Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
    • The music streaming service reports record profits of over €1bn (£860m) after laying off 1500 staff.View the full article
    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx  
    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention of peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now - post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!   Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.   Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.   A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
  • 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
      • 161 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

kano24 v Citicards


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6204 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

Hi,

 

I had a credit card with 'the associates' that I closed a couple of years ago. I am trying to find out contact details so that I can write to them about charges.

 

The problem is, I cant find out information about them anywhere. Does anybody know if they have been bought out or merged with another company?

 

Thanks

Lloyds TSB - £2808 Settled in full 15/11/06

HSBC - Settled £810.56 in full 11/11/06

BarclayCard - Data Protection Act sent 05/09/06

Failed to privide information - Complaint issued to the Information Commissioners Office 12/10/06

NatWest - £54 settled in full 15/11/06

Capital One - Prelim Letter sent 16/10/06

LBA sent 30/10/06

CitiCards - Prelim Letter sent 29/09/06

LBA sent 10/10/06

Claim issued 04/12/06

Acknowledged 07/12/06

StyleCard - Cheque for £130.00 recieved 20/10/06 - FULL SETLLEMENT!

RFS - Settled in full £494 08/1/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I had an Associates card too, it was, if I remember correctly, sold on to Citibank (Citicards).

 

Hope that helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I have sent my preliminary letter to CITICARDS as I too had an ASSOCIATES card. Received a reply about the £10 fee so don't make my mistake and pay the fee straight away to avoid delays.

 

Their address is

 

RICHARD COOKE

DATA PROTECTION OFFICER

CITI CARDS

CITIFINANCIAL EUROPE PLC.

1 EXCHANGE QUAY

SALFORD

MANCHESTER

M5 3EA

 

Hope this helps

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hi All,

 

I have been going backwards and forwards with CitiBank over the past month or so after asking for my charges back, and have just recieved their final response. I must say that what they said did stop me in my tracks a bit but after speaking with Bankfodder, I am going ahead and issuing a claim tomorrow.

 

Bankfodder has asked me to post what they have said just incase anybody else has recieved the same reply.

 

 

"Following a review of your situation, I have been made aware that you are currently fulfilling an IVA for your overall indebtedness. In order for you to have been accepted onto an IVA your creditors, including ourselves, must have accepted short settlement of the debt you owed on your accounts. For this reason we will not honour your request for a refund of default fees, which may have been levied, as this will mean reversing the IVA agreement and you benefiting twice"

 

 

Any thoughts on the argument that I have recieved from CitiBank would be much appreciated before I submit the claim.

Lloyds TSB - £2808 Settled in full 15/11/06

HSBC - Settled £810.56 in full 11/11/06

BarclayCard - Data Protection Act sent 05/09/06

Failed to privide information - Complaint issued to the Information Commissioners Office 12/10/06

NatWest - £54 settled in full 15/11/06

Capital One - Prelim Letter sent 16/10/06

LBA sent 30/10/06

CitiCards - Prelim Letter sent 29/09/06

LBA sent 10/10/06

Claim issued 04/12/06

Acknowledged 07/12/06

StyleCard - Cheque for £130.00 recieved 20/10/06 - FULL SETLLEMENT!

RFS - Settled in full £494 08/1/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Citi are just unbeleivable - as you will be aware only 75% of creditors have to agree to proposal - the rest have no choice

Have a look here for info on claiming when in an IVA

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/26925-business-account-over-19-a.html

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Claim issued 04/12/06. Let the battle commence! :)

Lloyds TSB - £2808 Settled in full 15/11/06

HSBC - Settled £810.56 in full 11/11/06

BarclayCard - Data Protection Act sent 05/09/06

Failed to privide information - Complaint issued to the Information Commissioners Office 12/10/06

NatWest - £54 settled in full 15/11/06

Capital One - Prelim Letter sent 16/10/06

LBA sent 30/10/06

CitiCards - Prelim Letter sent 29/09/06

LBA sent 10/10/06

Claim issued 04/12/06

Acknowledged 07/12/06

StyleCard - Cheque for £130.00 recieved 20/10/06 - FULL SETLLEMENT!

RFS - Settled in full £494 08/1/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have already explained to you, there are two aspects to this and to dealing with Citi's letter.

Firstly, as their charges are unlawful in that they are unenforceable law, it can be said that they have contributed to your indebtedness and in this way they are partially responsible for the problems caused to your other creditors.

When city finally pay you back your charges -- which they will do even if it has to be by force through the courts, there is no doubt that you will have to account to your creditors. Citi are part of the IVA agreement. They will not be able to seize the repayment for themselves. They will be obliged to share it out with the other creditors. Furthermore as the repayment of the money to you will reduce or do away altogether with your debt to them then they may find themselves out of the loop altogether.

If it can at all be shown that it was their unlawful charges which created your problems and therefore created the problems with your other creditors for which they themselves have had to suffer then we do find ourselves with some very interesting questions indeed as to Citi's general liability.

Citi's logic is flawed and their letter really is nonsense. Was it written by city or was it written by a solicitor? If it was written by a solicitor I would have no hesitation in sending it to the court and also to the Law Society and asking them whether they consider that it is a proper letter to be sent out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a letter from Lloyds TSB solicitors today who are very concise and to the point, whereas Citi do seem to come up with alot of invalid points in an effort to defend their client.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you completed your IVA yet?

If not then none of your creditors will actually have received any payment.

In which case your supervisor could simply not pay anything to Citi. If they still owe you money then seek that through the courts. The IVA has nothing to do with your overall claim.

I need to read the rest of your thread though.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Citi's logic is flawed and their letter really is nonsense. Was it written by city or was it written by a solicitor? If it was written by a solicitor I would have no hesitation in sending it to the court and also to the Law Society and asking them whether they consider that it is a proper letter to be sent out.

 

This is what I felt compelled to write to them recently:-

 

Such inconsistencies in your actions indicate that if you are not acting upon sound, professional, legal advice, then you should be. If you are acting upon professional. legal advice, you should perhaps be seeking that advice elsewhere.

 

Elsinore

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay in replying. Have been away from work for the past few days.

 

In answer to your question Bankfodder, the reply was not from a solicitor but from Mark Clibbens in the office of the chief executive. I havent bothored replying to him because this was the third rejection letter I recieved from them. Just issued the court claim. I guess its now a case of waiting and seeing what happens.

 

Thanks for all your advice guys.

Lloyds TSB - £2808 Settled in full 15/11/06

HSBC - Settled £810.56 in full 11/11/06

BarclayCard - Data Protection Act sent 05/09/06

Failed to privide information - Complaint issued to the Information Commissioners Office 12/10/06

NatWest - £54 settled in full 15/11/06

Capital One - Prelim Letter sent 16/10/06

LBA sent 30/10/06

CitiCards - Prelim Letter sent 29/09/06

LBA sent 10/10/06

Claim issued 04/12/06

Acknowledged 07/12/06

StyleCard - Cheque for £130.00 recieved 20/10/06 - FULL SETLLEMENT!

RFS - Settled in full £494 08/1/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looked on MCCOL, Citicards acknowledged 07/12/06. They are not wasting anytime so far!

Lloyds TSB - £2808 Settled in full 15/11/06

HSBC - Settled £810.56 in full 11/11/06

BarclayCard - Data Protection Act sent 05/09/06

Failed to privide information - Complaint issued to the Information Commissioners Office 12/10/06

NatWest - £54 settled in full 15/11/06

Capital One - Prelim Letter sent 16/10/06

LBA sent 30/10/06

CitiCards - Prelim Letter sent 29/09/06

LBA sent 10/10/06

Claim issued 04/12/06

Acknowledged 07/12/06

StyleCard - Cheque for £130.00 recieved 20/10/06 - FULL SETLLEMENT!

RFS - Settled in full £494 08/1/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well, Looks like Citicards are slipping a bit!

 

They acknowleded my claim pretty quick but failed to submit a defence within 28 days, so I requested judgement yesterday and just checked MCOL and that has been issued today! :D:D:D:D

Lloyds TSB - £2808 Settled in full 15/11/06

HSBC - Settled £810.56 in full 11/11/06

BarclayCard - Data Protection Act sent 05/09/06

Failed to privide information - Complaint issued to the Information Commissioners Office 12/10/06

NatWest - £54 settled in full 15/11/06

Capital One - Prelim Letter sent 16/10/06

LBA sent 30/10/06

CitiCards - Prelim Letter sent 29/09/06

LBA sent 10/10/06

Claim issued 04/12/06

Acknowledged 07/12/06

StyleCard - Cheque for £130.00 recieved 20/10/06 - FULL SETLLEMENT!

RFS - Settled in full £494 08/1/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have just spoken to the infamous Brian Smith and asked him when I could expect my money.

 

Said that he would still be putting in a defence. When I asked why he had not done it within the time limit he replied "er, Im not quite sure".

 

Warrant of applied for 11/01/07!

Lloyds TSB - £2808 Settled in full 15/11/06

HSBC - Settled £810.56 in full 11/11/06

BarclayCard - Data Protection Act sent 05/09/06

Failed to privide information - Complaint issued to the Information Commissioners Office 12/10/06

NatWest - £54 settled in full 15/11/06

Capital One - Prelim Letter sent 16/10/06

LBA sent 30/10/06

CitiCards - Prelim Letter sent 29/09/06

LBA sent 10/10/06

Claim issued 04/12/06

Acknowledged 07/12/06

StyleCard - Cheque for £130.00 recieved 20/10/06 - FULL SETLLEMENT!

RFS - Settled in full £494 08/1/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't see the judge accepting the defence late.

 

If they have been unprepared or let it slip through the net thats Citi's fault not yours.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,

 

I applied for the warrant on 11/01/06, and recieved a letter from Brian Smith at Citicards stating that they had 'mislaid' my claim and would be putting in an application for judgement to be set aside.

 

Have just checked the MCOL site and status of my warrant states 'rejected'

 

Looks like MCOL has set aside the judgement, so I will await the paperwork to come through.

 

It makes me furious that a multinational company such as Citicards can get away with abusing the court system this way.:-x

 

Still, It has made me more determined to fight them every step of the way!

Lloyds TSB - £2808 Settled in full 15/11/06

HSBC - Settled £810.56 in full 11/11/06

BarclayCard - Data Protection Act sent 05/09/06

Failed to privide information - Complaint issued to the Information Commissioners Office 12/10/06

NatWest - £54 settled in full 15/11/06

Capital One - Prelim Letter sent 16/10/06

LBA sent 30/10/06

CitiCards - Prelim Letter sent 29/09/06

LBA sent 10/10/06

Claim issued 04/12/06

Acknowledged 07/12/06

StyleCard - Cheque for £130.00 recieved 20/10/06 - FULL SETLLEMENT!

RFS - Settled in full £494 08/1/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe ringing them and bringing it to their attention was not the best move .We do continually advise people not to phone the banks / solicitors .

 

Keep us posted please

When you want to fool the world, tell the truth. :D

Advice & opinions of Janet-M 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

Ok,

 

Recieved a 'Notice of tarnsfer of proceedings to another county court' notice this morning. Reason given was that an application to set aside judgement had been made. Follwing text was written by Brian Smith -:

 

"The claiment is claiming as a debt monies he purports to have paid to the Defendant by the way of bank charges. The amount of his claim excluding fees is £1359.17 made up of principal and interest. My client operated an account with the claiment. He failed to make his payments [unreadable] using the credit facility and my client eventually charged the account off, and sold the debt amounting to £1593.27. The claiment therefore owed my client more than he alleges it owed him. Moreover he us basing his claim on a misreading of common law and contract law. My client, notwithstanding it failed to lodge a defence in due time, has a complete defence to this action and respectfully requests that the judgement in default be set aside"

 

What should I do? Should I reply to this now or wait for something else from the court? Any help gratefully recieved!

Lloyds TSB - £2808 Settled in full 15/11/06

HSBC - Settled £810.56 in full 11/11/06

BarclayCard - Data Protection Act sent 05/09/06

Failed to privide information - Complaint issued to the Information Commissioners Office 12/10/06

NatWest - £54 settled in full 15/11/06

Capital One - Prelim Letter sent 16/10/06

LBA sent 30/10/06

CitiCards - Prelim Letter sent 29/09/06

LBA sent 10/10/06

Claim issued 04/12/06

Acknowledged 07/12/06

StyleCard - Cheque for £130.00 recieved 20/10/06 - FULL SETLLEMENT!

RFS - Settled in full £494 08/1/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, It has been transferred to my local county court

Lloyds TSB - £2808 Settled in full 15/11/06

HSBC - Settled £810.56 in full 11/11/06

BarclayCard - Data Protection Act sent 05/09/06

Failed to privide information - Complaint issued to the Information Commissioners Office 12/10/06

NatWest - £54 settled in full 15/11/06

Capital One - Prelim Letter sent 16/10/06

LBA sent 30/10/06

CitiCards - Prelim Letter sent 29/09/06

LBA sent 10/10/06

Claim issued 04/12/06

Acknowledged 07/12/06

StyleCard - Cheque for £130.00 recieved 20/10/06 - FULL SETLLEMENT!

RFS - Settled in full £494 08/1/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's now up to the Court to consider Citi's application for a setaside. You can object to Citi's application but it is likely to suceed. The Court may order directions to both parties or it might set a date for a directions hearing.

 

If you want to object to the setaside application I suggest you ask on here for assistance. The Site Helpers and Mods will guide you in the right direction.:)

 

Elsinore

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a letter from court today. Date for the setaside hearing is on 1/2/07!

Lloyds TSB - £2808 Settled in full 15/11/06

HSBC - Settled £810.56 in full 11/11/06

BarclayCard - Data Protection Act sent 05/09/06

Failed to privide information - Complaint issued to the Information Commissioners Office 12/10/06

NatWest - £54 settled in full 15/11/06

Capital One - Prelim Letter sent 16/10/06

LBA sent 30/10/06

CitiCards - Prelim Letter sent 29/09/06

LBA sent 10/10/06

Claim issued 04/12/06

Acknowledged 07/12/06

StyleCard - Cheque for £130.00 recieved 20/10/06 - FULL SETLLEMENT!

RFS - Settled in full £494 08/1/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...