thanks bae, the adjudicator initially said they cannot look at arrears charges (which is what my complaint is essentially about) but now says it can be looked at within the overall assessment of fair treatment. their 2009 annual report said that most mortgage related complaints concerned arrears charges and the majority were upheld. I asked why he can't look at my arrears charges if the service looked at these kind of charges for other consumers. He didn't say anything.

they refunded my money and collected the item, they wouldn't exchange it.

It may not be unenforceable but can be improperly executed and the court will need to decide what remedy to offer to the debtor, maybe to strip the creditor of any rights to charge interest or fees during the period of non-compliance, i.e. until they signed it or to make it unenforceable. Under a (fairly recent) EU case, the court has a duty to apply any unfair terms it considers may apply to the agreement. CCA 1974 c.39 61 Signing of agreement (1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless— (a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and EU case ....

It was obviously signed after the day the first copy was sent to you, so when did they send this?

if the bank signed the credit agreement in 2006 then what date did they put on it? if it is 2006 then it becomes executed from that date and you could say you had no obligation to pay any interest or stick to terms and conditions before that. If they're dated it from the time you signed it then it seems like fraudulent behaviour.

In reply to your points: 1. The FOS disregarded law in my case. I won't go into details as it is comprehensive, but the main law here was s.136 LoP 1925 as used for assignment of debts. In my case, they used this against me when required and disregarded this against the bank. 2. No CMC involved in my cases. My debts were sold to DCAs by assignment. Some I settled (including paying the charges, PPI and associated interest), some were outstanding. In each case, the FOS said because the debts were assigned the DCA should get the refund, even with the settled accounts (proof was shown and the DCA themselves said there was a £0 balance). They said if i didn't accept this, then the bank can keep the refund towards its write off (when it sold the account). They said assignment didn't matter since the bank was left with an unpaid balance. These decisions were clearly irrational. It meant i was in effect paying the DCA and the bank for the same 'debt' and when they wanted to pay the DCA then assignment mattered and when they wanted the bank to keep the money it didn't matter. In the end, i ended with getting no refund though the bank wanted to send the money to the DCA. The FOS said it was up to me to then chase the DCA for my money. 3. In my cases, the DCA was being sent the money without ever submitting anything to the FOS and purely based on the bank's offer. The FOS said they have no power to include a third party into a complaint between myself and the bank yet they had the power to send my money to a third party not involved with the complaint. 4. I took a few of the cases to the Independent Assessor but they were upheld for the FOS. I did not get the answer to why the FOS can pay my money to a third party not involved in the complaint and/or to whom i owe no money and why the bank can put my money toward a write off done when they sold the account. I could go on with many other examples of how i feel i was treated badly by the FOS but there's no use. With many of the cases, the bank still sent the refund to the DCA even though i clearly did not accept their offer FOS decision. The FOS said this doesn't matter to them as it's between me and the bank. In a way i had not choice and it didn't seem to matter whether i accepted a settlement or not, the bank did what they wanted anyway.

the FOS seems more keen on investigating how the account was run (prob to justify the arrears charges the bank applied and which they say are fair). I'm being asked many questions and to provide documents, some of which go back many years. Some of the questions are irrelevant, such as income details and audited accounts, court documents and to explain why and how the account was run the way it was (which resulted in the charges). also, they're asking me to explain securitisation to them and why i think the bank may not be in control of everything. any advice?

if you pay the £1,500 the whole debt may be discharged as they can't issue another claim or CCJ for the same debt. 15% isn't a bad deal.

Maybe you can tell us : Why can the FOS disregard law and established precedents in favour of being 'fair and reasonable' when it helps the bank but won't use the same criteria which helps the consumer. Why can they award money to a third party who is not a part of the complaint, has never been a part and has never (obviously) submitted any documents. I'm told the FOS have no power to join a third party to a complaint but seem to think it fair to send them money. Why will an Ombudsman never overturn an Adjudicator decision which is clearly wrong. For example, where an Adjudicator says 'i don't care what you say'. I could go on with many more questions which have never been answered. I'm not here to argue with you, but the FOS is not fair and reasonable at all.

based on the fact yours were upheld so you didn't have to suffer irrational decisions and a lack of transparency or any regard for the law (which they can and do disregard when it suits them)?

Nope, based on the fact that i had many complaints upheld and many rejected and i've had in depth discussions with them.

You don't seem to have any idea of how bad the FOS can be, or maybe you've only had good experiences with them. They are DEFINITELY on the side of the banks.

I think it's a genuine mistake by Citi, they have their records mixed up, as do Cabot. I have a paper trail proving who the owners were/are and what the balance was/is/should be. There's not much they can do. If it goes to court with the balance as it is, the refund of charges/interest will still come off it and there's hardly anything left. If they've defaulted me again, that's a different issue which needs taking up. A decision by the FOS is legally binding on Citi. When they offered to refund Cabot and said they're sending them a cheque, and the FOS agreed, that became legally binding on them. They still have to pay that cheque, even if they didn't in the past, plus any interest for the past 2 years.

Nothing, let them deal with it. They might take me to court.

i've raised a complaint with Citi and Cabot and after their response, it's off to the FOS.

They can do what they want, the law still applies to them. I have documents going back all those years. It's a proven fact that Citi didn't own the account when, at the FOS, they offered to refund my charges to Cabot. Then they said payment will be sent to Cabot. This can be used in court as evidence. They'd have to show they owned it again after that in order to now sell it. It's like a house, once you've sold it, the buyer can't just return it to you, they'd have to sell it and you'd have to buy it and legally transfer it in your name to sell it again.

They cannot 'sell' it once and transfer it on other occasions. Once it's legally sold, it's gone from them. The account was legally assigned to Cabot in 2003 with the Notice of Assignment completing the transfer. After that notice, it did not legally belong to Citi and the default was maintained by Cabot until it expired after 6 years. Cabot would then need to legally assign it to Citi in order for them to legally own it so that they can legally assign it again. The process isn't as simple as Cabot returning the account to Citi who think they can assign it again. There are legal processes that have to be carried out before an account (chose in action / thing in action) can be legally owned. Otherwise banks would be assigning debts as many times as they want and that is an abuse of s.136 of the LoP 1925. If it applies to me it equally applies to them. Any assignment in which notice hasn't been given to the borrower remains an equitable (i.e. not legal) transfer. And I didn't receive notice from Cabot that they've sold it to Citi (or they could have sold it to anyone else if they wanted) or from Citi that they've bought it. Therefore there was no legal transfer. This is very effectively used by banks when they sell mortgages but don't inform the borrower, therefore retain legal title. It's the same principle with any debt, no matter who the firm is.

if either Cabot or Citi now maintain a default on this balance (the one that's been sold) then this is clearly unlawful because i've already had a default around 2002 which cleared a few years ago, so they can't default me twice for an account. i'll have to check but that would be a bigger mess ....

Whether its statute barred or not isn't the issue, the balance would not be much anyway. Also, the bank gave the refund and Cabot owned the debt, that's two separate companies. There's been nothing with Cabot for many years. the issue is whether Cabot can 'sell' the debt back to Citi without informing me (as per s.136 LoP 1925) and whether Citi can sell a debt they (1) don't legally own or (2) if they do own it (i don't know how) can then sell it with a full balance again (having paid £780 towards it which would have almost paid it all off). i.e. Cabot owned the account and Citi sent them £980 towards it. Cabot returned the whole account to Citi who have now sold it back to Cabot with £1020 (the alleged full balance). Where has the £980 gone and how were Cabot able to send the account back to Citi (or how were Citi able to own it again in order to now assign it again)?

i think what's happened is that the bank refunded Cabot (who say they'd sent it to Citi before this) and the account was closed at Cabot but not Citi, who've now sold it again to Cabot. But by refunding Cabot the bank had said I don't owe them anything so why have they resurrected the account? Citi did say a new 'Data Controller' was selling old accounts, looks like even those sold before!

i'm interested in knowing if Citi can sell and Cabot can buy an account that's been sold and bought once before, sent back to Citi and now bought by Cabot again. to send it back wouldn't Cabot need to REASSIGN it back to Citi (the same way Citi sold assigned it to them) so that it's once again legally owned by the bank and be sold (as it's been)? if Cabot didn't assign it properly to Citi then it was still owned by them so Citi can't sell something they don't own and Cabot can't buy an account they're already bought 7 years ago. Otherwise banks would be selling, recalling and selling accounts again and again. i've never had any notice that Cabot sold it back to Citi or that Citi bought it.

.... then the new balance would be £40 because the refund was £980 on a balance of £1020. and i guess the £40 is not due as well because Cabot seemed to have added some £600 of charges when they had the account and the balance as sold in 2003/2004 was around £900.

An old account has reared its head again. Citi assigned my account sometime in 2003/2004 and Cabot soon chased this up as it was assigned to them. Payments were made until 2007 when i requested a CCA agreement and nothing came back. Cabot didn't chase much after that, though the odd letter still came. In 2007 I claimed charges/interest from Citi and this went to the FOS where the bank offered to pay around £980 and send this to Cabot. The FOS agreed but I didn't. Got a letter from Citi soon after saying that a cheque has been sent to Cabot. I haven't heard anything on the account until today with Cabot informing me the account has been assigned to them with a balance of £1020 (includes the charges, PPI etc which was previously refunded). I've rang Citi who can't understand that the account was assigned in 2003/2004 to Cabot and it's been through the FOS for the charges. They say it's now owned by Cabot and to contact them. Rang Cabot who know the account was assigned to them before as they have both the old and new ref numbers attached to the account. They say the account was sent back to Citi when i raised the complaint. They agree it is now Statute Barred. What seems to have happened is that Cabot sent (sold?) it back to Citi who've now sold it back to Cabot. I've never had a Notice of Assignment from Cabot/Citi saying that they now sold/re-own/sent the account to Citi (assignment was equitable only) so how can Citi now sell something to Cabot which they don't own (as Cabot already owns it)? Any advice please?

the case has now got to an FOS adjudicator. however, i'm told they can't look at the level of charges (because of the test case on personal current account charges) and that i must have agreed to the charges as part of the agreement and that the FSA saying arrears charges must reflect costs is a matter for their regulation and not the FOS. They consider the charges to be fair (because they are £35 as opposed to between £25 - £80 for others) and in any case do not determine what the commercial charges of a firm should be. They say common law on penalties does not apply. The FOS say they will only look at how the firm treated me whilst in arrears but will not determine whether the charges are fair or reflective of the bank's costs. They say arrears charges are different to credit card charges and more near current account charges (for which the test case exists). what to do? looks like i won't get a fair decision on the charges.

Yeah, right .....