My court case against Citicards has been defended by their solicitor with an `Acknowledgment Of Service`- allowing them 28 days to produce a defence.

They also wrote to the court with the following:-

"I would be grateful if the court could consider remitting this to the Salford County Court, the Defendants home court. From the CPR rules, notes on allocation at 26.2.1, it is clear that justice ought be local to the defendant. In my respectful submission, the presumption of the Defendants innocence and the fact that my client, which has a national customer base, is currently receiving dozens of such claims and LBA`s from around the country suggests there are goog grounds for the court to consider transferring the case. This would relieve the unfair burden placed on Defendants such as my client which is having to defend itself in small claims hearings countrywide with no prospect of recovering its costs"

This is very interesting!-- any ideas Bookworm?

ooooh interesting... and just how many times have they actually defended themselves in court I wonder?

From county court form CJR002

"Note: If the claim is disputed and the defendant is an INDIVIDUAL, the claim may be transferred to the defendants local court"

Enough said surely

Sounds to me like they are trying to sound all reasonable and caring, whereas in truth it's not their call anyway!

Sorry my mistake was quoting from form N205A Notice of Issue

seems like they are trying to either scare you off, or make an example

The fact that CitiCards (a trading name of CitiFinancial Europe plc., ultimately owned by Citigroup Inc., New York U.S.A.) have indicated that they are receiving "dozens of such claims and LBA's from around the country" suggests, by virtue of their application here, that they will be making the same request to every Court across the Country (so who's picking on who here?). To allow it on this occassion would set a precedent which may adversely affect the claims of other individuals, countrywide, who are attempting to claim against what is a corporate entity who, I believe, have more than enough resources already in place to defend such claims, something which, individuals generally do not.

As to the issue of costs, it is up to the individual Court to decide costs on a claim per claim basis and this comment assumes that all of the claims are to be heard in Small Claims Courts when this may not be the case, their point here, therefore, is unsubstantiated. Can they provide evidence of other current claims to susbstantiate their comments?

On the other hand, would it be easier to agree to this? They won't be expecting you to agree to their application without some fight. Personally, I think it is just another stalling tactic.

Ooh, don't get me going

Doesn't it make your heart bleed?

maybe someone shoud remind them that it has all been brought about by their own unlawful penalty charges and that they deserve everything they get.

Anyway, as they have written to the judge, you had better lodge your own objection as quickly as you can.

Send a letter to the judge

Dear Sir/Madam - quote the case number and refer to the defendants letter asking for the case to be transferred to their local court.

say that you wish to object to their request on the following the grounds:

Firstly, they are a business and you are a private individual with limited finds and who is suing in person.

As the defendant's letter correctly says, they have a national customer base. this is clearly something which they wish to have and the profit from it. They cannot now turn round and say that having a national customer base is a liability and that they do not wish to carry the responsibility for it.

The defendant says that they are receiving many other similar claims from around the country. However, you fail to see that this is relavant to your claim against the defendant. Why you should in some way be penalised for bringing your own claim. If there are are so many otheres claiming against the, maybe it is because the defendants really are in the wrong.

The defendants says that it is having to bear the burden of having to defend cases around the country - however you know for a fact that the defendant has not gone on to defend any single one of the claims brought against it, preferring to test claimants all the way to the stage of an allocation questionnaire and then to settle out of court with those claimants who have not been frightened off by the defendants intimidatory tactics.

The defendant has not defended a single case.

In fact, the defendant is not interested in litigating at all but merely uses the justice system as a means to frighten legitimate claimants and this is an abuse.

By asking the court to transfer the case to the defendant's home court, the defendant it merely attempting to draw the justice system even more deeply into it's practice of intimidating its legitimate claimants by increasing the hurdles which the claimant must jump before the inevitable full settlement is offered.

An excellent reply by Bankfodder.

I always thought that the small claims court was set up for people like us with limited funds to gain access to the law. The clue must be in the rate of fees depending on the amount claimed and the ability to file in your local court. It shows again a blatant abuse of the court system; the cost of which ultimately comes out of the tax payers pocket.

It really is about time this government or any regulatory body started exposing these parasites for what they really are: loan sharks that prey on the people that can least afford to pay these charges.

Anyway rant over LBA off to Citi today I only had 4 phone calls tonight, I have got caller ID and they keep changing the number to try and catch me out.

They obviously think their customers are as stupid as their legal department.

cheers

andyace

( you can have my 5% no prob)

He writes a cracking letter, doesn't he. :D

He writes a cracking letter, doesn't he. :D

Stonking letter BankFodder , throw that at them Rich2568, I would love to be a fly on the wall when that hits home

Shanks

Super reply bankfodder-- i`m onto that letter straightaway!!

He writes a cracking letter, doesn't he.

he certainly does!! way to go BF!

awaits further developments on this thread

Hi Guys

Here`s my letter :-

The Court Manager

Northampton County Court

21-27 St Katherines Street

Northampton

NN1 2LH

Dear Sirs

Re: Claim Number: XXXXXXX

XXXXXXXX V Citifinancial Europe plc

I write to you referring to a letter sent to you by the Defendant's solicitor Mr Brian Smith dated 22 June 2006.

In this letter he has asked the court to consider transferring the above case to the Salford County Court. I wholly object to this request and outline my reasons for doing so below.

Firstly the Defendant is a large multinational corporate business with large sums of capital, however I am a private individual with limited funds who is suing in person. As the defendant letter correctly states, they have a national customer base, which is something they wish to have and also profit from. They cannot now turn round and say that having a national customer base is indeed a liability and they do not wish to carry the responsibility for it.

The defendant states they are receiving dozens of claims and LBA`s from all over the country, however I do not see that this is relevant to my claim. Why should I be penalised for bringing my own claim. If there are dozens of other claims against the defendant then maybe they are in the wrong in the first place and surely they would save the court and the justice system a lot of time by just accepting this.

The defendant states that they are having to deal with the burden of having to defend cases all over the country ,however based on historic cases ,the defendant actually has not gone on to defend themselves in court in person once. Instead they test the claimant all the way to the stage of an allocation questionnaire. They then hope the claimants can be scared off by their intimidatory tactics and drop their case against them.

The defendant actually is not interested in litigating at all- they are just using the court and the justice system as a means to frighten legitimate claimants and this is an abuse.

By asking the court to transfer the case to the defendant's home court, the defendant is merely attempting to draw the justice system even more deeply into it's practice of intimidating it's legitimate claimants by increasing the hurdles which the claimant must jump before the inevitable full settlement is offered.

I am optimistic the court will take my views in board. To allow this request by the defendant on this occasion would set a precedent which may adversely affect the claims of other individuals countrywide, who are attempting to claim against, what I believe to be a corporate entity, Based on their market value they have more than enough resources already in place to defend themselves in court anywhere in the country, something not all private individuals have not.

Yours sincerely

XXXXXXXXX

I`ll be ringing the court on Friday to see if they have received this letter-- if not they`ll be getting one by Special Delivery!!

such as my client which is having to defend itself in small claims hearings countrywide with no prospect of recovering its costs"

Erm, won't the judge take one look at that and laugh his wig off?

Very good letter.

Two minor alterations......

I am optimistic the court will take my views in board. To allow this request by the defendant on this occasion would set a precedent which may adversely affect the claims of other individuals countrywide, who are attempting to claim against, what I believe to be a corporate entity, Based on their market value they have more than enough resources already in place to defend themselves in court anywhere in the country, something not all private individuals have not.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

...in place to defend themselves in court anywhere in the country, something not all private individuals have. not. (omit the last "not")

Change "Yours sincerely" to "Yours faithfully,"

Good luck.

Hi as per my reply on my own site

if i were a Judge then sorry to say this but your letter would have annoyed me,

I have amended it for you; please remember that you must remove you emotions and personal beliefs from legal letters.

If you believe something but have no proof use the word alleges furthermore you always invite a judge to do something not tell him

Anyway i hope this helps and please check the spelling as I suffer form dyslexia

The Court Manager

Northampton County Court

21-27 St Katherines Street

Northampton

NN1 2LH

Dear Sirs

Re: Claim Number: XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX V Citifinancial Europe plc

I write to you referring to a letter sent to you by the Defendant's solicitor Mr Brian Smith dated 22 June 2006.

In this letter he has asked the court to consider transferring the above case to the Salford County Court. I wholly object to this request and outline my reasons for doing so below.

Firstly the Defendant is a large multinational corporate business with large sums of capital, however I am a private individual with limited funds who is suing in person. As the defendant letter correctly states, they have a national customer base, which is something they wish to have and also profit from. They cannot now turn round and say that having a national customer base is indeed a liability and they do not wish to carry the responsibility for it.

The defendant states they are receiving dozens of claims and LBA`s from all over the country, however I do not see that this is relevant to my claim. Why should I be penalised for bringing my own claim. If there are dozens of other claims against the defendant then maybe they are in the wrong in the first place and surely they would save the court and the justice system a lot of time by just accepting this.

The defendant states that they are having to deal with the burden of having to defend cases all over the country ,however based on historic cases ,the defendant actually has not gone on to defend themselves in court in person once. Instead they test the claimant all the way to the stage of an allocation questionnaire. They then hope the claimants can be scared off by their intimidatory tactics and drop their case against them.

The defendant actually is not interested in litigating at all- they are just using the court and the justice system as a means to frighten legitimate claimants and this is an abuse.

By asking the court to transfer the case to the defendant's home court, the defendant is merely attempting to draw the justice system even more deeply into it's practice of intimidating it's legitimate claimants by increasing the hurdles which the claimant must jump before the inevitable full settlement is offered.

I am optimistic the court will take my views in board. To allow this request by the defendant on this occasion would set a precedent which may adversely affect the claims of other individuals countrywide, who are attempting to claim against, what I believe to be a corporate entity, Based on their market value they have more than enough resources already in place to defend themselves in court anywhere in the country, something not all private individuals have not.

Yours sincerely

Mr XXXXXXXXXXXX

Erm, won't the judge take one look at that and laugh his wig off?

Well, we did, didn't we?

Of course he will, then he will admire rich's letter and respond to the silly sols in such a way that rich can look forward to an early cheque!!

My next target is Citicards. Can't wait!!

Elsinore

Hi Again Guys

Received the defence from Brian Smith solicitors today. Here are some snippets.

Basically it goes on to state that because the debt was charged off and assigned to Hillesden Securities ,then Citicards are not liable for the charges-- well who charged them then?

Also, because the balance at the time was 3,458.78 and they assigned it for £484.23 -YES THAT MUCH!!-- this broughtabout a loss of £2974.55 to Citicards. So they are saying that "this represented a loss to the defendant of £2974.55, a figure substantially in excess of the default fees actually levied on this account".

They go on to say " The claimant is claiming a sum equivalent to that which he claims was debited to his account over the terms of the Credit Agreement in over limit charges and late payment fees. This claim is based on the recent OFT statement on the unfairness of such default fees. It is the defendant defence that the claimant has sued the defendant in error and has no case against the defendant."

"The defendant avers that it does not owe the Claimant the monies claimed whether on the basis of the case stated or at all because the claimant never paid the monies, equivalent to the default fees levied on his account, to the defendant. The defendant relies upon the fact that the assigned amount was in excess of the default fees charged to the account"

"In the event that the court were to find in the Claimant`s favour, the Defendant will have sustained double the losses represented by the Claimant`s claim due to the fact it assigned the account debt at a loss and is then required to pay to the Claimant monies which the Claimant never actually paid to it"

" The Defendant avers that the Claimant`s claim is restitutionary in nature but there can be no claim for reimbursement because the Defendant never received the sum claimed from the claimant"

"The defendant will also aver that had it not assigned the debt to Hillesden, it would have had a defence of set-off against the Claimant in respect of these monies. In the event, the opportunity to raise such a defence has been denied the Defendant by the claimant`s failure to honour the terms of the credit agreement which meant the Defendant had to assign the Claimant`s account at a loss in order to recoup any of its losses"

"Each of the Claimant`s Particulars of Claim are denied and each and every allegation within these Particulars of Claim is specifically denied"

So then- this debt was paid to Hillesden at a cost of £2425.00 from a judgment of £3703.00 (even though it was sold for just £484.23!!)-- and they clearly stated that this amount was accepted in full and final settlement.

I assume that my £2425.00 would include the total debt so this would include any hideous penalty charges applied to the account. Also throughout the life of the account I paid a total of £2424.01-- yet they are stating I have never actually paid them the monies!!??!!

Anyway guys, have a look and tell me what you think-- because at this stage a lot of claimant`s will bale out!

This is a similar argument to the one used by MBNA in a letter I received, before I had even sent them a LBA http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/1895-mbna-credit-card.html

What they neglect to mention, however, is that if you maintain payments to the DCA, as I have done, then ultimately you WILL have paid their charges.

The fact that they will not benefit from that money is not your problem.

They made the commercial decision to sell your debt on, presumably because they had made enough money out of your account to make any further action unjustifiable.You can be certain that, taken overall, they will not have made a loss, as, I am sure any judge would reason.

Bankfodder would be able to present a much more cogent argument than I, but, in my case, MBNA settled in full immediately after filing a defence, and regardless of their worthless argument.

Good luck,

Come on guys- where are you all?

Lets have some feedback- then we can get even more motivated to beat the banks!!

Yeah, hang on rich, I for one am still reading it. There's a lot to take in, much of it complete bollocks!

OK, so let me get this straight.

Because THEY CHOSE to sell the debt on, knowingly at a loss, they say that you don't have a case against them?!

They're also saying you're doing this to get back at them... "restitutionary"

OK - the one that gets me really laughing is where they say they had to sell the debt at a loss to recoup their losses?!! LMFAO!!!

The guy who write this defence is sadly deranged... this will never go to court.

P.S. Rich - can you keep your posts about this to a single thread?! I'm WELL confused about which one you're using as your main one...

Do you know I totally agree!!

These solicitors are good at talking Bollocks-- I suppose I would if I was potentially going to earn £35 an hour to defend something indefenceable!!