Egg mrs p card - now Marlin

[phatram]

Mrs P was one of the 160000 that were lucky enough to have their Egg account wrongly closed many moons ago. Can anyone remember when this happened?

 

This was then taken over by Barclaycard and now is with Marlin. Seen a few threads with differing opinions of what to do, can someone please give firm correct advice as to what to do. I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate this.

 

Many thanks

 

Mr P

[ken100464]

Phatam.

 

My only advice is not to poke and also be very very aware Marlin are not your run of the mill DCA. Underestimate them at your peril. They are up there at the top of the dangerous league.

 

Make them jump through hoops, make them comply with lawful requests, challenge and make yourself a right royal pain in the neck for sure but I would be reacting not proacting.

 

They are on a cycle with this lot. You all getting the same letters. The first threats went out this week after your i/e request 2 weeks ago. Before that was the phising letters. If you in dispute already let em know, if you aint asked for your CCA ask for it now. Anything to get you removed from the cycle you on. The wont pays and unengaged are on a route to a courtroom. This is what this DCA does.

 

What was the conclusion for these wrongly terminated accounts back then? Did they become UE because of the termination? If so how sure were people that this was correct. Any court success? If so heres your dispute.

 

Many seem to think there will be no CCA's on these. Sadly some are in for a rude shock as Canada Square are finding some and yes they are fully enforceable.

 

I know as just got one 3 weeks back.

Edited March 14, 2013 by ken100464

[phatram]

The account was terminated by Egg so is it then "in dispute" or not? Mrs has never had a Barclays account so is it then "in dispute" or not? and if it wasn't should it be now disputed for the above reasons. I think !

 

Confused as to what to do for the best.

[phatram]

Found a few things now, will post them if it helps.

 

Thank you for your letter dated 24/08/2009.

I would be grateful if, as Egg’s appointed agent, you would indicate to me the relevant section of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which provides Egg with legal entitlement to terminate my Egg credit agreement with effect from 6th March 2008 merely by providing me with written notification of Egg's decision to terminate the contractual agreement between Egg and myself.

 

In the event that the dispute between Moorcroft Debt Recovery,Midaslegalservices, Egg Banking and myself is put before a court for adjudication, I will draw the court’s attention to the following points.

 

Both you and your clients, Moorcroft Debt Recovery Limited and Egg Banking, although fully aware that the debt is disputed, have continued collection activity in breach of paragraph 2.8k. of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance.

 

I consider that you have communicated with me in a manner which presents information in such a way that it creates a false or misleading impression and exploits my lack of knowledge, for example my lack of knowledge of the law in relation to your own. Specifically, I am referring to your statement that failure to contact Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd by a specific date may result in the issue of legal proceedings without further notice. I consider that amounts to unfair business practice, psychological harassment and misrepresentation of the correct legal position within the terms of paragraphs 2.2b, 2.3, 2.6f, 2.10a and 2.10b of the OFT Debt collection Guidance.

 

I consider that the manner in which you and your client have exercised their rights under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 amount to an unfair relationship within the terms of S140 of the Act, and I will request the court to make an appropriate Order under S140.

 

I will also draw the court’s attention to the manner in which Midaslegalservices has acted in connection with the dispute between Moorcroft Debt recovery Limited, Midaslegalservices, Egg Banking solicitors and myself, particularly in relation to,

 

The Consumer Credit Act 1974,

 

The Data Protection Act 1998,

 

The Office of Fair Trading Guidance on Debt Collection and Unfair Business Practices (Updated December 2006),

 

The Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007,

 

The pre-action protocols which have been approved by the Head of Civil Justice,

 

The Credit Services Association Code Of Practice.

 

I am confident that Midaslegalservices will, as I will, provide to the court full records of the matters to which I have referred, including copies of all correspondence relating to this dispute.

 

 

 

Yours faithfully

[phatram]

Egg letter to Mrs was sent out on 31 Jan 2008, acc to be closed 35 days after date of letter

[ken100464]

Like I say if you have a unresolved dispute I would dust it off see if its still fit for purpose and if so notify Marlin that it is unresolved.

 

What I certainly wouldnt be doing is thinking it was won 3/4 years ago, that the dispute is still fit for purpose if things have changed or ignoring Marlin.

 

Think I would be revisiting the reasons why this termination got Egg into trouble?. What made the money written off? If indeed it did. Or was it internet chatter and lack of moral fibre from the bank. Get the threads read. Was it a court defeat? Be critical was it internet warriors who have defeated a demoralised bank that was closing down? Whats the case law. How did they do it. But be critical as this isnt Egg you are fighting. Its a DCA that prides itself on using litigation.

 

The Barclaycard not being the account is nothing more than a delaying tactic sorry to say. Seen someone try that and have now got a reply from BC via Marlin saying Egg card xxxxxxxxxxx when sold to BC on XXXXXXXXXXX under assignment xxxxxxx was given BC account number xxxxxxxxxx. This account was then sold to Marlin under assigment on the xxxxxxxxx.

 

And by sending the prove it letter they are one letter further forward than the ones who ignored the phising letter. Why because Marlin have the active contact. This isnt random its a well thought out strategy.

 

Think in court you would be hard pressed to argue this isnt one and the same account. Sounds good to us this side the fence but to a judge will be laughable defence. A delay maybe but not much more. The pumps to the Titanic if you will. It will buy you time not much else.

 

They are actively after the wont pays and unengaged debtors

[phatram]

It was disputed 'cos Egg closed the account wrongly.

[phatram]

Heres another one,

Dear Bryan Carter Solicitors

 

 

Thank you for your letter dated 18/03/2010.

As the solicitors acting for Fredrickson International Ltd you will be aware that the credit card agreement between Egg and myself is governed by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, therefore I would be grateful if you would indicate to me the relevant section of the Act which provides Egg with legal entitlement to terminate my Egg agreement with effect from 6th March 2008.

1a.

In the course of preparing a county court claim on behalf of your client, Fredrickson International Ltd , you will have become aware that the debt claimed by your client is disputed by me.

2.

My reasons for disputing the debt, as both you and your client will be aware, are set out in my previous letters to Egg and Fredrickson International Ltd. As you know, paragraph 2.8 k. of the Office of Fair Trading debt collection Guidance of July 2003, updated in December 2006, makes it clear that collection activity must cease whilst investigating a disputed debt. I look forward to the results of your investigation.

3.

In the event that the dispute between Egg Banking plc, Fredrickson International Ltd, Bryan Carter Solictors and myself is put before a court for adjudication, I will draw the court’s attention to the following points.

3a

Both you and your client, Fredrickson International Ltd, although fully aware that the debt is disputed, have continued collection activity in breach of Section 2.8k. of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance.

3b.

Both you and your client, Fredrickson International Ltd , although fully aware that the debt is disputed, have accepted assignment of the disputed account. You will be aware that this is in breach of Sections 2.6c and 2.8f of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance, and also in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

4.

I also consider your client’s actions amount to psychological harassment within the terms of section 2.6h. of the OFT Guidelines, in that your client has ignored and disregarded the fact that I have reasonably queried and disputed the debt.

5.

I will also draw the attention of the court to the manner in which both you and your client, Fredrickson International Ltd have acted in respect of the dispute between Egg Banking and myself, particularly in relation to,

The Consumer Credit Act 1974,

The Data Protection Act 1998,

The Protection from Harrassment Act

The Office of Fair Trading Guidance on Debt Collection and Unfair Business Practices (Updated December 2006),

The Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007,

The Credit Services Association Code Of Practice.

I consider that your conduct in the dispute between Egg Banking and myself amounts to an unfair relationship in terms of section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as amended by the Consumer Credit Act 2006, and I will request the court to make an appropriate Order under S140 of the Act.

6.

I am confident that Egg Banking , Fredrickson International Ltd and Bryan Carter Solicitors will, as I will, provide to the court full records of the matters to which I have referred, including copies of my letters.

 

Yours faithfully

[phatram]

I acknowledge no debt to your company.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your letter dated 04/06/09.

May I remind you that I have no account with Egg or yourselves. The account was unlawfully terminated by Egg over a year ago.

The CCA 1974 clearly states the following,

87.--(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a default notice) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,--

(a) to terminate the agreement, or

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum...

 

88.--(1) The default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify--

(a) the nature of the alleged breach;

As the account was not in default, Egg acted unlawfully and are aware of this, and should not have processed my data with a third party. I have of course reported this to the I.C.O, and the F.O.S who are now investigating my complaint.

As Egg has unlawfully terminated my account they are in breach of contract and I intend to claim damages for this and for damage to my creditworthiness by Egg's action. I refer to the authority of Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996] 4 All ER 119

I will not be contacting you by telephone to discuss this. Until some correspondence regarding resolution is forthcoming from Egg the situation remains unchanged and they are constrained as to what enforcement and collection activities they may pursue, and I am not obliged to offer payments to the alleged account.

Yours faithfully,

[ken100464]

Have just trawled through that great big thread which seemingly this is relying on.

 

My problem with it is that many because they were in debt wanted to believe it was all done unlawfully.

 

But the reality is no one is sure and because Egg didnt take anyone on this has become an internet myth. Its become fact. But like I said above that was then this is now and suspect you got an adversary who will if its possible take someone to test the water.The thread was locked as it was going round in circles.

 

I cant predict how Marlin will react but would suspect they know some of the horrors in the portfolio. They are obviously segmentating. Your defense might be the clincher but like approved limits and the like things that seemingly give you a get out of jail card a few years back dont now.

 

Its the argument is your dispute fit for purpose. Do you twist or stick. Perhaps they are looking via segmentation for a debtor who wont pay but can who has one of these accounts. Get a sympathetic hang em high judge and there is the case law fecking everyone up.

 

For me no one knew back then if this was clear cut. The only difference is another 2 years has passed with no activity on the account.

 

And this is what I mean by caution. If they are looking for a wont but can pay terminated disputed account by admiting your dispute you give them exactly what they want. But by not advising them of the dispute you are doing your position harm too.

 

For me I really would be hanging back not showing yourself up to the gunsights and allow another herd member all the glory until you are in position that you really have to twist or stick. And only you know that point.

[toxicdebt]

I sent Marlins a 'Prove it' letter a few weeks back after receiving their initial letter claiming my 'Barclaycard' (Egg) account had been assigned to them. This (attached) is their reply I have received today...

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42633[/ATTACH]

 

The second last paragraph is very interesting seeing as I have never had / signed an application with Barclaycard. I am assuming they mean the Egg online agreement. If so this will tell me just how much original egg documentation is still available.

[ken100464]

Think you will find they are confusing an online application from the date of the law change to one from before the law changed.

 

Yours is quite clearly from before and therefore there should be an original hard copy that was supposed to be sent out to you signed and returned?????

 

If I was a betting man your going to get a recon here.

[toxicdebt]

Yep I CCA'd Egg back in 2009 and they sent me a microfiche printout of a CCA that contains my sig. I still have it in my little Egg file. If they send a recon I'll have two different CCA's in my possession.

[trout]

Phatram,

 

In regard to the Egg Terminations / Endings ( when not in default ) etc, as many have stated, there is no case law yet.

 

If it was unlawfull, I would expect a Judge , to rule that the Termination could not have taken place as CCA '74 would not

allow for it and the agreement was therefore still valid !!! ( as otherwise it would be an UNLAWFULL termination outside of CCA 74 ie the DN ruling ).

The said agreement should therefore logically return to the beginning of the dispute, BUT -

 

this would place the injured party where ? Harrassed unlawfully for years, threats for the recovery of sums not due, trashed credit rating, stress etc etc. That might be some

counter claim !!!

 

If the courts said it was lawfull, then even better imho.

 

Also, beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

 

trout

[BEC01]

If Marlin instruct to County Court, would it be better to file the termination as a defence, or to contact them prior to their application, then take them to task on the matter?

[banksdomyheadin]

I had an Egg credit card, defaulted in Sept 2006, and have never heard from then since..........it was 11K as well??? Is it likely I will hear from them again????

[BEC01]

Statute barred if no payments or acknowledgement made by you.

[phatram]

"Statement of Account" received from Marlin, asking Mrs P to pay them.

 

 

Anyone else?

[banksdomyheadin]

Yes I received a letter on Saturday from Marlin too, saying they have taken over my Egg credit card debt and to get in touch, I haven't heard anything from Egg since Sept 2006 until now??? Do we all just ignore them? Any help advice please??

[banksdomyheadin]

Forgot to add my application was done online in 2000 and I never ever signed anything anyway?

[banksdomyheadin]

I notice the figure has also gone down by around £1600.00? It says this is not a demand for payment just a statement from August 2013 to February 2014?? for Barclaycard, previously Egg?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

They are required to send a current statement of the account at least once a year.

[banksdomyheadin]

Being a bit thick here, but if I haven't acknowledged anything since 2006, is this not statute barred now and if so why have they sent a statement for the first time since 2006 but not asking for payment, am I supposed to write to them and say why are you sending me this statement, don't know anything about this account ??? Help please.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Being a bit thick here, but if I haven't acknowledged anything since 2006, is this not statute barred now and if so why have they sent a statement for the first time since 2006 but not asking for payment, am I supposed to write to them and say why are you sending me this statement, don't know anything about this account ??? Help please.

 

Hi statements should be sent at least once a year it is a requirement.

 

 

For clarification please does this appear on your credit reference files?

 

 

Statute Barred on Credit cards and unsecured loans = 6 clear years with no payment and/or unequivocal written acknowledgment of the debt.

 

 

For Some secured loans/ overdrafts/ and HP accounts the limitation period MAY start from the date the account is defaulted. ( this is definite on HP accounts due to a judgement BMW Finance - v Hart, but it's a grey area on the overdrafts).

 

 

If you are sure that this SB send a letter stating that you do not acknowledge any liability for the debt.

 

 

State it is statute barred and you will not make any payment now or in the future.

 

 

This does not reset the limitation period!

[banksdomyheadin]

Have got credit file no mention of Egg?

Today I have got a Marlin letter saying, Please read carefully, Reconnect Agent Visit, saying you have failed to contact us? They never asked me too! Help?