary language that approved limit was the same as credit limit. So ..................

One thing that occurred to me is that while I am sure Barclays bought these accounts at a discount (and I am no less sure that Marlin bought them at an even deeper discount) why did Barclays never bring any actions? Why did the whole thing die a death for at least two years? Why did Barclays not take any action? If you are right and Marlin are chancers (and I mean this in relation to the normal level of chanciness typical of DCAs) then that is what they will be doing - taking a chance that respondents wont defend, but with no certainty of success (if there was a reasonable certainty would Barclays not have chased this) and they can make enough out of it that way.

Another thing to remember is the requirement in Carey that a lender, when faced with a s77 request, should provide not just the current agreement (which I would guess they would say is the Barclay's one, though for anyone like me who was terminated by Egg and never got a Barclays card I am not sure of the status of that as an agreement - agreement for what?) but also the orginal - the very first - one. That is going to mean going back to Egg. Now the advantage that Waksman gave them in Carey is that they can produce a reconstruction of even the Egg agreement, but it should include the Egg account number and I expect (hope?) that they could well have problems with getting that. If Barclay's dont have it then I think they will struggle getting that information out of what remains of Egg.

[seriously fed up]

Well update on this, two letters from Marlin, the first one was the same as Spamhead received yesterday - " please phone us to discuss payments to clear this debt, or if you don't want to telephone please use the I&E sheet.

 

Second letter was " We confirm that we do not hold the information that you have requested. We have requested this information from the original creditor - Barclays Bank T/A Barclaycard.

 

Beachy

let us know when this arrives - give us an idea of how cooperative Barclays are being in all of this.

[jon888999]

Another spin is if Barclaycard can't provide any details, then can they prove last payment date? May be an option as well. Think we all need to see what Marlin/Barclaycard come up with.

[seriously fed up]

I suspect what they will get from Barclays is a standard set of T&Cs - which I never got btw (just the "hello letter" with some Q&As, but no T&Cs) and they will say "this is your lot". At that point it will be necessary to write back to them to say "no this isnt the original agreement" - perhaps quoting Carey at them. This will require them to go back to Egg (possibly via Barclays), and I wouldnt be too sure how much of anything they will get there. As you say, they may even struggle to prove the last payment data so if someone asserts that its statute barred - with some evidence of this (eg Egg would only take payment by d/d remember so bank statements would suffice for this, I think) - then it really puts them on the rack.

[ken100464]

Slater v Egg in Mold District High Court.

 

Quite correct Slater was the claimant, Egg the defendant.

 

The approved limit was thrown out. Case was mainly on the terms tho, interest rates that sort of thing.

 

The Barclays not enforcing is indeed a strange one. For me it could be something with what is happening in the debt crisis. Banks have been bolstering capital for a few years now because they are bloated with debt. Was never their intention to do anything other than sell this Egg rubbish. But while on their books is still an asset. Even though we know its rubbish. Now they are re capitalizing its time to get the rubbish off their books. And as this must be pretty grim stuff so would make sense to unload.

 

My only input really is from a punter who thought his Egg debt at Apex was going to oblivion to have a rude new year awakening with a CCA appearing.

 

Ours didnt have the Barclay connection its true but it is from the assignment just prior to the Barclay buy out. It therefore predates this lot by months.

 

Apex couldnt obtain the CCA before so why now.

[jon888999]

In 2009 egg had statements and agreements, hopefully they've shredded them now.