Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Citi's Threat


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6352 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone. . .

 

Received a reply from Citi after sending a LBA to them. They basically have refunded me the difference between what they charged me and the OTF stated “fair charge” of £12.

 

They have also added a thinly veiled threat that should I proceed with the court action they will ask for it to be transfer to their home court which is Salford.

Saying “ The legal presumption id that justice should be local to the defendant as the defendant is deemed innocent until proven guilty and ought not be disadvantaged in defending itself.”

 

As the 14 days for the LBA were up I submitted a claim in Edinburgh Sheriff Court a day before I received this letter

 

Can anyone help out how I respond to this? Specially making sure that the claim is not transferred to Salford!

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Hondamad

__________________

EGG CC Default Removal: Have reported Egg to Trading Standards, Summery Claim - 2nd Hearing Date 09/10/07. Click here to read posts

Monument CC: received statements, now need to send letters. . . !

BoS Current Account: Settled

Citi Cards: Hhmm seems like I have sued the wrong “entity”. Aaaaahhhhh . . .. oh well back to court I go, and they have settled in full!!!

 

:-D:p:D

This is just advice from me. If you are not sure please seek legal advice. However if what I have said has been helpful, than please add to my reputation by clicking on the scales :D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few threads on this but basically as you are an individual and they are a company then it will br heard in your local court not in Salford - Rich v citicards interesting development - is one thread worth a read I think

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice everyone.

I have looked through some of the other Citi threads and got a few copies of letters from people. Have now put together a response and will be sending the letter this afternoon.

hondamad

__________________

EGG CC Default Removal: Have reported Egg to Trading Standards, Summery Claim - 2nd Hearing Date 09/10/07. Click here to read posts

Monument CC: received statements, now need to send letters. . . !

BoS Current Account: Settled

Citi Cards: Hhmm seems like I have sued the wrong “entity”. Aaaaahhhhh . . .. oh well back to court I go, and they have settled in full!!!

 

:-D:p:D

This is just advice from me. If you are not sure please seek legal advice. However if what I have said has been helpful, than please add to my reputation by clicking on the scales :D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought we would see the "Refund the difference" response and here it is.... Does anyone know if this is lawful. My view would be unless they have adopted it as thier practice now they cannot reasonably expect to apply backdated lawful charges? and I would still want them to JUSTIFY thier charging regime.

*******************************************

HBOS - Data Protection Sent 26/06/06, Statements Rec'd 17/07/06. 1st Request Sent 19/07/06, £70 offer rec'd 03/08/06 PAH!, LBA sent 04/08/06, PREPARING SMALL CLAIM FORM NOW.

*******************************************

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought we would see the "Refund the difference" response and here it is.... Does anyone know if this is lawful. My view would be unless they have adopted it as thier practice now they cannot reasonably expect to apply backdated lawful charges? and I would still want them to JUSTIFY thier charging regime.

 

The whole point is we are asking them to reveal their true costs as anything above the true cost is unlawful - they haven't and repeatedley will not so therefore in the absence of true evidence we must conclude the whole charge is unlawful - - the OFT never said that £12 was lawful or fair just the point that they may intervene,

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok received a reply from Citi . . .

 

Would love peoples thoughts on how to reply !!!

 

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

Thank you for your . . . Given the fact that you have already issued proceedings I shall confine my comments to the following points:

 

1. Your account was operated for a mere two years yet in that time, through no fault of my client, you amassed 29 default charges (I know my bad, I plead stupidity being a student at that time) The OTF report did not find that default fees per se were wrong merely the level. Accordingly my client introduced a lower level and offered refunds which is the fairest means of dealing with the situation. However, according to your analysis, my client should have simply allowed you to run your account in any way you saw fit without incurring any costs whatsoever. That is the logic of your demand for the return of all charges. I am sure that you will agree that it is not a sustainable business proposition.

2. As you will appreciate the actual cost of breaches to my client is a commercial secret which other institutions who are competitors would like to know. In the event that we attend court, we shall disclose it there and ask the court to rule against wider disclosure. I apologise for this but I can assure that the cost to my client is in excess of the OTF limit of £12. (yeah right!!!)

3. The court has discretion where to remit a case. I shall seek to persuade the court to exercise it in my client’s favour.

4. My client conducted itself within the laws at all times and no-one has made any suggestion to the contrary. The OTF made an interpretation that did not, contrary to your claim, have force of law. I suggest you reread the report and you will find it acknowledged by the OTF itself that it would have to seek a court decision on its interpretation.

5. I disagree with your assertion regarding my analysis, it is not a misrepresentative. I would be grateful for your analysis on this.

6. Blah blah solicitor for 10 years. I believe I have some degree of understanding of the law and disagree with your view as I am sure that OTF would.

7. More blah blah report my client to OTF, I shall of course defend it on the basis set above.

8. Please be assured that my client will defend any action you bring as it has continued to do in England. (I live in Scotland!)

 

Yours,

 

Brian Smith

__________________

EGG CC Default Removal: Have reported Egg to Trading Standards, Summery Claim - 2nd Hearing Date 09/10/07. Click here to read posts

Monument CC: received statements, now need to send letters. . . !

BoS Current Account: Settled

Citi Cards: Hhmm seems like I have sued the wrong “entity”. Aaaaahhhhh . . .. oh well back to court I go, and they have settled in full!!!

 

:-D:p:D

This is just advice from me. If you are not sure please seek legal advice. However if what I have said has been helpful, than please add to my reputation by clicking on the scales :D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok received a reply from Citi . . .

 

Would love peoples thoughts on how to reply !!!

 

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

Thank you for your . . . Given the fact that you have already issued proceedings I shall confine my comments to the following points:

 

1.Your account was operated for a mere two years yet in that time, through no fault of my client, you amassed 29 default charges (I know my bad, I plead stupidity being a student at that time) The OTF report did not find that default fees per se were wrong merely the level. Accordingly my client introduced a lower level and offered refunds which is the fairest means of dealing with the situation. However, according to your analysis, my client should have simply allowed you to run your account in any way you saw fit without incurring any costs whatsoever. That is the logic of your demand for the return of all charges. I am sure that you will agree that it is not a sustainable business proposition.

2.As you will appreciate the actual cost of breaches to my client is a commercial secret which other institutions who are competitors would like to know. In the event that we attend court, we shall disclose it there and ask the court to rule against wider disclosure. I apologise for this but I can assure that the cost to my client is in excess of the OTF limit of £12. (yeah right!!!)

3.The court has discretion where to remit a case. I shall seek to persuade the court to exercise it in my client’s favour.

4.My client conducted itself within the laws at all times and no-one has made any suggestion to the contrary. The OTF made an interpretation that did not, contrary to your claim, have force of law. I suggest you reread the report and you will find it acknowledged by the OTF itself that it would have to seek a court decision on its interpretation.

5.I disagree with your assertion regarding my analysis, it is not a misrepresentative. I would be grateful for your analysis on this.

6.Blah blah solicitor for 10 years. I believe I have some degree of understanding of the law and disagree with your view as I am sure that OTF would.

7.More blah blah report my client to OTF, I shall of course defend it on the basis set above.

8.Please be assured that my client will defend any action you bring as it has continued to do in England. (I live in Scotland!)

 

Yours,

 

Brian Smith

 

POINT 1-IRRELEVANT-unless the new level of charges reflects actual costs incurred by citi, it is unlawful.The OFT did not say £12 was lawful.

 

POINT 2-NONSENSE,AND LAUGHABLE

 

POINT- 3-OF COURSE-Stating the obvious

 

POINT 4 -WAFFLE-there have been lots of legal precedents for penalty charges being unlawful.

 

POINT 5 -just reiterate what he has said and the arguments against

 

POINT 6-BIGHEAD

 

POINT 7-TIME WILL OF COURSE TELL THE STORY!!

 

POINT 8-AS POINT 7!!

 

all in all,quite a load of nonsense he talks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pointless rhetoric.

 

I would acknowledge receipt of the letter but limit your reply to just that, no sense in engaging them in correspondence, let the fact that you have issued a claim do the talking.

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the fun of it, I wonder what the actual cost is... given that it is a computerised system its time to respond to the action must be measured in fractions of a nano second and given the economies of scale employed at the bank the cost of paper printing and automated mailing are likely to be miniscule... Perhaps we can calculate an estimate for the bank just to show our willingness to cover thier costs..... what would you say 5p? seems a fair offer to me

*******************************************

HBOS - Data Protection Sent 26/06/06, Statements Rec'd 17/07/06. 1st Request Sent 19/07/06, £70 offer rec'd 03/08/06 PAH!, LBA sent 04/08/06, PREPARING SMALL CLAIM FORM NOW.

*******************************************

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair play gizmo. isn't the internet a wonderful thing.

 

When I get my letter from Brian I'll post so we can compare notes

 

Mike

If I've helped tip my scales

 

Blair Oliver & Scott, £2500 written off December 2006 Default removed January 2007:D

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/56001-mike220359-blair-oliver-scott.html

 

Monument, didn't sign the agreement

:D

 

Lloyds TSB didn't sign the agreement!

:D

 

Citicards, didn't sign the agreement

:D

 

RBS tut, tut!

:rolleyes:

 

Morgan Stanley, oh dear

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought we would see the "Refund the difference" response and here it is.... Does anyone know if this is lawful. My view would be unless they have adopted it as thier practice now they cannot reasonably expect to apply backdated lawful charges? and I would still want them to JUSTIFY thier charging regime.

 

I've only had one claim where they've offered to refund the difference, which I accepted because I couldn't be bothered with the hassle on that one. However, if I'd have bothered to carry on with it, I would've gone on on two arguments:

i) Is £12 their actual cost of the breach of contract? Doubtful - they're just using the OFT's £12 marker as the maximum. Of course, the OFT didn't say that £12 was lawful & fair, just that that's the limit point that they'd get involved at.

ii) My (personal) view is that when a default charge is unlawfully applied, the whole of that charge is unlawful, not just a proportion of it...

 

Pointless rhetoric.

 

I would acknowledge receipt of the letter but limit your reply to just that, no sense in engaging them in correspondence, let the fact that you have issued a claim do the talking.

 

Absolutely seconded 100%

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that offering to 'only' charge you £12 per instance shows their true colours - £12 was a maximum level. Why not offer to 'only' charge you £6, £8, or £10? - because it's all about profit, so the maximum it is.

Furthermore ANY amount charged has to relate to the liquidated losses to the company - they would still have to justify a £12 charge as i think you may have mentioned. Just because a charge is set at £12 or under does not make it legally enforcable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

Thank you for your . . . Given the fact that you have already issued proceedings I shall confine my comments to the following points:

 

1.Your account was operated for a mere two years yet in that time, through no fault of my client, you amassed 29 default charges (I know my bad, I plead stupidity being a student at that time) The OTF report did not find that default fees per se were wrong merely the level. Accordingly my client introduced a lower level and offered refunds (REALLY? - IF THIS IS THE CASE, WHY HAVE THEY NOT OFFERED THESE REFUNDS TO EVERYONE, RATHER THAN JUST THOSE KICKING UP A STINK? - MY WIFE HAS HAD NO SUCH OFFER, JUST A FOB OFF AND HER CLAIM WAS FOR FAR LESS THAN MINE) which is the fairest (FAIR? FAIR! - HOW DOES THIS GUY HAVE THE NERVE?!!) means of dealing with the situation. However, according to your analysis, my client should have simply allowed you to run your account in any way you saw fit without incurring any costs whatsoever. That is the logic of your demand for the return of all charges. (- NOPE, JUST CHARGE WHAT IT COSTS RATHER THAN TRYING TO [problem] MORE PROFIT FROM THOSE THAT CAN LEAST AFFORD IT)I am sure that you will agree that it is not a sustainable business proposition.

2.As you will appreciate the actual cost of breaches to my client is a commercial secret which other institutions who are competitors would like to know. In the event that we attend court, we shall disclose it there and ask the court to rule against wider disclosure. I apologise for this but I can assure that the cost to my client is in excess of the OTF limit of £12. (yeah right!!!)

3.The court has discretion where to remit a case. I shall seek to persuade the court to exercise it in my client’s favour(FAT CHANCE BUSTER)

4.My client conducted itself within the laws at all times and no-one has made any suggestion to the contrary. The OTF made an interpretation that did not, contrary to your claim, have force of law. I suggest you reread the report and you will find it acknowledged by the OTF itself that it would have to seek a court decision on its interpretation.

5.I disagree with your assertion regarding my analysis, it is not a misrepresentative. I would be grateful for your analysis on this.

6.Blah blah solicitor for 10 years(HOW NICE FOR YOU). I believe I have some degree of understanding of the law and disagree with your view as I am sure that OTF would.(IF THAT WERE THE CASE IM SURE A BANK/CC COMPANY WOULD HAVE GONE TO COURT BY NOW AND WON, SO ?)

7.More blah blah report my client to OTF, I shall of course defend it on the basis set above(BRING IT ON!!)

8.Please be assured that my client will defend any action you bring as it has continued to do in England(AND LOST/GIVEN UP). (I live in Scotland!)

 

Yours,

 

Brian Smith

 

 

IN SUMMARY - WHAT PLANET IS THIS GUY LIVING ON?

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife's just phoned Brian Smith has sent a cheque for £65 and a letter will post on this thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/12768-citifinancial.html

 

when I've got time, but from what she's read over the 'phone it seems very similar to the one above including the threat to have the case switched to Salford.

 

Mike

If I've helped tip my scales

 

Blair Oliver & Scott, £2500 written off December 2006 Default removed January 2007:D

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/56001-mike220359-blair-oliver-scott.html

 

Monument, didn't sign the agreement

:D

 

Lloyds TSB didn't sign the agreement!

:D

 

Citicards, didn't sign the agreement

:D

 

RBS tut, tut!

:rolleyes:

 

Morgan Stanley, oh dear

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, Have decided I am going to reply by just acknowledging the receipt of letter from Brian Smith and say that I look forward to meeting him in court nothing else.

 

Have received the court papers, the return date is 3/10/06 and the calling date is 10/10/06.

__________________

EGG CC Default Removal: Have reported Egg to Trading Standards, Summery Claim - 2nd Hearing Date 09/10/07. Click here to read posts

Monument CC: received statements, now need to send letters. . . !

BoS Current Account: Settled

Citi Cards: Hhmm seems like I have sued the wrong “entity”. Aaaaahhhhh . . .. oh well back to court I go, and they have settled in full!!!

 

:-D:p:D

This is just advice from me. If you are not sure please seek legal advice. However if what I have said has been helpful, than please add to my reputation by clicking on the scales :D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I know I said I am going to just acknowledge receipt of the letter. However I could not but help pointing out one thing to Mr Smith . . . me bad!

 

 

Thank you for letter dated 16th August 2006.

 

I understand your argument, having no interest in arguing the validity of my claim with you and not wishing to waste any more time in this pointless to-ing and fro-ing, I will simply let the judge decide when we meet in court who is correct.

 

There was one point that I cannot help but commenting on. I have recently found out the charges levied by you client in Germany:-

 

Cost for Customer at fault going overlimit = 4,– EUR

 

Costs of action for Payments in arrears

1. Service letter = 3,– EUR

2. Service letter = 3,– EUR

3. Service letter = 3,– EUR

plus postage = 0,90 EUR

Non payment/Late payment of Monthly Invoice amount = 10,- EUR

 

If you dispute the authenticity of this please feel free to go to . . .

http://www.citibank.de/downloads/doc/preisubersicht.pdf?miSID=3FDEE4F7-E7A6-4AC7-BCF3-7AFAAD326886

 

With this in mind how can your client claim to justify charging £20-25 for fees in the UK? Even the new fee of £12 is many times higher that what is charged in Germany.

I really look forward to the court date so that I can see your argument for this.

 

Unless your client in prepared to pay back in full the charges levied against me as stated in my claim, I have no need for further communication from yourself and look forward to meeting you in court.

Yours sincerely,

  • Haha 1

__________________

EGG CC Default Removal: Have reported Egg to Trading Standards, Summery Claim - 2nd Hearing Date 09/10/07. Click here to read posts

Monument CC: received statements, now need to send letters. . . !

BoS Current Account: Settled

Citi Cards: Hhmm seems like I have sued the wrong “entity”. Aaaaahhhhh . . .. oh well back to court I go, and they have settled in full!!!

 

:-D:p:D

This is just advice from me. If you are not sure please seek legal advice. However if what I have said has been helpful, than please add to my reputation by clicking on the scales :D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hondamad21,

 

A great find ,might use it myself in my LBA or after.

 

Charlie

Nationwide Total settlement for first claim £810.92 (Charges £570.00) total charges £2579.00 (Another 4 claims to make)

 

Tesco personal Finance -NO penalty charges see post end thread

Egg DPA complaint sent to ICO see thread

Egg also trying to get defaults removed

Abbey National/MBNA credit Card - Eventually settled in FULL:)

 

Citibank Preliminary sent 19/08/06

MBNA DPA sent 30/07/06

Mrs CharlieHo v Providian DPA sent 30/07/06

 

MORE TO FOLLOW

 

Advice & opinions of CharlieHo are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All credit for the German charges from Citi goes to Rbphot. He is the one who did the investigation.

 

Hondamad

__________________

EGG CC Default Removal: Have reported Egg to Trading Standards, Summery Claim - 2nd Hearing Date 09/10/07. Click here to read posts

Monument CC: received statements, now need to send letters. . . !

BoS Current Account: Settled

Citi Cards: Hhmm seems like I have sued the wrong “entity”. Aaaaahhhhh . . .. oh well back to court I go, and they have settled in full!!!

 

:-D:p:D

This is just advice from me. If you are not sure please seek legal advice. However if what I have said has been helpful, than please add to my reputation by clicking on the scales :D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I couldnt possibly comment!

 

:roll:

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...