Thread: Tracey284 V Citicards

I have just had the usual fob off letter from Citi Card who state the OFT etc, and that they have changed their charges in line, but they quoted a recent court case in Northern Ireland that they were involved in, claimant v Citifinancial Europe Plc, in which the fairness of the charges was challenged. The court dismissed the case, implicitly finding that the charges are fair and in conformity with the OFT guidance and common law principles of contractual damages.

This was in reply to my lba. Any advice would be welcome please. I am due to send the court letter out on 4 October.

Thanks so much in advance.

Similar Threads:

• Tracey284 -v-Monument
• Tracey284 -v- HSBC Round 2
• Tracey284 -v- HSBC
• Tracey284 -v- Kensington Mortgages
• Tracey284 -v- Monument

Originally Posted by Tracey284

I have just had the usual fob off letter from Citi Card who state the OFT etc, and that they have changed their charges in line, but they quoted a recent c ourt case in Northern Ireland that they were involved in, v Citifinancial Europe Plc, in which the fairness of the charges was challenged. The court dismissed the case, implicitly finding that the charges are fair and in conformity with the OFT guidance and common law principles of contractual damages.

This was in reply to my lba. Any advice would be welcome please. I am due to send the court letter out on 4 October.

Thanks so much in advance.

Your court letter is the LBA - where are you at
Read http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...tml#post271505 and maybe PM Martin 3030 if you are still unsure.

Hi Tracey

Have you sent a PM (private message) to Martin3030, regarding your claim.
If not, then I suggest that you do that as soon as possible.

Hi Tracey,

Have you posted this on your Citicards thread? If not, please do so, we can keep track of your claim and offer help there.

Having looked through what they have sent, it is a standard defence, nothing to worry about at all.

Press on, nearly there

Tracey have merged all your posts and put them here in Citi thread with a retitle.

All of the points you highlite are known defence criteria as used by Citi.
Lets have a look at this and advise after that.

Is this account open or closed ?
If closed has it been passed to DCA ?

Originally Posted by Tracey284

Okay - so the copy of the Defence arrived this morning and I am going to type it out below, but there are some points that I do not agree with which I will set out in red after the particular point.............

1. The Defendant is a credit card company whose registered office is at 87 Castle Street, Reading, RG1 7DX.

2. The Defendant admits that the Claimant has a credit card account ("the Agreement") with the Defendant which currently has a debit balance of £xxx.xx.

3. The Defendant avers that the Agreement with the Claimant contains terms entitling the Defendant to levy fees for late payment, exceeding the credit limit and for returned payments and avers that the Claimant was aware of and agreed to the same before entering into the Agreement.

4. The Defendant denies that the same:

4.1 exceeded the Defendant's losses

4.2 are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as contrary to common law and/or invalid under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 or common law

and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of this by specific reference to the case law relied upon and/or the exact citation and application to the facts of the relevant parts of the sections of laws and regulations relied upon.

5. The Defendant denies that it has unlawfully debits the Claimant's account. The Defedant avers that the Particulars of Claim do not particularise the exact dates upon which the amounts claimed arose and puts the Claimant to strict proof of this. (They have received the full printout of the dates and amounts of the claim)

6. The Defendant avers that, between 2000 and 2006, the Claimant breached the contract on no fewer than 38 occasions and that charges of £xxx, not £xxx as pleaded, were debited to the Claimant's account by way of late payment, overlimit and returned payment fees, as per the Terms & Conditions of the Agreement and were paid by the Claimant thereby consenting to the same. (It seems that they have worked out the late payment charges were £72 more than I have claimed andthe payments weren't paid thereby consenting, they took them without asking!)

7. The Claimant is claiming as a money claim a sum equivalent to that which he claims was unlawfully debited to his account over the term of the Agreement in late payment and overlimit fees. This claim is entirely based on the recent OFT statement on the alleged unfairness of such default fees. The OFT stated that the level at which default fees, though not the principle of default charging itself, was unfair in the context of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts REgulations 1999. It also reported that the fees were, in its opinion, a penalty contrary to common law principles of damages for breach of contract.

8. The Defendant has agreed to abide by the OFT report and adopt a lower lever of default fees which it has set at the new industry standard of £12. Over the lifetime of this account the Claimant has set is default fees at £25, £20 and £15 (The Claimiant did not set the default fees, the Defendant did!)

9. The Defendant has made an ex gratia refund of £xxx, which is a sum exceeding the difference between (i) the current default fee of £12 and (ii) amount at which each default fee claimed wascharged to the Claimant, by refunding the same to the Claimant's account (Nothing ever offered or received)

10. The Defendant avers that that Claimant's claim is not a money claim but a damages actin and further avers that the Claimant's interest calculation is not applicable to this action or, if it is applicable, that is is not pleaded with any particularity and puts the Claimant to strict proof that this interest is owed and is calculated properly. (If they have not seen the claim of amounts (point 5) then how do they know whether or not the interest cacluation is correct? This was calculated and submitted)

11. Save as otherwise admitted, the Claimant's Particulars of Claim are denied and each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is specifically denied.

So there you have it, any comments or help in my response would be gratefully appreciated. Do I have to wait for the aq before replying or do I reply directly to this letter from Mr. Brian Smith Solicitor CitiFinancial Europe Plc?

Thanks in advance.

Point 5 They usually do say this but you can show you did.


Point 6 Many of Cities defences with other claims have overstated the amounts,this again not unusual.

Point 8 God knows how they work this one out ?

Point 9 This is looking like a standard reply that obv is not applicable to you


Point 10 Absolutely correct what you say.

All in all nothing new then ...................
the bungling continues.

Originally Posted by Tracey284

Hi there and thanks for your help. Account currently open but hasn't been used in absolutely ages. Presumably next stage is for me to receive the aq which I will then ask for help in completing please.

Yep - post on here when you get AQ.

Originally Posted by lickthewallfatboy

it appears that they have finally got the message that our case did not set a precedent,is not applicable to England,and is subject to an appeal.

We didn't get a mention once in that "defence"

If you fame is fading must be time to up the profile again

AFAIK they have been only writing about you in letters not defences.

Tracey I have had 1/2 bottle of best Australian red...... but...
do you have to pay £100 for aq...... I think you are below threshold
check with others before you part with your hard earned

I put in my aq for Citi claim last week, and went through it with clerk. It is for approx £800. No mention of paying anything.

My claim against Citi is titled "Small claims track"..... seemed no problem at the county court.