Varuna v CitiFinancial

[Varuna]

Late last October I sent a s.78 request under the CCA to Citi. They ignored it but after a reminder then sent me 15 pages of what appears to be the current T&Cs together with a confused (and perhaps intentionally confusing) letter. I duly replied in March this year referring them to the OFT guidance on the CCA (www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft1002.pdf), saying that they had not supplied what was needed, that they were in breach and that although I would continue to make payments to them I reserved the right to seek to recover any interest paid in the meantime and to complain to the appropriate Trading Standards Office.

Towards the end of March Citi replied disdainfully saying that I'd better make sure I continued paying, that they'd supplied what they were legally obliged to, that no dispute existed and my complaint was therefore closed and that if I didn't like it I could take it up with the Finance and Leasing Association or with the Financial Ombudsman.

These two letters from Citi are attached in the PDF "Citi letters re CCA".

I duly reported Citi to the local TS office who eventually persuaded Citi to make another effort to fulfil their s.78 obligations and a few days ago I got a letter from someone else entirely at Citi referring to what he called my recent CCA request and enclosing two sets of T&Cs, one current and the other claimed to be the original and those to which I agreed when I opened the account in summer 2003.

I'm attaching a second PDF titled "Citi agreements etc" which contains four documents. Doc 1, 2pp, is a copy of my original application; Doc 2, 2pp, is the original card carrier copy; Doc 3, 1 PDF page is a copy of the first and last pages of an 8pp leaflet printed in blue on 1 1/3 A4 on both sides and folded to 1/3 A4 in size. These three documents are from my own files.

Doc 4 is the first page of the (effective) 9pp set of original T&Cs which Citi has just sent me.

Here's where it gets interesting and it's around this area that I'd welcome some comment and advice.

It happens that with Citi I've actually kept quite a lot of material and so I was able to compare what was sent with what I had and things don't really match in a number of respects.

Doc 1 appears to be a validly completed Application Form. However, it also says that it's an agreement regulated by the CCA 1974 and, assuming the half page goes with it, which I think it probably does, it appears to include the necessary other information such as interest rates. However, a. it's not signed by Citi and b. the interest rates aren't specific to me but consist of a range of figures for different types of card and within those cards themselves. While it's not entirely clear from the copy the box at the very bottom right doesn't have a holograph signature but holds an alphanumeric code of some sort.

My guess is that this is actually a pre-agreement application, despite the claims to the contrary. I'm certain also that I would not have received a copy of this duly signed by an office of Citi Financial (as otherwise it would be in this file). Is this possibly enforceable?

Doc 2 is, as I mentiones, the card carrier agreement and I'm pretty confident it's the first one I received. That being so it could count as the executed agreement although of itself it's not sufficient to ensure enforcement of any agreement.

Doc 3, I'm also pretty confident, is an enclosure which came with that first card although unfortunately I haven't dated it on receit. In the case of Doc 3 and Doc 2 the leaflet IDs suggest a date of [20]04 or possibly earlier.

Partly because of the tiny type in Docs 2 and 3 I haven't fully compared the content with Doc 4. Certainly Doc 4 is laid out very differently from Docs 2 and 3 (let alone Doc 1). However, there are certainly several substantive differences: for instance, the interest rates differ as between Doc 2 or Doc 3 (which are the same) and Doc 4; the address on Doc 4 is Reading while that on Doc 3 is Manchester and on Doc 2 a London PO Box.

Hence it seems to me that Doc 4 cannot in fact be a copy of the executed agreement, assuming that I'm correct about the dates of both Doc 2 and Doc 3 and that Doc 2 is the original card carrier agreement. Nor could it be the executed agreement if Doc 1 turned out to be so, being significantly different from that document.

In short, therefore, I'd say that Citi still hasn't completed its s.78 CCA obligations. Would others agree?

[Enron]

It looks like you've managed to achieve the impossible in obtaining a copy of your executed agreement, albeit with the assistance of your local trading standards department.

Citi are a bunch of cowboys in that they operate contrary to law and regulations, as many of us have experienced here they simply are not fulfilling s78(1) CCA requests properly, despite their feeble justifications to the contrary new Terms & Conditions cannot complete a s78(1) CCA request for an earlier agreement. The regulations confirm it, and so does an expert witnesses view on what completes such a request.

Essentially they are trying to pull the wool over customers eyes, whether that is because they have a small Compliance Department and the time to fulfill such requests is not enough for them or because they have many faulty or missing executed agreements is up for question. Either way attempting to mislead customers in direct contravention of Citi's own Code Of Conduct is far from how you would expect a bank to operate. The subsequent damage to peoples credit files is unforgiveable, but Citi basically don't care.

I'm going to request someone who is good with CCAs to look at the copies of your agreement.

[Varuna]

Thanks, Enron - and I appreciate the offer of having someone else look at the copies.

In fact, however, I don't think Citi has supplied a copy of the executed agreement. The application form/agreement signed by me (Doc 1) came from my own files. If it was subsequently signed correctly by Citi and it conforms to the requirements of a proper agreement under the CCA then it's the executed agreement. What Citi has sent me is 9pp of what they claim was the agreement in force at the time of opening the account - but this is very different from, and much longer than, my Doc 1 which consists merely of the few paragraphs on the application face and roughly half a page on the reverse (and with material differences between the two).

If, conversely, my Doc 1 is not the executed agreement then there is no agreement assuming that, as I'm certain is the case, I didn't sign any other agreement, post-application or whenever.

[citizenB]

1) I dont see any prescribed terms on your copy of the application form

2) and unless Citi have a copy / original of that with the prescribed terms on the back and THEIR signature then it cant be executed.. can it

[Varuna]

Apologies - I got confused with another (MBNA predecessor) application form and remembered this one wrongly as having some T&Cs on the face together with a reference to more on the back. In fact it doesn't although I'm reasonably sure that what was on the back was the half page I mention and show in the agreements pdf.

As I say, what I think may be the case is that Doc 1 (that is, the app form + the half page T&Cs) was signed by me and returned, perhaps then being signed by Citi. When the card arrived it would be on the card carrier copy (Doc 2) and possibly accompanied by the blue printed leaflet, Doc 3.

If that's the case then as you say, cB, the document I signed does not have on it the prescribed terms although perhaps both Doc 2 and Doc 3 do have, although of course the first time I would have seen them was after the application was signed and returned and when the card duly arrived. Citi may therefore want to argue - wrongly, of course - that by taking and countersigning my application and duly delivering the T&Cs to which I'm presumed to have agreed, while giving me a period to cancel (as required) I have duly assented to the agreement.

[alanalana]

Citi it seems have produced an application form and not a valid cca?

aa

[Varuna]

Originally Posted by alanalana

Citi it seems have produced an application form and not a valid cca?
aa

No - the application form is a copy from my own files. What Citi sent initially was merely the current T&Cs. What it's now sent (following the intervention of the local TSO) is both the current T&Cs and the T&Cs which, it claims, were the ones in force at the time the account was opened. (It's also sent the necessary account balance etc. information).

When I glanced at it when it first came last week I thought everything was probably fine but now I'm not so sure, as much as anything because of the material differences between what Citi has just sent me (identified as Doc 4 in my post above) and what I have in my files from when the card was issued.

[Enron]

Keep plugging away for a copy of your executed agreement.

Obviously the original T&C, or the new ones are not your executed agreement.