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.

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/forum/other-institutions/9085-citi-cards-request-repayment-8.html#post271505 and maybe PM Martin 3030 if you are still unsure.

Hi Gizzmo & Tracey,

Could you please both remove the claimant's name from your posts & Tracey do pm Martin3030.

All the best

Zoot

Not sure what you mean about removing claimant's name. I have a question re monument and want to set up a thread. Shall I continue in this one or set up a new one. How do I set up a new one please?

About to issue MCOL but cannot find address of Citi Cards or CitiFinancial Europe Plc that is not a PO address. Can anyone help please? Thank you

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.

Thanks for the advice. Have issued MCOL today for one of the Citi Card accounts that we hold. Will wait to see where we get with this one before continuing with second claim.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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"

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:smile:

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

Hi Guys and the AQ arrived today and it has been transferred to the area where the claimant lives (thank goodness!) It has to be completedand returned with £100 by 13 December 2006. Please can I have some guidance on completing the AQ. Their defence is stated in my earlier thread. Thanks Tracey284

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

Enjoy the other 1/2!!!

I do believe it is standard that I have to pay the £100 court fee but presumably will get it back when I win (hopefully) - please clarify this. Is the small claims track the most suitable track for this claim?

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.

Yes, I do believe that as it is under £5,000 it is a small claim. On note H of the AQ

Sorry, hit the wrong button............

On note H of the AQ it states that "You should note that if you donot pay this fee it might lead to your cliam being struck out (Rule 3.7)."

If your claim is under £1500 - then you do not pay any fee with AQ.

You ned to make mention in your AQ that Citi are routinely asking for the case to be transferred for to SAlford to be heard in secret.

Adapt this to suit your situation.

I refer to the defendants allocation questionnaire of which I received a copy form the court October 25, in which the defendant has made a request for the hearing of this case to be moved to Salford County Court.

I wish to object to the application for transfer on the following grounds.

1. The defendant’s application was made without notice to myself and I have not been given the opportunity to make representations.

2. I am an individual of limited means. I am a litigant in person and I am suing the defendant on my own account.

3. The defendant is a multi national company with access to huge financial resources whilst my finances are strictly limited.

4. Although the place of trial is at the discretion of the Court the normal and established practice is for the claims in which one of the parties is an individual, be transferred to that individual’s home court. In this case my home court is Bristol County Court.

5. The defendant, in their defence paragraph 10, had already admitted part of my claim and have now acknowledged the amount in issue is only £588.16

Order 26 to which the defendant refers to in thier application, normally is applied for the benefit of a claimant who is claiming as an individual.

The defendant refers to recent findings by the Office of Fair Trading, however it is clear that the Office of Fair Trading conclusions indicate very strongly that companies such as the defendant are acting in violation of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations. And therefore as the defendant continues its system of penalty charges in the face of the Office of Fair Trading report it is they who should justly face the burden of costs and not claimants in person who are merely seeking to enforce the law.

The defendant argues the virtue of having all cases transferred to the same court. There are presently at least sixteen cases, which have been transferred to the Mercantile Court in London so that the bank charges issue can be tested once and for all. The claimant respectfully suggests that if the Salford County Court will not return my case to the Bristol County Court that in the alternative this case should be transferred to the Mercantile Court in London to be heard before the designated Judge there along side all the other penalty charges test cases.

It is not in the interest Overriding Objective for my case to be tried in a court other than my home court of Bristol County Court.

I also understand that the defendants had asked that their evidence be received in secret without any opportunity for myself or any other person to have an opportunity to examine it in advance of the hearing. Furthermore I understand that it would not be possible to carry out any cross-examination in respect of that evidence and that I would have no opportunity to have the evidence scrutinised by my own expert or an independent expert, despite the fact that the defendant's evidence is likely to be of a technical nature.

I wish to object to the defendant’s request. It cannot be in the interests of the Overriding Objective to allow secret evidence to be taken during a small claim. Furthermore the question we are deciding is the lawfulness of the defendant's penalty charge system. The defendant claims that their evidence is" commercially sensitive". However the question of the defendant's penalty charge regime does not refer to their core business. Whilst it could well be the case that information relating to the defendants core business could indeed be commercially sensitive, the question of penalty charges relates to an incidental aspect of the defendant's business -- and which if the defendant is to be believed, produces no profit at all as according to the defendant, their penalty charges merely cover their administrative costs. It is also true to say that the defendant has in the past claimed that their costs are merely in line with those of other similar organisations. Clearly then, the defendant's penalty charge regime is not a competitive matter, according to the defendant it brings them no profit and therefore there can be no grounds for saying that the information is commercially sensitive.

If the defendant is insistent that his evidence is commercially sensitive then I would respectfully suggest that maybe this entire matter is better suited for a higher court such as the mercantile court in London or Bristol.

Yours faithfully

Citi will routinely ask on their AQ for a hearing to be heard in Salford - above letter to be attached to AQ.

Guidelines for EX50 are here clearly states on page 2 that no fee is applicable http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex50_0406.pdf

What documents do you have that are saying you must pay?

Guidelines for AQ are here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/11644-allocation-questionnaires-guide-completion.html

The Notice of Transfer of Proceedings states:

To all parties

A defence to this claim has been filed.

The claim has been transferred to the court covering the area where the claimant lives or carries on business.

Please read the accompanying documents carefully and noticethat the allocation questionnaire should be returned to the ......County Court.

All further communicatin should be addressed to:

The Court Manager

................County Court

etc.

The letter from HMCS states:

Claim No: xxxx

Claimant: xxxx

Dear Sir/Madam

The defendant has filed a defence. A copy of which is enclosed. An allocation questionnaire is also enclosed which contains guidance notes on how to complete it.

You must complete the enclosed allocation questionnaire on or before the xx December 2006 and return it, where the claim is over £1,500, the court fee of £100.00 to Willesden County Court.

The AQ states that the fee must be sent to the court at the same time as your completed questionnaire. If I pay it, can it be refunded if the case is won?