Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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 A word of encouragement for citi claimants


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5159 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

I mean, my claim is v. small - a couple of hundred quid (not saying as no doubt, he'll identify me).

 

Mine is only £375 plus interest and costs. A tiny amount they have more than likely spent more on so far. £65 on the hearing, a morning of an external solicitor plus his to prepare time so far. Add in to that the time they have to spend putting in a defence, plus the work done by Brian already and then I will have a full hearing again at some point where they will need to send a solicitor again. Madness.

Abbey - Claim 1

full hearing 22 Feb 07 - Settled in full £710 :D

Abbey (Claim 2)

full hearing 22 Feb 07- Settled in full £4000 :D

Abbey (Claim 3)

Court date 27 June -

Capital One (claim 1)

£467 Settled in full 20 Sep :D

Capital One (claim 2)

£72 refunded 19 Aug :-D

Associates (Citicards)

claim 8 Aug/judgment by default 30 Aug/set aside hearing 9 Oct/Stay denied, ordered by Judge to reveal breakdown of charges andfull hearing 24 May/FULL DISCLOSURE ORDERED BY 8 MARCH/JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE AS NON-COMPLIANCE/DEFENCE STRUCK OUT PAYMENT IN FULL REQUIRED IN 14 DAYS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 328
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

If it turns out that he files a different set of charges in Kerens case & you believe that the Court have been mislead you should report him to the Law Society for them to consider his conduct

HSBC 1st preliminary letter £3692 10.10.06 LBA sent 24.10.06

HSBC 1st Preliminary Letter £3280 10.10.06 LBA sent 24.10.06

Capital 1 SADR 11.10.006

Halifax Visa SADR 11.10.06

CITI SADR 12.10.06

HSBC Gold card SADR 23.10.06

Link to post
Share on other sites

This bank must have all it's licences revoked.

 

They consider themselves above the law and to be honest, in my opinion, the various district judges don't seem to be offering much to the impending collapse of their overall argument.

 

 

We must be able to do more to stop this bank.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to be an interesting few weeks.

 

Perjury. In the Kissick case it would probably depend on who presented the evidence to the court, the solicitor or the head of Citi Finance. However if the figures presented were misleading then someones going to be in a whole heap of trouble.

 

And how do we know they are misleading.... best leave that for another time.

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

I think it's time to have a good ponder about this-let's try to come up with suggestions,pool our ideas and see if we can arrive at some kind of effective strategy or tactic which will stop this manipulation of the legal system that CITI seem to be pursuing......

 

the knowledge and know-how on this forum will surely come up with something...

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If 2 different sets of figures are disclosed and they are presented with a statement of truth signed by the Solicitor then you can apply to the Law Society for action to be taken for misconduct

HSBC 1st preliminary letter £3692 10.10.06 LBA sent 24.10.06

HSBC 1st Preliminary Letter £3280 10.10.06 LBA sent 24.10.06

Capital 1 SADR 11.10.006

Halifax Visa SADR 11.10.06

CITI SADR 12.10.06

HSBC Gold card SADR 23.10.06

Link to post
Share on other sites

got a letter this morning in which Brian Smith admits in writing to monitoring this website.....wasn't there some action that Bankfodder said could be taken against them for doing this without decalring who they were?

 

Of course,Brian hasn't the swingers to actually register on the site to defend citi-c'mon Brian,show us you have some balls to present your case here and stand it up to scrutiny!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps he should start dusting off his professional indemnity insurance then!

HSBC 1st preliminary letter £3692 10.10.06 LBA sent 24.10.06

HSBC 1st Preliminary Letter £3280 10.10.06 LBA sent 24.10.06

Capital 1 SADR 11.10.006

Halifax Visa SADR 11.10.06

CITI SADR 12.10.06

HSBC Gold card SADR 23.10.06

Link to post
Share on other sites

got a letter this morning in which Brian Smith admits in writing to monitoring this website.....wasn't there some action that Bankfodder said could be taken against them for doing this without decalring who they were?

 

Of course,Brian hasn't the swingers to actually register on the site to defend citi-c'mon Brian,show us you have some balls to present your case here and stand it up to scrutiny!!

 

Just a letter saying that?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one will writing to my MP, that is all i can think of doing as the goverment are the only ones who can stop these people from abusing the court process and treating ordinary people with contempt and arrogance.

Without us there would be no Citibank, maybe they need a reminder of this.

Regards

adamski

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one feel that my privacy is being invaded by these corporate bullies, as BankFodder has said

CitiCards is monitoring this site.

This is nothing new - so are all the other banks.

 

Some of the banks have been complaining that information about their litigation is being posted on this forum. This is because they don't like it and it is one of the features of this forum which empowers the claimants.

 

It is scarcely possible to imagine a situation when it will be to your disadvantage not to post here.

 

 

Post your Citicards story.

Don't hold back

 

Everyone benefits from the truth and openess of this site. The sharing of information is the worst thing which can happen for the banks and for Citicards.

Regards

adamski

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a letter saying that?

 

no-but I had a little groundwork to do before I elaborated

 

groundwork duly done!!

 

In the letter Brian Smith claims to have rung the court office to investigate my "purported appeal" as mentioned on this site,only to be told that the court have no record of it.

 

Strange on 2 counts-the court do indeed have the appeal-as confirmed to be by telephone this morning,and citi apparently have deluged the court today with paperwork defending this appeal which they claim does not exist.

 

Pump up the valium Brian-as I know you will be reading this,I'll save myself a quid on the recorded delivery letter and confirm that the appeal does in fact exist,and is not,quote "purported"..........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Citi cards are on my hitlist, so beware Citi i'm comign for you.

I wont be put off by soem of the spiel you put out, i wont be hounded and harrassed anymore by you.

My accoutn was sold on paid off in full and final settlement ages ago, now it is my turn to do unto others as they unto you.

Bring it on i am indeed ready and waiting......

I love the smell of banks coughing up refunds first thing in the morning.

 

HSBC, they tried they failed, they coughed up in full

To all the others beware i am heading your way next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

aaah, he's trying the same line with you as with me.

 

He said he was monitoring the site in his application for the set aside to the court and that was the only reason that he knew about my claim.......funnily enough though in court, the solicitor who attended admitted that they 'had to have received the claim' when pressed by the judge....and of course, if they didn't know about my claim, how could they know how much I was claiming and then try to say I was claiming the wrong amount!! :rolleyes:

Abbey - Claim 1

full hearing 22 Feb 07 - Settled in full £710 :D

Abbey (Claim 2)

full hearing 22 Feb 07- Settled in full £4000 :D

Abbey (Claim 3)

Court date 27 June -

Capital One (claim 1)

£467 Settled in full 20 Sep :D

Capital One (claim 2)

£72 refunded 19 Aug :-D

Associates (Citicards)

claim 8 Aug/judgment by default 30 Aug/set aside hearing 9 Oct/Stay denied, ordered by Judge to reveal breakdown of charges andfull hearing 24 May/FULL DISCLOSURE ORDERED BY 8 MARCH/JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE AS NON-COMPLIANCE/DEFENCE STRUCK OUT PAYMENT IN FULL REQUIRED IN 14 DAYS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the issue is what exactly we want to get out of this, and hwo far we want to go.

If the complaint is about about the manner in which they do thier stuff (i hate to call it business) then perhpas we coudl do a mass complaint to the OFT and FOS.

Whilst niether organisation may wish or have the resources to tackle the issue on an individual basis surely they could if presented with a very detailed group of complaints presented as a super complaint then have the grounds to act.

Citi are clearly out to frustrate and delay all claims as far as possible. They need to be shown the power of the consumer, they need to be slapped around and bullied by our legal system and shown they are not invicnible or above the law.

The sooner the better in my humble opinion.

I love the smell of banks coughing up refunds first thing in the morning.

 

HSBC, they tried they failed, they coughed up in full

To all the others beware i am heading your way next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

forgot to mention-the court office just rang me to tell me that the judge at the original hearing had written to CITI after I pointed out in a letter to her what they had done with mu information-ie distributing it to other litigants.

 

They have replied to her letter and I have asked for a copy of this.Should be interesting if nothing else.

 

Just waiting for the Information Commissioner to get back to me on that as well!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

that will be very interesting to hear.....

Abbey - Claim 1

full hearing 22 Feb 07 - Settled in full £710 :D

Abbey (Claim 2)

full hearing 22 Feb 07- Settled in full £4000 :D

Abbey (Claim 3)

Court date 27 June -

Capital One (claim 1)

£467 Settled in full 20 Sep :D

Capital One (claim 2)

£72 refunded 19 Aug :-D

Associates (Citicards)

claim 8 Aug/judgment by default 30 Aug/set aside hearing 9 Oct/Stay denied, ordered by Judge to reveal breakdown of charges andfull hearing 24 May/FULL DISCLOSURE ORDERED BY 8 MARCH/JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE AS NON-COMPLIANCE/DEFENCE STRUCK OUT PAYMENT IN FULL REQUIRED IN 14 DAYS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like three f's smif has a lot on his plate.

Wait til he starts dealing with me.

i have a little surpise for him when he sends me his first smart assed letter.

Until you know who you are dealing with tread very carefully, lots of cow pats awaiting.

Oh i am going to enjoy this.

I love the smell of banks coughing up refunds first thing in the morning.

 

HSBC, they tried they failed, they coughed up in full

To all the others beware i am heading your way next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please keep us posted LTWFB & Jobloggs. It will give me great pleasure to give them a proverbial kicking. they are all to ready to give it out themselves making life a misery for the princely sum of £200

HSBC 1st preliminary letter £3692 10.10.06 LBA sent 24.10.06

HSBC 1st Preliminary Letter £3280 10.10.06 LBA sent 24.10.06

Capital 1 SADR 11.10.006

Halifax Visa SADR 11.10.06

CITI SADR 12.10.06

HSBC Gold card SADR 23.10.06

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like three f's smif has a lot on his plate.

Wait til he starts dealing with me.

i have a little surpise for him when he sends me his first smart assed letter.

Until you know who you are dealing with tread very carefully, lots of cow pats awaiting.

Oh i am going to enjoy this.

 

Just please be careful you don't take any risks that could jeopardise the standing of either your claim, other people's claims, or the respected status of this website...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...