Citi card come to Salford CC for your money

[e28bigalbexley]

Brief out line

 

Sent Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request).

 

Got my Statements worked out how much they have taken £440 +i nterest.

 

Sent my Template letter asking for it back plus interest.

 

Got letter back today,

 

I act on behalf of Citi.......

I assume that your complaint was made as a result of the recent oft statement on defaulft fees.

 

My client has adopted the same practice as the entire uk CC industry, and with that the industry dissagrees with the OFT (good bit next) Please note that the OFT recognises that its interpretation does not have the force of the law, having never been decided by a court, and is therefore merely pursuasive.

 

Moreover ,the OFT did acknowledge that default fees are not themselves unlawful, but simply confined itself to stating that the the level of default charges imposed by the UK credit card industry to be unfair. Therefore if you breach your contract , we are and always were, able to levy a default fee, just not one in excess of £12

The Oft did not say in its statement that all such charges are unfair, it merely set a recommended threshold of £12.00 to reflect the the balance of of information given to it by many of the banks that these cherges are based on a number of factors and not just,as it is commonly supposed, the price of a stamp or the envelope ect. (i did the highlighting).

 

But letter goes on to say they have credited my account with £224 the difference between the OFT £12 and the £440 i asked for thanks very much. Now they if they think im happy with that they are wrong,I want the other £216 and the interest charged on the penalties.

 

In the event i am not satisfied with this and proceed to claim the full amount Citi will defend this on the basis of the OFTs own statement.

 

But this is the bit that got up my nose, Any defence will also exercise the defendants right to seek to have the claim transferred to its home court,i.e. Salford County Court. The legal presumption is that justice should be local to the defendant as the defendant is deemed innocent until proven guilty and ought not to be disadvantaged in defending itself.

 

 

Yours sincerley

Brian Smith

Solicitor

 

So ok i Understand the arguement about the £12 OFT statement and i Shall send him back a copy of it underlining a few bits he may have missed.

 

I dont mind going to Salford (I live in Kent) can i add the Traveling and a hotel bill to my costs and losing a day off work?

 

the final thing is although it may be their right the way it is written its almost like a ,...' your 200 miles away if you want your money you will have to come up here to claim it.

[lickthewallfatboy]

this is the usual scare tactic being used by CITI at the moment

 

there are a number of threads on this,but basically they are barking up the wrong tree,as an individual taking on a large institution,the hearing will be held at the court of YOUR choosing-not that it will get to court of course!!

[Michael Browne]

This is a standard Citi scare tactic. Have a look at this thread:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/12869-rich2568-citicards-interesting-development.html

[e28bigalbexley]

Thanks for that Michael i have now read that thread, its a bit confusing, but i am not quite at that stage yet, but i get the general drift.

I am going to send Mr B Smifff a copy of the UCCTR's and the OFT's statement on charges.

 

It amaze's me (im a builder by the way) that the law is not straightforward as such. I.E. the OFT, FSA or any other regulatory body gives guidance or makes a ruling and every bank or CC company run off and get a solicitor to duck and dive around, under and over any legislation layed down to keep their(OUR) money. The way way i see it the Banks ,CC co's and their solicitors have more angles than a 'complicated hipped roof.

 

Thanks again Micheal

 

Alan

[e28bigalbexley]

Many thanks to you LOTWB it figures they are barking mad i can see the headlines now BIG FINANCIAL INSTITUTION ALLOWED TO DRAG POOR OLD BUILDER FROM KENT UP TO SALFORD, would i get get costs, could i say i dont mind going to Salford in my Transit but i want you to disclose your costs for unlawful charges and they say ok Durrrrrrrrrr Im being silly aint i.

[e28bigalbexley]

Update.

Recieved defence today from Mr. B Smith nothing unusal so i will sit and wait for the AQ ive got my £100 in my little tin already in fact i think i will download the AQ and get it typed up ready so i can pop it into the court as and when... mid December with a hearing about early March the way they are jemming the court system up. Sooner or later you feel the courts will drag the Banks and CC co's into court by the scruff of their necks and order them to give full disclosure cant wait.:grin: :grin: :grin:

 

AL.

[Enron]

There is also something in the pipeline which should aid us all in our claims.

[Jaynekul]

Oooh cant wait! He he. Please spill the beans ASAP. Im in the early stages sent back the form for access to statements. Now waiting for those. I want my case heard in Salford I used to be on the Court User Committee there! Bring it on Mr Smith!

[Enron]

The beans will be spilled once a judge has ruled on the evidence when it is included in a case.

 

As Brian Smith, Citi solicitor actively monitors this site we don`t want to tip them off in advance as to what exactly we have in hand.

 

If your case will be held at Salford, you will most likely have the Citi Financial Director present along with their facts and figures to justify their charges. They will most likely want for these to be heard in private.

[e28bigalbexley]

There is also something in the pipeline which should aid us all in our claims.

 

Yes i have been reading several threads on this forum and it would appear that the rug is about to be pulled from under Citi's feet. Wish i was there to see the smug smile of the people that sit in Citi's ivory towers wiped off.

 

Anyway for anyone who is interested my claim no is 6DA03046 Dartford CC.

 

 

AL.

[GRAZEL]

Today I received a letter from Mr Smith offering £325 against claim of £625 which states that £325 has been sent to Cabot Financial ( it also mentions the Salford court etc ).

 

What do I do if I want to claim the rest? I am a little confused as how I would claim the rest if I put in my court claim , i e would I claim the balance of £300 as they have already paid £325 and if so how would I work out the 8% interest as obviously I am unsure of the dates their £325 would be taken off from?

 

Help please, thanks.

[Enron]

Add together all your charges, add the 8% interest, then minus the £300 from that total.

 

Though I would advise before submitting any claim to the courts that you either have proof in writing that the amount has been refunded to your account, or statements showing this.

[GRAZEL]

many thanks mate

[blackcatchillers]

I will also go to Salford as its only 40 mins down the road.

[Enron]

Someone here mentioned that Salford is quite a good court to attend for matters of small claims.

 

Main thing is to note any partial refund at the same time as submitting your AQ, and enclose a copy of your spreadsheets as well.

 

If your case goes ahead you can pretty much guarantee that Citi`s Financial Director will be present, along with documentation to support their claim that it costs £12.88 per default - this is the core of their defence.

[Jaynekul]

This is their case FOR NOW! Lets see what happens with the 1s already in Litigation

[e28bigalbexley]

Hi all

Got my AQ today do I fill it in as normal or do i need to add an extra sumthing in regard to the 'we wanna secret meeting' ploy.

 

Please pm me secretly if you want, im sure bri wont mind.

 

AL

[Jaynekul]

Send in a list of suggested Directions

1. The matter be transferred to (whichever Court you want)

2. The Defendant do disclose to the Claimant all documents upon which they intend to place reliance by 4pm ............. Any docs not so exchanged cannot subsequently be relied upon at any hearing

3. The matter be set down for a Hearing on the 1st available date after.......

4. Costs in the case

 

That might help avoid the secret Hearing and transfer to Salford hopefully

[gizmo111]

Attach a letter along the following lines to the AQ pre empting citi's reqest for transfer and secret hearings - modify to suit. I got mine kept local after their request with this letter.

 

I refer to the defendants allocation questionnaire of which I received a copy form the court October 25, in which the defendant has made a request for the hearing of this case to be moved to Salford County Court.

I wish to object to the application for transfer on the following grounds.

1. The defendant’s application was made without notice to myself and I have not been given the opportunity to make representations.

2. I am an individual of limited means. I am a litigant in person and I am suing the defendant on my own account.

3. The defendant is a multi national company with access to huge financial resources whilst my finances are strictly limited.

4. Although the place of trial is at the discretion of the Court the normal and established practice is for the claims in which one of the parties is an individual, be transferred to that individual’s home court. In this case my home court is Bristol County Court.

5. The defendant, in their defence paragraph 10, had already admitted part of my claim and have now acknowledged the amount in issue is only £588.16

I am also requesting Judgement in request of the admitted sum. The defendants have made reference to the fact of the sum that they admit has been sold onto a third party agency, however, this is not relevant to my claim. My account contract was with Citi Cards, my claim is against them, and if they have seen fit to pass money to a third party then that is matter for them to reconcile.

Order 26 to which the defendant refers to in thier application, normally is applied for the benefit of a claimant who is claiming as an individual.

The defendant refers to recent findings by the Office of Fair Trading, however it is clear that the Office of Fair Trading conclusions indicate very strongly that companies such as the defendant are acting in violation of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations. And therefore as the defendant continues its system of penalty charges in the face of the Office of Fair Trading report it is they who should justly face the burden of costs and not claimants in person who are merely seeking to enforce the law.

The defendant argues the virtue of having all cases transferred to the same court. There are presently at least sixteen cases, which have been transferred to the Mercantile Court in London so that the bank charges issue can be tested once and for all. The claimant respectfully suggests that if the Salford County Court will not return my case to the Bristol County Court that in the alternative this case should be transferred to the Mercantile Court in London to be heard before the designated Judge there along side all the other penalty charges test cases.

It is not in the interest Overriding Objective for my case to be tried in a court other than my home court of Bristol County Court.

I also understand that the defendants had asked that their evidence be received in secret without any opportunity for myself or any other person to have an opportunity to examine it in advance of the hearing. Furthermore I understand that it would not be possible to carry out any cross-examination in respect of that evidence and that I would have no opportunity to have the evidence scrutinised by my own expert or an independent expert, despite the fact that the defendant's evidence is likely to be of a technical nature.

I wish to object to the defendant’s request. It cannot be in the interests of the Overriding Objective to allow secret evidence to be taken during a small claim. Furthermore the question we are deciding is the lawfulness of the defendant's penalty charge system. The defendant claims that their evidence is" commercially sensitive". However the question of the defendant's penalty charge regime does not refer to their core business. Whilst it could well be the case that information relating to the defendants core business could indeed be commercially sensitive, the question of penalty charges relates to an incidental aspect of the defendant's business -- and which if the defendant is to be believed, produces no profit at all as according to the defendant, their penalty charges merely cover their administrative costs. It is also true to say that the defendant has in the past claimed that their costs are merely in line with those of other similar organisations. Clearly then, the defendant's penalty charge regime is not a competitive matter, according to the defendant it brings them no profit and therefore there can be no grounds for saying that the information is commercially sensitive.

If the defendant is insistent that his evidence is commercially sensitive then I would respectfully suggest that maybe this entire matter is better suited for a higher court such as the mercantile court in London or Bristol.

Yours faithfully

[goforit]

Brief out line

 

Sent Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request).

 

Got my Statements worked out how much they have taken £440 +i nterest.

 

Sent my Template letter asking for it back plus interest.

 

Got letter back today,

 

I act on behalf of Citi.......

I assume that your complaint was made as a result of the recent oft statement on defaulft fees.

 

My client has adopted the same practice as the entire uk CC industry, and with that the industry dissagrees with the OFT (good bit next) Please note that the OFT recognises that its interpretation does not have the force of the law, having never been decided by a court, and is therefore merely pursuasive.

 

Moreover ,the OFT did acknowledge that default fees are not themselves unlawful, but simply confined itself to stating that the the level of default charges imposed by the UK credit card industry to be unfair. Therefore if you breach your contract , we are and always were, able to levy a default fee, just not one in excess of £12

The Oft did not say in its statement that all such charges are unfair, it merely set a recommended threshold of £12.00 to reflect the the balance of of information given to it by many of the banks that these cherges are based on a number of factors and not just,as it is commonly supposed, the price of a stamp or the envelope ect. (i did the highlighting).

 

But letter goes on to say they have credited my account with £224 the difference between the OFT £12 and the £440 i asked for thanks very much. Now they if they think im happy with that they are wrong,I want the other £216 and the interest charged on the penalties.

 

In the event i am not satisfied with this and proceed to claim the full amount Citi will defend this on the basis of the OFTs own statement.

 

But this is the bit that got up my nose, Any defence will also exercise the defendants right to seek to have the claim transferred to its home court,i.e. Salford County Court. The legal presumption is that justice should be local to the defendant as the defendant is deemed innocent until proven guilty and ought not to be disadvantaged in defending itself.

 

 

Yours sincerley

Brian Smith

Solicitor

 

So ok i Understand the arguement about the £12 OFT statement and i Shall send him back a copy of it underlining a few bits he may have missed.

 

I dont mind going to Salford (I live in Kent) can i add the Traveling and a hotel bill to my costs and losing a day off work?

 

the final thing is although it may be their right the way it is written its almost like a ,...' your 200 miles away if you want your money you will have to come up here to claim it.

 

Is this solicitor having problems interprepting the difference between Criminal Law and Civil Law?

 

What law firm is this guy from? I want to see what law school he went to - they must not be doing something right.

[goforit]

Attach a letter along the following lines to the AQ pre empting citi's reqest for transfer and secret hearings - modify to suit. I got mine kept local after their request with this letter.

 

I refer to the defendants allocation questionnaire of which I received a copy form the court October 25, in which the defendant has made a request for the hearing of this case to be moved to Salford County Court.

I wish to object to the application for transfer on the following grounds.

 

1. The defendant’s application was made without notice to myself and I have not been given the opportunity to make representations.

 

2. I am an individual of limited means. I am a litigant in person and I am suing the defendant on my own account.

 

3. The defendant is a multi national company with access to huge financial resources whilst my finances are strictly limited.

 

4. Although the place of trial is at the discretion of the Court the normal and established practice is for the claims in which one of the parties is an individual, be transferred to that individual’s home court. In this case my home court is Bristol County Court.

 

5. The defendant, in their defence paragraph 10, had already admitted part of my claim and have now acknowledged the amount in issue is only £588.16

 

 

I am also requesting Judgement in request of the admitted sum. The defendants have made reference to the fact of the sum that they admit has been sold onto a third party agency, however, this is not relevant to my claim. My account contract was with Citi Cards, my claim is against them, and if they have seen fit to pass money to a third party then that is matter for them to reconcile.

 

Order 26 to which the defendant refers to in thier application, normally is applied for the benefit of a claimant who is claiming as an individual.

 

The defendant refers to recent findings by the Office of Fair Trading, however it is clear that the Office of Fair Trading conclusions indicate very strongly that companies such as the defendant are acting in violation of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations. And therefore as the defendant continues its system of penalty charges in the face of the Office of Fair Trading report it is they who should justly face the burden of costs and not claimants in person who are merely seeking to enforce the law.

 

The defendant argues the virtue of having all cases transferred to the same court. There are presently at least sixteen cases, which have been transferred to the Mercantile Court in London so that the bank charges issue can be tested once and for all. The claimant respectfully suggests that if the Salford County Court will not return my case to the Bristol County Court that in the alternative this case should be transferred to the Mercantile Court in London to be heard before the designated Judge there along side all the other penalty charges test cases.

It is not in the interest Overriding Objective for my case to be tried in a court other than my home court of Bristol County Court.

 

I also understand that the defendants had asked that their evidence be received in secret without any opportunity for myself or any other person to have an opportunity to examine it in advance of the hearing. Furthermore I understand that it would not be possible to carry out any cross-examination in respect of that evidence and that I would have no opportunity to have the evidence scrutinised by my own expert or an independent expert, despite the fact that the defendant's evidence is likely to be of a technical nature.

 

I wish to object to the defendant’s request. It cannot be in the interests of the Overriding Objective to allow secret evidence to be taken during a small claim. Furthermore the question we are deciding is the lawfulness of the defendant's penalty charge system. The defendant claims that their evidence is" commercially sensitive". However the question of the defendant's penalty charge regime does not refer to their core business. Whilst it could well be the case that information relating to the defendants core business could indeed be commercially sensitive, the question of penalty charges relates to an incidental aspect of the defendant's business -- and which if the defendant is to be believed, produces no profit at all as according to the defendant, their penalty charges merely cover their administrative costs. It is also true to say that the defendant has in the past claimed that their costs are merely in line with those of other similar organisations. Clearly then, the defendant's penalty charge regime is not a competitive matter, according to the defendant it brings them no profit and therefore there can be no grounds for saying that the information is commercially sensitive.

 

If the defendant is insistent that his evidence is commercially sensitive then I would respectfully suggest that maybe this entire matter is better suited for a higher court such as the mercantile court in London or Bristol.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

 

 

I love the last part... Really well thought out. Did you get any help in drafting it?

[gizmo111]

I love the last part... Really well thought out. Did you get any help in drafting it?

 

Of course - Bank Fodder

[e28bigalbexley]

Thanks Jayne, Gizmo and go4it.

 

I shall be adding your helpful information to my AQ thanks very much again.

 

AL;)

[goforit]

Thanks Jayne, Gizmo and go4it.

 

I shall be adding your helpful information to my AQ thanks very much again.

 

AL;)

 

 

Cheers. Although I didn't add any information, or did I? Whatever, thanks anyway.

[e28bigalbexley]

Update:

Letter form Citi (sent 29th Nov)stating unless i pay £336.00 in next 7 they will issue a default on as they 'Dispite repeated efforts to contact me about the arrears on my account (their charges), with a view to reaching a satisfactory payment arrangement, your account remains in arrears. I phoned them and explained that on either the 6/7th Nov i spoke to one of their 'representatives' and said i would pay £75.00 a week, and they agreed to this. to date i have paid on the 11th, 18th, 27th, and another due this Sat, the girl was insistant that even though i had been paying the 7 days on the default still stands. I did mention the banking code Sec 13.6 while an account is in dispute ect, and the fact an arrangement is in place, i told her it stinks of victimisation as i am engaged in legel action with them. She even agreed that in the last three weeks i had spoken to Citi 'reps', and she also said that today Citi were taking a stronger line against account holders who had frallen into arrears with their account and on that note Citi had issued 16,000, yes, thats 16,000 notice of default today.

Happy days

 

AL:eek: