I have been following a case on another site relating to citi as I am myself pursuing the same.

Today they report that following their court papers being submitted Citi have made an application that the hearing be transferred to Salford Court in Manchester this being their headquarter base.

They base their request on these issues.

1.That they are being inunidated by lbas from all over the country and in the court notes it says that defendants can apply to have the hearing in their locality.They are saying it would be reasonable to be able to defend all the cases in this location.

The claimant clearly does not want to give them this option and is disputing on the grounds that He is an individual and they are a big institution and therefore quite able financially and otherwise to commit the resources needed to defend their position.

yep thats right MARTIN3030.

Here is my latest letter- let me know what you think?

The Court Manager

Northampton County Court

21-27 St Katherines Street

Northampton

NN1 2LH

Dear Sirs

Re: Claim Number: XXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX 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.

Yours faithfully

XXXXXXXXXX

I`ll be contacting the court on Friday to ensure they have received the letter-- if not I`ll be submitting a copy by Special Delivery!!

Keep a watch on this thread for more developments!!

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/12913-rich2568-citicards-interesting-development.html

Wow hard hitting and right to the point.

I am not qualified enough to give an opinion from a legal standpoint I think you should get the opinion of one of the mods.

Is there anything in there that shouldnt be there ?

Anything they could claim is sub- justice or anything that you will be/or could be a possibility of being asked to provide as evidence by way of documented proof of what you are claiming to have happened in their previous claims ?

just a thought.

Very good though

If I got a letter like this I would need a stiff whisky lol

Hi martin

Take a look at my latest input to my thread which is their defence. This arrived on my doormat today-- reading it, they are struggling to say the least!!

"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! "

What a load of b*******

Who the bloody hell drafted this one ?

After reading the first couple of paragraphs I got completely lost.

Basically they are saying that you should be suing the DCA?

Talk about passing the buck?

Theres several issues here and need addressing individually to get the jist of things.

I am not even going to try cause I simply dont know.....this ones out of my depth.

One thing is for sure...........they are denying everything and looking for a way out that will bail them out for all claims against them that will obviously add up as a minus against their figures.

I am interested to hear the views of our Mods on this one.

Talk of claimants bailing out will have to be pacified with some good info that will shoot this down.

We are not just talking city either..........We know they are all watching eachother to try and find a breakthru to end their refunds.