when you received the initial loan docs and the SAR did you ever receive anything pertinent to the PPI? some kind of booklet or information sheet? Have you sent them a CCA? Have you reclaimed the PPI? Are the debt collectors claiming the full amount ie. loan + PPI? just to build a fuller picture

cold you post up the agreement on here, after removing any details. The internal stuff may be of use, but I'd start at the agreement and work backwards

have they supplied a copy of your agreement?

DD asked you a little earlier, do you live in Scotland? this would now seem to be the only way these accounts could be Statute Barred. Only you and they could answer the questions you are asking about why would they give you a new loan, if you feel that there has been a fraud of some kind then you need to raise it? In your opening post, you state that "We have enclosed a snapshot of all payments for your reference" did they include such a document and does it match your own understanding of payments made?

Well either way, neither of the accounts is statute barred whether you have made payments or not, one will become SB in May 2013 and the other in Oct 2013, but only if you made no payments at all, any payments made against either account after that (respective) date will affect the SB date. I assume that the copies of the agreements you have posted are your personal retained copies and not theirs? if you have not done so yet, send them the CCA request

Did you by any chance take out a further loan on the same account, did you renew the loan in 2012? Have you made any payments since 2007?

Technically, they aren't falsifying documents, they are allowed to serve the NOA as per the LOP, it's the use of the OC's letterhead that's the main issue, sending a letter that is designed to look like it was sent by a third party is simple fraud, but they get away with it because the banks say that they allow it (but never put it in writing)

We shall see, If Egg don't have the agreement and never have had the agreement and have documented as much and then Egg having terminated the agreement, then Barclaycard having reassigned the account and issued a new account number.....? Allegedly!!! then Marlin would be producing a copy or recon of what exactly? would take more than a recon and a bunch of T&C to breath life into this corpse

Stupid stupid people, you might wish to include something along the lines of "Please note, that by agreeing to visit me, you indemnify me from any damage occured to property or person during the period of the visit, you are also agreeing to being an active participant in an in-depth conversation with my pair of doberman meeter and greeters, although they have never actually bitten anyone yet, and I truly believe that they wouldn't, please state before visiting whether you are allergic to fabric elastoplast and if you have a preference between savlon and dettol"

I have always thought that the whole NOA fraudulent letter thing will come crashing down as a result of this, when questioned, so called "legitimate" financial institutions say it's ok for such a practice to continue, but will never put it in writing, it is clearly against the law according to Companies House, yet no one has ever been taken to task over it....

I don't think they will give up after a simple prove it letter, they will possibly respond as per post #53, offering a guided tour through the account history whilst not supplying any information to actually prove anything, I would think a CCA will be the undoing of them because they will more than likely send a copy of B/C T&C rather than those for the actual OC agreement

I would go along with this, the Deed is the contract and this is the bit that most people would consider "commercially sensitive" as it contains the private dealing of the thieving Financial Organisation and the bottom feeding debt buyer/DCA. There is normally an accompanying spreadsheet or similar containing the list of accounts, balances and such, it is this document that they base their initial enforcement activities on The matter of disclosure of a DOA in a court setting should never be one sided (The DCA showing it to the judge) and the "commercially sensitive" argument should hold no water at all, however we all know that judges often lack the knowledge to realise when the DCA barrister is pulling the wool over their eyes. As long as we have a human rights bill, I would encourage anyone who experiences the other side disclosing a document only to the judge to appeal instantly, the judge is potentially being swayed by evidence that you are not allowed to see? how do you knwo that the document isn't offering the judge a bribe?, how do you know that what is being stated in the document is accurate, how could that be a "fair trial"

If the DOA is only showed to the judge that should be a complete no no!!, I would plead that it would be contrary to your right to a fair trail to have such an action occur in a UK court, if the DOA is important enough to be disclosed in court at all, then it should be disclosed to all parties. It is the DCA and OC who deem the DOA to be "Commercially sensitive" not the courts and certainly not the debtor and since the case involves the debtor who is directly affected by the contents of the document, partial disclosure should never be allowed without comment. Agree with Brig, the DOA I received was a heavily redacted form of contract between Cabot and Egg describing the T&C between two set dates, ie. we will purchase x number of accounts between 01/01/20xx and 31/12/20xx for the amount of £xxx the dates in the DOA conflicted with the dates claimed in their letters, so could be used to shoot their claim down.

With the exception of those companies who add unlawfully to the debt, they have mostly bought the debt "in good faith" so no real fraud there, even though they may have only paid tiny % for the account. However they seem to have their roles and responsibilities mixed up, it is for them to prove that you owe the money and that they have a right to collect, not as they claim, for you to prove that you don't owe. If there is a fraud, I have long stated that it is in the whole delivery of the NOA process, the LOP states that either assignor, or assignee can provide an NOA to the debtor, however, there is no law or statute that allows for one company to use the letterhead and credentials of another company with the intent of convincing the debtor that they have received communications from the OC when they are not. In fact there are laws which forbid it, I have asked many times for evidence of the authority they rely on to do this.....I have never received a reply, nor such evidence from either the DCA, nor the bank concerned. I believe that companies house have expressed an interest in this practice, but to date have taken no action.....I wonder why.....The whole system is rotten to the core

Oh I have no doubt that this is the case, these creatures will only display what they think is the bare minimum and if they had their way I'm sure they would show nothing at all if they could get away with it. but my dealings with Cabot have taught me three things, always SAR the OC, and make a DCA prove what they are saying is correct by way of documentary evidence andfinally, ask for sight of everything from A to Z, they probably will tell you to go forth, but still worth a punt

We used the redaction as a part of the defence, which worked, if the deed doesn't show a real link between the assignee and assignor, then it can cast a doubt over their claims of ownership and as most NOA are created by the DCA themselves, there would be nothing from the OC to show any assignment actually occurred. In some cases I have heard (anecdotally) of DCA's have dropped claims entirely rather than reveal the contents of a deed, so whilst I see your point, it's not entirely pointless, Anything that makes them back off must at least deserve a shot

In all likelihood, they will be covered by a group licence, assuming of course they are part of a larger group. seen many threads on here where too much focus is given to such a red herring, contact FOS and TS and advise them of the lack of a licence, let them deal with it

So we have Egg who were never able to produce a CCA of any kind (and I have a screenshot of their internal systems to prove the request was made and that they were unable to find the agreement) so although the account was placed in dispute, token payments were made to a DCA, stopped paying altogether at the back end of 2007. the account was allegedly sold to Barclaycard in 2011 and given an entirely new number, it is this account which Marlins seem intent on enforcing, even though there is no actual Egg agreement to underpin any such sale or transfer and of course the selling on of an account in dispute. Do I advise them of the dispute, or save it for later and just keep on demanding the paperwork, or do I just CCA them? Opinions please

Just to muddy the waters on this one a little, I agree that in general the deed is a commercially sensitive doc, however when it is a piece of evidence on which their whole case hangs they will disclose it. I had Cabot on my tail a while ago and contested their ownership of the account, accusing them of fraud by using another companies letterhead with the intent to deceive - they provided me with a heavily redacted copy of the Deed of Assignment, this was used to form part of my defence as there was nothing in the deed which specifically identified my account and the dates did not match. This was a blanket purchase agreement which covered numerous accounts which were allegedly identified in a spreadsheet which accompanied the deed

So we have a first response from Marlin; as follows: Dear Mr Spamheed Outstanding Bal:£XXXXXXX Creditor: Marlin Original Creditor Barclays Bank plc t/a Barclaycard Original Reference XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX We write further to your recent letter requesting information relating to the above account. We confirm the debt relates to a Barclaycard (Originally Egg Card) which was opened on XX/XX/XXX under the number XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX the account was subsequently terminated on XX/XX/XXXX the account was reassigned to Barclaycard in XX/XX/XXXX and given a new number of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Please find enclosed an Income and Expenditure form for you to complete and return to our office within 10 days from the date of this letter along with your payment proposals to clear the outstanding balance. Please also provide us with proof of any benefits you are currently receiving to enable us to assess your financial circumstances. If you wish to discuss the matter further, please contact one of our Account Managers on telephone number 0333 123 9999. Our office opening hours are 8:00am to 8:00pm Monday to Friday and Saturday 9:00am to 1:00pm yours sincerely squiggle no name Marlin Financial Services

In my opinion, the first action in the case of an alleged account, whether under dispute/default or not, transferred through Barclaycard, then onto Marlins should always be a simple "Prove it" letter, the same as you would for any other unknown company suddenly making such a demand. I can honestly say that I have never opened, owned, or used an account with Barclays or Barclaycard, they will not be able to produce anything signed by me to say that I have. Even if they do state it is linked to some long forgotten legitimate account, they would have to produce Notice of Assignments from the OC and Barclaycard, as well as the original signed agreement and a full range of statements, otherwise there is no way of verifying their claim of ownership and the amount they are claiming is owed. The fact that Barclaycard or whoever and then Marlins have subsequently applied their own account details to the account will only muddy the waters further if and when it comes to court. especially if they bring the claim against one of these "made up" account numbers

The SAR is requested to shed some light on what Egg did with your account and the dates of last payment etc to prove or disprove that the account is Statute Barred, I wouldn't sent a CCA to Marlins just yet, send them a prove it letter first, then if and when they produce the Barclaycard paperwork you can tell them you have never had a Barclaycard axccount and would like to see the agreement, so you send them the CCA request.

No not at all, you don't know these people, have nothing linking them to any debt you have ever had, you are questioning their authority to even contact you, that the account details are correct ie, dates, balances etc. without this how are you to know you are paying the right person?

I would send them some sort of prove it letter, since I assume Marlins are attempting to pursue a BarclayCard account, which you have allegedly never had,

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?309871-I-owe-Egg-5-000-but-not-heard-anything-from-them-since-may-2009-Whats-going-on&p=4173165#post4173165