Heres an old thread that may raise a few laughs for Citi claimants.

It was one they Wasnt aware of for some time !!!

Gives some interesting insights into who you are dealing with-and just how different they are from the High Street banks ...................

Latest Tacs;

There have been 2 recent cases of Citi refunding the part charges to the account and when the claimant rejects this but accepts as part payment.......they take it out again.

In their defence they claim a refund has been made already.

Watch out for this one !

will watch out for that then martin.

had my court papers today, with thier defence, all very legal.

i sent reply yesterday, accepting offer as part payment, and basically said in very short note, sorry already have filed MCOL and also repeated my request for the outstanding amount less what they have refunded.

makes me laugh really, had phone call from them today, 'as a very good customer blah blah blah, we would like to offer you money a a great rate', i declined this and told the girl i was taking them to court, she was preety shocked, but i found it funny.

Crafty!

Asked Brian Smith (Solicitor) to send a letter to notify me when/if partial payment is made and statement of purpose, which should hopefully cover me if they are taking partial refunds back.

Springs to mind that taking a refund back would be an unauthorised transaction?

They also stated recently to a closed account claimant that they were refunding part charges (or sending them ) to the dca ??

as if !!

Citi refunded me part charges but it was me that asked them to take them back. I was insulted that they credited them to my account without me accepting them. I called and said I was making a claim for the full amount so remove the partial refund from my account and they did. Now they are saying in their defence that the figures are wrong as I have already had a partial refund.

Angela

You should let them know they are wrong......and the court too.

sounds like they are really getting themselves into a mess, closing accounts, getting DCA involved.

in ref to letter sent to confirm that they have paid the 'said', amount into your account, my court papers with their defence has it clearly stated, that they have refunded what they believed to be correct, half the amount, so if they want to play that game i'm more than happy to get them into court.

like i said they would of got my letter today, with the outstanding amount included.

Citi refunded me part charges but it was me that asked them to take them back. I was insulted that they credited them to my account without me accepting them. I called and said I was making a claim for the full amount so remove the partial refund from my account and they did. Now they are saying in their defence that the figures are wrong as I have already had a partial refund.

Angela

I am due in Court with Citi cards next week, they havent offered me any payments with their defence or settlement figure, so it looks like I will be sitting with them next week.

In light of the recent Citi case it seems that Citi are claiming to retrospectively change their charges to 12.00. They have the figures which show their 'genuine pre-estimate' was 12.88 and therefore the charges are liquidated damage clauses as oppose to penalty clauses. If Citi get away with this strategy other banks are going to follow.

Those with closed accounts or defaulted accounts should not be affected by this argument as the contract is discharged so Citi is not able to vary the terms.

However, for those whose accounts are open, the difference between the 12.00 and the actual charge is being refunded into their accounts. I've located the terms from Citi's website which states:

30. Changes to the Agreement

I think there are grounds to challenge the retrospective changing of charges.

1. Either the correct notice was not given

2. Clause 30.1 did not give Citi the right to retrospectively vary terms and therefore to do so would require explicit consent.

3. The contract was on standard terms and conditions so to change the charges retrospectively in an individual case would mean that all contracts based on the same standard terms and conditions would be subject to the retrospective change.

4. If the court was to accept that the charge was retrospectively changed would they please take note of cl 30.2 which would allow them to revert to the original clause at any time.

For those that have had refunds placed into their accounts I suggest the following template letter.

Dear xxxx

Re claim no xxxx

Account no xxxxx

I note from my account balance that the sums totaling xxxx have been placed into my account. I can only assume that these amounts have been credited in to my account in furtherance of the claim which I am currently pursuing. I therefore thank you for this sum which I accept in accordance to with my duty to mitigate my loss as partial satisfaction of my claim. However, I must inform you that I fully intend to continue my claim for the full amount.

In accepting this part payment, I am in no way consenting to any variation in terms of the contract. I note that no variation of the terms in the contract can be conducted by yourselves unless 30 days notice in writing is granted as per clause 30.1 (for credit cards) /25.2 (for current accounts) of the terms and conditions of the contract. If I am in fact mistaken about the payment being made in relation to my claim, please rectify the mistake by removing the amount from my account and please be so kind as to let me know if this is so.

Yours Faithfully

xxxxx

Spot on.

My account is an old Associates one and all but £50 of the charges are from when the card was with Associates. Associates were bought by Citicards and when they changed the name (May 03, it is on a statement), there was only a couple of months and my a/c was transferred to a DCA. I paid a full and final settlement to them. It was transferred to 1st Credit and then Faculty Trading, and I have a letter to say that it accepted F+F.

My set aside/stay hearing is on Monday also (Batmobile needed for them to get between me and Empire Strikes Back!) and although my hearing is a set aside and not the full hearing, I can't see how they can justify charges from a previous company.

I have heard nothing at all, other than the correspondence to the court (and the court's refusal for a telephone hearing!!) so mine will drag out a lot longer as I issued a default judgement because they didn't submit a defence.

The payment to a DCA angle could affect me, I will be keeping an eye on that if they try it.

It's £375 plus interest and costs for goodness sake.......

Interesting as mine too started as tha associates.

I have the statements that they supplied and amazingly every charge on there was refunded (or so it appears from the statements )

I am now beginning to wonder about this........Due to the age of the account I cant seem to find any original statements at home,however I have a feeling that they are indeed around somewhere.

I am vey suspicious now as to whether the copies are accurate,since I recall having nothing but problems with Associates.

Needless to say I am now making frantic efforts to find the originals as nothing would suprise me with these people.

All of mine are there in black and white......and in my letter from the Legal Compliance chappy, it says that after it was transferred to the DCA, no other entries were made so they can't say they refunded that charges after it was transferred....and as he has also admitted (in the letter) there was no manual intervention, they can't try that one either.

Their options are becoming limited.......

So this is the latest letter Citi are sending..........it includes the refernces to Ni

Welcome to our newest member here Chloe.

Hello - I just sent this email to "lickthewallfatboy" and he told me that you are more heads up on this with Citi. Can you help?

Hi there. After reading your threads I have contacted you directly as I have received a letter of similar content today from Solicitor Brian Smith on behalf of CitiCards and I am aware that he is using the forum to keep up to date on whats going on. Please see below for letter received:

"...I act on behalf of CitiFinancial Europe plc and I am writing to youin response to your complaint regarding the default charges applied to your account.

I assume that your complaint was made as a result of the recent statement by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) on default fees charged by the UK credit card industry.

My client has adopted the same practices as the entire UK credit card industry and, with that industry, disagrees with the OFT's interpretation of the law relating to default charges. Please note that the OFT recognises that its interpretationn doesnot have the force of law, having never been decided by a curt, and is therefore merely persuasive.

Moreover, the OFT did acknowledge that default fees are not themselves unlawaful, but simply confined itself to stating that it believed that 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, entitleed to levy a default fee, just not one in excess of £12.00.

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

in line with the OFT statement, therefore, I have advised my client that, in your case, as a current cardholder who has been charged 12 late fees of £25.00 and eight over limit fees of £25.00 which is a total of £500.00, it would be appropriate to write off the difference between our charges and the OFT's recommended level of £12.00. Having reviewed your account I have therefore recommended that the sum of £260.00 be written off, reflecting the difference between £500.00 and £240.00 had the charges been £12.00. Accordingly, your account has been reduced by that amount.

In the event that you are not satisfied with this and proceed to issue a claim for the full amount, CitiFinancial will defend this on the basis of the OFT's own statement and analysis of the lawful level of default charges.

In a recent court case involving my client, Kissick v CitiFinancial Europe plc, the fairness of the above policy and the fairness of the £12 charges was raised. The cse was dismissed and the court implicitly held that the policy was fair and the charges reasonable, being in line with both the OFT guidance and common law principles of damage for breach of contract. Citi does not wish to enter litigation with its customers but will do so if necessary to discourage speculative and ill conceived cases founded on a misunderstanding of the OFT report. With the benefit of this judgement behind it, Citi will continue to deal with claims in the manner outlined above.

Any defence will also exercise the defendant's 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..."

Where can I go from here? They still owe me interest even if it is just on the £260.00. Plus the OFT's ruling of £12 was the maximum they could charge but surely they should still have to be able to justify the charges.

Not sure what to do. Please can you help?

Thank you

Chloe

Hi Chloe they have yet to prove that the 12.00 is fair......so far they have not supplied this info to the claimant ...........

Have a look at the other posts here.

//

Not the first time this has happened.

I recall it happening with Toilet bandit (Nat west)....he ended up getting a letter of apology from the CEO !!!

The ICO view this very seriously indeed....in fact the person whose data they sent you could cause lots of grief for Citi over ths......

//

Hi Chloe, Welcome to the Citi madness!

The letter is yet another attempt to put people off claiming the full amount and much of it is clearly wrong. As your account is still open best send the template letter above in post 11 just adapt it to say thank you for your recent correspondence. Make sure you include the bits about not consenting to any variation in terms and the fact that they can not alter the terms without 30 days notice in writing.

All the best

Zoot

Please note that the OFT recognises that its interpretationn doesnot have the force of law, having never been decided by a curt, and is therefore merely persuasive.

Absolutely correct so why are they placing such reliance on OFT and pay little attention to the law.

Moreover, the OFT did acknowledge that default fees are not themselves unlawaful, but simply confined itself to stating that it believed that the level of default charges imposed by the UK credit card industry to be unfair.

Substitute unlawful for that last unfair and then it would be correct.

Therefore, if you breach your contract, we are and always were, entitleed to levy a default fee, just not one in excess of £12.00.

Actually not one which is excessive in comparison to their genuine pre-estimate. 12.00 is not set in law.

these charges are based on a number of factors and not just, as is commonly supposed, the price of a stamp or the envelope, etc.

The pre-estimated cost can take into account average costs of factors such as staff training and system set up costs etc. However, if the clause is found to be a penalty, they can then only claim for their actual costs which flowed from your particular breach(es).

in line with the OFT statement, therefore, I have advised my client that, in your case, as a current cardholder who has been charged 12 late fees of £25.00 and eight over limit fees of £25.00 which is a total of £500.00, it would be appropriate to write off the difference between our charges and the OFT's recommended level of £12.00.

So this is in part payment of your claim, you have not retrospectively changed the term of contract which sets the level of fee for late payment as you have not given 30 days written notice of a change in the terms of the contract.

In the event that you are not satisfied with this and proceed to issue a claim for the full amount, CitiFinancial will defend this on the basis of the OFT's own statement and analysis of the lawful level of default charges.

So they will rely on a document which has no legal force whereas you will rely on statutes and cases which must be applied by the judge

In a recent court case involving my client, Kissick v CitiFinancial Europe plc,

World famous!

the court implicitly held that the policy was fair and the charges reasonable, being in line with both the OFT guidance and common law principles of damage for breach of contract.

because you retrospectively changed a penalty clause into a liquidated damages clause.

Citi does not wish to enter litigation with its customers but will do so if necessary to discourage speculative and ill conceived cases founded on a misunderstanding of the OFT report.

Whose misunderstanding?

Any defence will also exercise the defendant's 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..."

Purely laughable, haven't even accused you of a criminal offence.....yet! lol

Does anyone know if the 12.88 cited in Lickthewall's case was in relation to both late payment and overlimit fees.

just be careful tho.....the data protection implications could equally apply to you !:o

Does anybody know anything about Kissik v Citifinancial PLc or is it just a a fanciful case to put you off?

erm,no-nothing fanciful about it!!!

but it ain't over just yet........

Martin ????

Quote;

Does anyone know if the 12.88 cited in Lickthewall's case was in relation to both late payment and overlimit fees.