Scoobyandy vs. The Associates (Citicards)

[scoobyandy]

Hi fellow claimants:)

 

The associates credit card - now part of citicards / citifinancial europe plc

 

DPA request made for statements on 7th August

Statements came 17th August

Prelim request for refund sent 17th August

Letter received (dated 22nd but delayed due to postie delivering through wrong door!) stating whilst they have changed their charges "in light of the OFT statement of 5th April etc" and to "remain competitive with other lenders", this lowering of charges is "not retrospective in effect." Not the outcome you would have hoped for and you can ask for an independant review to be made by the finance and leasing organisation.

 

31st August - Letter Before Action sent giving 14 days

 

I take it that their letter stating changes cannot be applied retrospectively is just them stamping their feet and i'm basically to just ignore such replies and get on with it? (as i have done)

 

getting the statements was a real eye opener:

 

Account was originally £123.00 , got charge after charge taking it to £645.00 over about 18 months. Of course, i wished i'd just paid it, but sadly choce many yearsa go, to go with a well advertised debt management company who at the start told me, to cancel all direct debits for debts, let them have the contact detail and leave them to it. This was 5 and a half or so years ago and thankfully, i've paid all of them off myself after haggling closure amounts myself.

[zootscoot]

Yes ignore their letter and carry on regardless

[scoobyandy]

Good, glad i did the right thing.

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

Scoobyandy

[scoobyandy]

Hi folks, I'm filling in my n1 form here and it's one the gets printed and taken to my local county court (as we get the fee waived) - if i go thru money claim, we have to pay and i can't afford it.

 

On the front of the N1, i've filled in brief particulars of claim adapted from here

 

Under Value on the front of the n1, do i put:

just what the charges amount to? (i.e late fee + late fee + overdrawn)

or

what the charges amount to (above) plus the interest from date of each penalty (as the CAG spreadsheets worked it out)?

 

I'm thinking i'm now claiming all original amounts plus interest from date of penalty,(as per spreadsheet) then on the reverse (particulars of claim) will include the section 69 interest statement on the whole figure i'm claiming (orig fees + all their relevant int. since penalty.

 

Dam what a waffle.

 

Help - i'm over thinking it - i think

 

Scoobyandy

[scoobyandy]

Very quickly. The amount of my fees only are £475.00

The interest on those amounts work out on the spreadsheet from this site is £181.58 (based on each fee and its' date)

Total of £656.58

 

Is this the amount i'm claiming and then adding section 69 interest statement from date of filing on the overall amount?

[scoobyandy]

I'm claiming the £475.00 (sum of all charges) and under particulars of claim, am adding the following:

 

b) interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 Interest at the rate of 8% a year from the dates that each of the charges were made (as per attached list), a total of £181.58 up until 14/09/06 and continuing interest at a daily rate of £0.10 or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

 

does that cover it all?

 

Scoobyandy

[BaldyBaldwin]

have you considered charging them contractual interest??

[scoobyandy]

Haven't come across this anywhere as far as i recall. It's not part of the standard route of things is it or am i being blinkered too much in what i digest / understand?

lol

 

Scoobyandy

[scoobyandy]

and i wouldn't know how to go about finding the contractual rate of interest i'm ashamed to admit.

 

How to i work it out?

Is it sensible to use this / allowed.?

Will using the contractual rate be accepted by the court?

 

None of my statements state the interest rate.

one statements' figures are:

 

balance from prev. £428.06

payment recv'd - £5.00

Late charges £25.00

Interest £9.37

 

i'm rubbish at maths. can it be worked out from that? Won't it have varied throughout my holding the card?

 

Scoobyandy

 

Scoobyandy

[BaldyBaldwin]

basically it works like this " they do it to us so we can do it to them" its called "reciprocy of contract" if they charge something like 26% against unauthorised borrowing, then we claim 26% ( or what ever there rate is) for there unauthosised borrowing of our money.once this amount is compounded it becomes a colossal amount.

 

to find out more check out Bankfodders thread "why is no one claiming contractual interest?"

 

As citi bank make you work for your money its worth going for every penny you are due.

i am filing against them next week, and will be claiming contractual interest.

 

best of luck kevluff

[BaldyBaldwin]

i am certainly no expert on this, but have done a lot of reading up on it. if you need further help i can point you in the direction of some people who understand this better than i.

on your statements, what % do they quote there monthly rate as?

[BaldyBaldwin]

another thread that will help, and certianly be an eye opener, is by too strong titled "8% interest v compound interest"

[scoobyandy]

the statements don't state the % rate - at least, not the duplicate statements that they've sent me

 

If i can find out more, i may use the contractual rate instead

 

Scoobyandy

[BaldyBaldwin]

check there website; purchases@ 22.5%, cash advances @27.9%, bit more than 8%, what. i am claiming there old rate @ 20.4. once its compounded it makes a hell of a difference, my original figure for interest calculated at 8% 240, the revised figure useing a compounded rate of 20% has risen to 1,006. i know it seems a hell of a difference, but bear in mind its only what they have been doing to us

[scoobyandy]

Trouble was, my balance was made up of old debts/balances that just snowballed with their fees etc. The original amount was £475.00 and with interest at 8%, my claim has been submitted for £656.00 or so.

 

details to follow to a mod as and when i get confirmation that it's been served and have my case number.

 

Sounds brilliant claiming an even higher interest rate but to me personally, it's not clear cut and simple to find out the figures. A cop-out some may see, but i also see that most people are sticking to the 8%. I'll see how this one goes and may look into applying the contractual rate in a later case.

 

*firing up routeplanner to see how far salford is from S****horpe* - really looking forward to my time in court.

 

Scoobyandy

[scoobyandy]

Claim number: 6SC01281

Amount: £475.00 plus £181.68 interest TOTAL £656.68

Deemed served: 21/09/2006

 

Acknolwedgement of service filed on 22nd September, signed by "B. £$%^&&" (Illegible) "In House Solicitor" - now i'm worried - really worried.

 

NOT.

 

Mine will be in S****horpe County Court by the way if any locals or near-by people are interested.

 

Scoobyandy

[scoobyandy]

Update:

 

Got defence through.

Basically reads thus:

 

1. Their details.

2. Their business and address

3. I had one of their cards

4. Admits agreement contains standard terms and cond's and that same t&c's entitled defendant to levy charges. Avers claimant signed agreement agreeing to and knowing the incorp of such terms. If claimant denies this then he is put to strict proof of the fact that no such agreement was signed by him.

5.Defendant admits the dates of charges i refer to and the amount debited. Due to breaches of the T&C's.

6. Defendant denies that the charges are either punitive or not a genuine pre-estimate of its costs or that they exceed its losses arising from the defendants breaches of the agreement.

7. Further, the defendant denies that the contractual provision under which charges are levied is unenforceable as being contrary to common law and/or invalid under the Unfair Contract terms Act 1977 and / or the Unfair Terms in consumer Contracts Reg's 1999 and the defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that the charges are a disproportionate penalty and / or unreasonable by reference to particular clauses in the above act/regs that he intends to rely upon and/ or case law.

8. Defendant deniesthat it unlawfully debited the claimants account over the lifetime of account. Defendant notes that the claimant refers to "purported breaches of contract". In the event that the claimant intends to deny any such breaches took place, defendant will refer to its t&c's to demonstrate what contractual terms the claimant had agreed to operate the account under and what constitutes a breach of the same. The defendant will rely upon the claimants own schedule as an admission that the claimant did breach the contract on no less than 19 seperate occassions.

9. claimant is claiming as a money claim a sum equivalent to that which he claims was unlawfully debited to his account in late fees. Claim is based entirely on the recent OFT statement on the alleged unfairness of such default fees. OFT stated that the level at which default charges, though not the principal of default charging itself, was unfair in the context on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. It also reported that the charges were, in its opinion, a penalty contrary to common law principles of damages for breach of contract.

10. Defendant has agreed to abide by te OFT report and adopt a lower level of default fees which it has set at the new industry standard of £12.00 Over the lifetime of his account tho which the claimants claim is relevant, the defendant has set its default fees at £25.00

11. The claimants account with the defendat was consistently in arrears and was charded off and assigned to Cabot financial in September 2002. At the time the debt was sold, the balance was £682.25 in debit (i.e outstanding). The debt was sold to hillesden for £100.00 which represents a loss to us etc etc

12. Nevertheless, the defendant has made an ex-gratia payment of the difference between £12 and £25 etc amounting to £247. This amount has een transferred to cabot and the debt outstanding reduced accordingly! (LOL- see end note!)

13.Defendant denies it owes the claimant any further monies whether on basis of the case stataed or not.

14. Defendant avers claimants claim is not a money claim but a damages action and further avers that as such, the claimant's interest calculation is not applicable to this action or, if it is applcable to this action, that it is set ou without any particularity and incorrectly assumes that interest runs from the date of statemnent rather than the date of payment.

15. Defendent notes the allegation from claimant that he has been "in contact repeatedly with defendant since 5th august to as for this refund and to ask that they justify their charges but they have declined to do so." For the record the defendant has written only twice .

16. Save as otherwise admitted, the claimants particulars of claim are denied and each and every allegation in the partic. of claim is specifically denied.

 

 

My notes.

 

Well as a credit card, is it not reasonalbe to expect the card to consistently be in arrears? It's never going to be in a positive balance is it.

anyway, the debt was setteld in full in October 2005 to Cabot. I spoke to them the other day who confirmed this and have since sent writen confirmation. They also confirmed over the phone that no payment has been sent to them from Citi at all.

Amazingly, i also have three recorded letters sent to them and not two.

 

Oh yeah, and their covering letter (which referred to Kissick V Citi and how this means they will basically cream me) even addresses me as Anthony and not andy!!!

 

Nice one.

 

Comments welcomed or if you don't want Citi reading them, then PM me.

 

Scoobyandy

[adamski]

Got exactly the same defence and letter.

Its all standard from them now, now wait for AQ and prepare for court date

Regards

adamski

[lickthewallfatboy]

now that our case has been referred to a higher judge for an appeal on points of law(and they have been notified of this) I think they are being mischievous at the very least to try using this defence.....we are hoping that the earlier judgement will be overturned.

[scoobyandy]

Apparently, their AQ is in and the whole case has been paased to the district judge on the twenty-something of October.

 

I'm off up there tomorrow as i want to see what there Allocation Questionaire says and see if they are trying to drag me, a disabled man on benefits - all the way to their local court instead of it being heard local to me - the individual.

[scoobyandy]

AQ from Citi says:

 

see attached:

 

and then:

 

Would be grateful if court consider remitting to Salford etc. In keeping with overrinding objectives of keeping costs down and courts local familiarity etc. Spates of similar cases identical pleadings. From the cpr, notes on allocation at 26.2.1, it is also clear that justice ought to be "local" to the defendat, and that this principal is of general application.

 

Client - national customer base, currently defending loads of identical claims based on OFT report etc

Defendant will be relying on its director of finance to explain charges etc - as this is commercially sensitive they wish to present orally and in private!

 

Furthermore, already successfully defended kissick etc

 

Blah blah blah LOL signed my mr smith

 

GOOD LUCK

[CrispDust]

oops

[adamski]

You need to send a letter to the court objecting to this ASAP

[scoobyandy]

Yup - objection letter sent. (From template on here)

 

It'll take me a week to get to Salford if it gets transferred (stifling snigger).

 

Scoobyandy

[scoobyandy]

Oh yeah.

 

Notice of allocation to the small claims track (hearing)

 

Allocated 1 and a half hours, Scúnthorpe county court on December 18th.

 

Bring it on Citi