As i have been really poorly, i too had wrote seeking to settle out of ourt. In a nutshell, i offered to settle for the original amount claimed as long as they paid the interest amount to children in need. Not really a reduced amount overall then but i'm sure they could have claimed something on the amount paid to charity - no response was forthcoming. I did also make a great point of saying that wherever possible i thought we should be try and save the courts precious and valuable time etc etc. They never even f-ing well acknowledged my letter lol. nor have they acknowledged or replied to any previous letters whereby i questionened the alleged refunding of difference between £12 & £25.00 that they claim to have made to a debt company that hasn't been involved in any matter with me - for over a year!!! Asked for an adjournment in light of my illness and needing more time - no reply from court yet either. Scoobyandy

I just typed out a small chart detailing my name, account number, detailing each fee, what it was for, the amount charged and then the total at the bottom. you'll only be adding and claiming the interest in any court claim that you make. i.e late fee £20.00 01/01/2005 late fee £20.00 03/05/2006 overlimit fee £25.00 06/06/2006 total £65.00 simple pimple. Chin up and keep at the swines!

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

Claim for both Dan Good luck, Scoobyandy

Good luck but i wouldn't hold your breath. Scoobyandy

Sounds just about the same as the defence they sent to me - except they claimed that the diff between £12 and £25 has already been paid to Cabot financial (debt recovery). The debt with Cabot was settled in October 05 (in full) and i even asked Cabot the other week if they'd received any payments from Citi and the answer was "No payments since the account was settled" - ooh what competence Citi. I have now written a letter asking that judgment be made for this payment (diff between £12 & £25) and sent to me as the account with Cabot was settled a year ago. No reply yet - nor to my letter objecting to moving the case to Salford and having secret hearings. Keep at the swimes. 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

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

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.

Any updates worth pm-ing me about anyone? I'm at the stage of having filed my AQ. Looking forward to reading anything about how Citi are digging their own grave or worthwhile ammo... 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

Second letter received reminding me that i could still accept their offer of £200+ (the difference between their charges and £12.00 figure). Amazingly, this arrived the same day as their time ran out before i filed my claim at the court. The claim is now filed at County court for the full amount and as soon as the stamped paperwork comes through, the details will be posted here. Cheeky ^%$£s expect me to settle for 200 odd quid when they now owe me £900.00 - yeah right - i might have been dumb and desperate enough to have one of your cards years ago, but i'm not sitting back letting you keep money that's rightfully mine. See you in court if need be.

Well, i got a reply to my preliminary letter - same old template that everyone seems to be receiving and offering me the difference between the 12.00 and what they actually charged me. As they asked me to accept the payment in full and final settlement, that was duly rejected completely, and i've now sent my LBA. Whats remarkably crap about it all is that when mr Udy offered the £260-odd, he referred to it settling a balance of £190 - something and the balance would be forwarded to me as a cheque. I hope this is indicative of the standard of competency i can expect from Mr Udy and his team, as i have not held a capital one card for over three years and the last one was settled in full - which i again confirmed over the phone with their "Specialist support team" to satisfy my own mind. What a cock-up!! I wonder if it was worth reminding Mr Udy that I can ask for a complete breakdown of their actual costs incurred in my allocation questionaire? *Off to find that template for Allocation Questionaires now*.

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

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