I have been pursuing a similar line with M&S. I CCAd them back on March 20th and it has taken them till 29th April (though the letter only got to us today) to reply. This states that "As you were made aware by the sample letter enclosed, no new agreement would need to be signed, and any balance from your Chargecard (it was a transfer from a Chargecard that I had opened with them years before) account could be transferred over to your new Credit Card if required". They enclose T&Cs for the credit card; sample letter advising of "new product"; sample of card carrier letter advising of activation procedure; statements for last six years. In other words their case seems to be that I signed up for one product (the Chargecard) and they simply transferred that agreement to another agreement without any signature. I dont think they can do this. I think there is a thread about this somewhere but I cant seem to find it. Can anyone help either with advise or directing me to the correct thread please.

I would just ignore them. All of mine have been extinguished for more than a year now - indeed they dont even appear on my credit file any more - but one or two stagger in every so when. They are under a statutory obligation to do this if they hope to collect the debt, but on the other hand that they do this wont change the fact that they have no means of enforcement any longer. Consider it junk mail in this situation?

Hope someone can advise me here, as Retail isnt something I know much about. Recently I did some sums and as we take BT Sports, and they let you pay your line rental a year in advance with a discount, I reckoned that as BT Sports would be free with their Broadband I would be cheaper terminating Sky Talk and Broadband by about £5.00 or so a month, and as well as that I would have more Broadband width (about 50% more). This morning I got a letter from Sky telling me that as I had backed out of an 18 month contract for their Broadband within the minimum term of 18 months I was due to pay them £54.00 to cover their loss. My problem initially was that for the life of me I couldnt remember signing up for a minimum 18 month deal other than when I went to Sky, which was ages ago now. A bit of research online however pointed me in the right direction. In August last year any time I was watching Sky Sports (which we take) there was a nag on the screen to "activate Sky Sports 5" by pressing the red button - at the same time you agree to take their Broadband for 18 months. But no sig., no sign of any t&cs (other than 18 months - I THINK this was mentioned) The only indication of my agreement was pressing the red button. Can they do this? The other thing I might mention is that I am so ****ed off with Sky that I might just terminate TV as well. This would probably mean going back to Virgin, who are about as bad. BT TV is crap unless you are into stuff like Netflix. I might just try telling them that I am off unless they cancel the demand for the fifty quid. Any thoughts?

At some point your lender will have registered a default. As long as you dont "acknowledge" the debt for either five years (in Scotland) or six years (in England) from the date of the default then the debt is said to be statute barred. What constitutes acknowledgement is the issue, and that concerns whether you have paid them anything since the date of default. If you have made a section 77/8 request you would pay £1.00. They will sometimes try to make out that this is you acknowledging which is the last thing it is. There is also a charge for getting your records under DPA (£10). You need to watch that - but neither would be an acknowledgement of the debt. They will still chase the debt up - either them or the bunch of goons they have set on you. But that has nothing to do at all with acknowledging the debt. As ajs has found, this is sometimes more likely nearer the point statute barred kicks in. That is about it, as far as I know. There is a letter in the Library if you get a demand for payment of a statute barred debt. Different ones for Scotland and England. Hope that helps.

when you say statute barred, what do you mean ajs? Do you mean six years (if you are in England), or five years (if you are in Scotland)? Mine passed the latter last year, and will be past the former in no more than four months. Not heard a squeak from them recently, but then I still have the request for the original Egg agreement out with them, so no much they can do if all they have is the Barclaycard agreement which wasnt much use since Egg had taken the card from me by then.

really well done . Obviously, despite what they always claim, these people really dont know their humerus from their posterior

I got one which was headed Barclays, but I wrote back telling them there was no signature and I had no such agreement with Barclays. Or is it the original Egg agreement?

Yes I got that one as well just the other day. The first thing I did when they notified they had taken the account on from B'card and Egg before that, was to advise them that I had never signed an agreement with B'card (which I never did) and didnt recognise the account number as one I had used (which I hadnt since Egg had cancelled the card a year or two before), and asked them to provide evidence of this. I sent this letter on 1st March and had heard nothing since. There is a legal obligation on them to provide an annual statement, and this is it. I have written back to them, enclosing a copy of my 1st March letter, advising them that in the absence of any response from them, my situation remains as before (ie I am disputing their evidence that I owe them anything). . I dont know if you have gone down that sort of route, but if not I would be inclined to ignore this letter

Hi Delilasahb - this sounds a bit like the molehill sketch - Monty P? - you know the one where the guy batters down one molehill with a big hammer and another one pops up behind him, so he knocks that down and another one comes up beside him. One thing that occurs to do, is get hold of a copy of your credit file (there are three of them - equifax, experian and call credit). You can get the basic report for very little - couple of pounds - ordering via their website. Thing to watch out for here ('cause I fell for it) is that they will try to register you with an ongoing service where you can check your credit score etc when you want, and they will notify you when someone makes a search of your credit history or something changes etc. This costs about £10 a month and isnt really worth it imo. BUT they do make it harder for you just to get your credit history. The other annoying thing is that not all lenders use the same credit ref agencies - I found the most comprehensive one for me (ie it might be different for you) was call credit. Once you have a copy of this, check to see when the account was defaulted. Assuming that date is more than five years ago, and that your do hear from their sols again (and lets not forget they have said you will be hearing from a solicitor, which doesnt mean they are taking you to court - some solicitors chase up debts using means other than court), then I would send them a copy of your credit report showing the default date, and suggesting that should they move the case to court you will argue that its then up to them - using your payment records - to show that you have acknowledged the debt since then. Other thing to remember is that statute barred in England is six years and I wouldnt be too sure how many folk in Cabot will be aware of that. Their solicitors might just send it back to Cabot and tell them to forget it.

Looks to me as if there are two things here I assume you are in the situation that I was in - you signed up for a Chargecard which you used for some time, and then (2003?) they sent you a Mastercard with nothing to sign for it. Santander v Mayhew simply formalises that this was madness on their part, with a total failure to recognise the requirements of the CCA and what the consequences would be. However, this all only makes the account not enforceable by a court - it doesnt make it go away. But, if they know you are well aware of its unenforceability and that they can huff and puff as much as they want, wouldnt you think they would go bully someone else who might not be quite as well informed as you are? They will try for a bit though the threat of an agent calling on you. Easiest way of dealing with this is to send them a letter telling them not to bother, pointing to law of trespass etc. Not sure that they are saying that the alternative agency would be unregistered - just another one along to harass you on something that they wont be able to collect on. If you havent already done it, I would follow fletch70's advice

I would wait and see what happens next. There are many worse things that can happen to you besides the removal of a default from your record. I would wait and see what happens next. Hopefully nothing. If it does start up again (and this thread has been quiet for nearly 18 months now) then you know what to do - show us the goods. If they are going to press on you wont have long to wait, but removing the default and setting a DCA on you does seem a bit contradictory.

While I tend to agree with the advice about wasps nests and sticks, I think we need to be clear here that what I think AJS would be doing is to dispute whether or not the debt is enforceable - do they have the paperwork to allow the court to make an enforcement order? Its perfectly possible - though not guaranteed - that AJS could show that the charges made by Egg were excessive and thus unlawful, and, in the event that the current owner of the debt sought enforcement of the debt that AJS could successfully dispute the enforceability of their paperwork - particularly if they are unable to produce a signed agreement that satisfies s61.

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.

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

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.

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.

AJS, you are quite right. Just dug it out - all I got was a "Welcome to Barclaycard" letter (also from Mr McWeeney - probably the same one), which tells me the account has been transferred from Egg and that "Now we're wrting to give you your new Barclaycard terms and conditions which will take effect from ..." and goes on to tell me that I wont be gettting a card from them "owing to the status of (my) account, and as result, not all of these changes will affect (me)". This is followed by a section (just over a page) headed "Changes to your terms and conditions" - tells me the min payment will no longer include repayment protection insurance; that interest is clause 6 of Barclaycard Conditions - but not what it is. Ther are a number of other sections - default fees will "only" be £12, balance transfers, other changes etc. However its pretty clear that on their own - and I dont have a copy of any enclosed "booklets" referred to in the letter (could it be that us peasants who werent getting card never got the booklet?) - would be enforceable for any number of reasons no rate of interest not even a reference to the amount of credit no specific details about repayments other than that payment protection wont be included in the minimum amoutn and of course, there is no signature and no indication that I have accepted these less than trivial changes to my T&Cs with Egg. I actually have a bit of form on this. I had a Citibank card which was the result of a transfer by an outfit called People's Bank (American). Citibank sold it to 1st Credit, but could never get a signed document that would satisfy the Consumer Credit Act from People's Bank. One of the things that came out from Carey a couple of years ago was that to enforce a lender has to go all the way back in the paper chase. Therefore I would quote the relevant section of Waksman's judgement there which is para 234 (his findings right at the end) that "(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". Now what Marlin seem to be saying to you AJS is that the original agreement is the one with Barclays, when quite transparently it was not - not even 1st Credit tried that one with me. And that, for the avoidance of doubt is, as I read it, is for s78, not the much more demanding requirements of s61 1 a, which require evidence of a signature on a document with the prescribed terms. Therefore I think when they say that they are approaching Barclays for a copy, let them do that, and then tell them this wasnt the original agreement - it was with Egg, and if I am right they will have a heck of a job getting anything.

Well that's me got mine too. Really annoying thing is when something that you thought was well behind you, rears its ugly head again. I have looked out the last letter I sent to Egg with my reasons for non-payment (it runs to two pages btw), so I am armed and ready. However, two points do these guys realise that statute barring in Scotland is five years (six in England for anyone coming across this)? Ajs you refer to the account numbers being wrong. I suspect with great humility that you might incorrect here since the number quoted to me is a Barclay account number. Now, what has happened is that Egg flogged the credit card portfolio to Barclays, who then sent out new agreements which, normally would include new (Barclays) cards, but for those of us cast out by Egg, they didnt send out a new card, just unsigned "new agreements" on which we did precisely no borrowing. Now, if I am right this is going to cause them all manner of problems. I think (I would need to look) I do have the agreement that Barclays sent me, but (obviously) I never signed it. This the usual procedure when credit cards get transferred which has always struck me as a wee bit suspect since the 74 Act is quite clear that the agreement should be signed by the borrower. But that's their problem. However, in this case I would submit that Marlin face a particularly difficult problem because ordinarily, if we raise difficulties about a copy of the agreement (a s78 request for instance) they would go to the original lender, but that isnt Barclays. To get a copy of th signed agreement Marlin will have to go to Barclays with the account number, but that wont get them anything with my signature on it, so they will have to get Barclays to dig out the Egg number corresponding to my Barclays number (if you are still with me), and then go to Egg and ask them for a copy of the signed agreement That is going to be time-consuming and could go seriously wrong at two points - have Barclays records of the corresponding account numbers for the Egg accounts they bought (and can they be bothered?). If not, then it would seem unlikely that Marlin are going to get much joy out of what remains of Egg. But it can also go wrong at the final stage - have Egg still got copies of the signed agreements? And of course, no signed paperwork, no order! Just something to think about

As long as you havent acknowledged the debt (ie paid them anything) then after five years (in Scotland), the debt doesnt disappear, but it cant be enforced at Court - its barred. However if they get their papers into court within five years then that resets the clock. Also to address Ken's point, no paperwork = no chance. So if Canada Square is playing silly buggers then I would suggest in the first instance a s78 application (a SAR gets you more, but while they reply to the s78 they cant enforce). My own view would be that if Egg could have enforced these accounts then they would have. God knows they needed the money.

does seem that way

Hopster, looks like Marlin have been given a job to do - see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?215961-EGG-gt-gt-A-Quandry&p=4137372#post4137372

when you say "assigned", do you mean that Marlin have bought it? or are they acting as agents for Barclaycard? One other thing - I note the date this correspondence began was August 2009. Bearing in mind that debts are statute barred here after five years, how long is it since you last acknowledged the debt (ie paid them anything). I wrote to them in November 2008 with a SAR request, so I would reckon that I havent acknowledged since about the middle of that year. If it comes to it I will SAR them again, but we must be on countdown for mine being statute barred. You maybe want to think about the same course of action if you can? Its quite discouraging when something you thought had gone away comes back again. Sorry to hear that AJS

This is interesting as pretty much the same thing has just happened to me - account with the Coop from whom I sought a copy agreement in 2009 and not only didnt get anything but have never heard from the Coop again. After that they put me through Equidebt and Moorcroft, asking for an agreement from them too - NO result - and they disappeared pretty quickly. That was the end of 2009. Now the Co seem to have sold the account to Lowells - letter asking for payment came in this morning. Perhaps with their attempts to buy the branches that Lloyds are having to sell off, the Coop needs every penny - bearing in mind that this could have gone for 1% they got about £10 for it! I too will be following the advice of Uncle Bulgaria, other than to substitute "no copy" for "legible copy". Dont know what is most ridiculous - the Co for not getting the legals right in the first place, selling it after at least four years inactivity, or Lowells for being daft enough to pay for it.

very pleased ajs444 - congratulations on your success which isia tribute to your determination against financial cheats and legal cheats.

well done Alan - lesson to us all