rich2568 V Citicards-- interesting development!!

[thewifeandI]

It sounds to me that you ought to offer the DCA £550 to settle the entire debt, and forget about your charges - you'd be far better off as far as I can see!

[elsinore]

Musings.

 

If Citicards sold your debt off to Hillsden at a loss then that is their fault, not yours. If Hillsden were able to persuade you to part with £2425 then Citicards could have done that themselves.

 

Did you ask Hillsden at any stage for a copy of the Notice of Assignment?

I think assignment of a debt (usually the full amount) is quite different from selling off an old (uncollectable?) debt at a heavy discount. AlanfromDerby has a lot of info on this subject and might want to comment.

 

You have, effectively, paid the unlawful fees by paying Hillsden until they were satisfied. Perhaps Citicards should ask Hillsden to cough up!!

 

Brian Smith states that Citicards had to assign the claimants debt at a loss.

They didn't have to, they chose to. If they had pressed you for the debt then you would have paid them in the same way that you paid Hillsden leading to the same action which you are now bringing

 

These are simply points which occur to me and are expressed as opinion.

It's a very interesting situation which I am sure will provoke more comments.

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

It's a very interesting situation which I am sure will provoke more comments.

 

 

Oh! I see that it already has!!

[rich2568]

hi guys

at the risk of everyone shouting at me.... I'm just trying to make some sense of the actual situation......

 

The defence taken on the face of it does seem to make sense.

 

Rich didnt pay the bank the amount of the fees that were unlawfully charged. I cant see the actual amounts rich is claiming are charges at the moment...

 

Richs final debt was #3700 ? of which #1000 were charges ?

 

The debt was sold off for a small amount (#450 - annoying but insignificant to the claim) and Rich finally paid #2425 to settle the debt to the DCA.

 

So say the original debt was 2700 before charges, rich has actually paid back less than the original debt.

 

If someone can correct me in this then I'd be happily corrected but it seems that Rich didnt pay the charges in the first place, thus he cant actually claim them back ???

 

 

edit: okay reading through it again - has rich paid citicards 2424 (which citicards deny???), and on top of this paid hillesden the 2425 to clear the debt ? I cant work out what the original debt was and I cant see an amount that is being claimed in charges .....

 

 

 

Does it show that you have paid this in your statements with citicards ?

 

 

.

karnevil

 

for your clarification this debt totalled £3458.78 then after court action this escalated to £3703.00.

 

My payments to Citibank throughout the life of the account were £2425.00. These were made because the account had spending on it each month. The penalty charges were applied but that does not mean I did not pay them. The £2425.00 you could say was more than enough to cover their £210.00 worth of charges.

 

Because they assigned the debt on is not my decision. If they had kept the account in- house they still have a policy just like Hillesden whereby they will accept a full and final settlement figure which is beneath the actual debt owed.

[rich2568]

P.S. Rich - can you keep your posts about this to a single thread?! I'm WELL confused about which one you're using as your main one...

 

Hi Stonelaughter.

 

My posts are within `General` & `Other Institutions` as they are both applicable and I thought I would list them in both as it was an interesting post and it would be beneficial for as many people to read it.

[rich2568]

Hi Again

 

Got a reply from the court today. This is the first nail in the coffin for Citicards!!

 

It states "As the defendant is a company, if a defence is filed, the case will be transferred to the claimants local court"

 

Hoorrahh!!-- looks like their solicitor does not have a clue about the law??

 

What a shame!

 

Now someone tell me when I should be entering judgment by default as their acknowledgement of service was dated 23 June-- however the actual claim was deemed to be served on 17 June? Is it 28 days from the actual claim or 28 days from the Acknowledgment of Service being filed?

[Movingon]

It's 28 days from the Date of Service - the day the claim was "deemed to be served" on the Notice of Issue.

[rbrears]

Surely the charges were paid as the account went along? Im sure they would have been added to the account on a monthly basis or whatever. If they were and you madde paymants its not your lookout that on the bank's ledger they chose to attribute payments to interest and the balance and not charges?

 

Did the closing statement when the loan was sold off actually list all of the charges as still unpaid? I doubt it.

 

Their argument doesnt stack up as far as I can see.

[solidstan1]

Nice Work RICH!

 

Been reading your thread, and it scared the s--t out of me.

 

Glad to see you got it sorted.

 

Keep us posted, please!

 

Good Luck!

[kevmaxthom]

My court case against Citicards has been defended by their solicitor with an `Acknowledgment Of Service`- allowing them 28 days to produce a defence.

 

They also wrote to the court with the following:-

"I would be grateful if the court could consider remitting this to the Salford County Court, the Defendants home court. From the CPR rules, notes on allocation at 26.2.1, it is clear that justice ought be local to the defendant. In my respectful submission, the presumption of the Defendants innocence and the fact that my client, which has a national customer base, is currently receiving dozens of such claims and LBA`s from around the country suggests there are goog grounds for the court to consider transferring the case. This would relieve the unfair burden placed on Defendants such as my client which is having to defend itself in small claims hearings countrywide with no prospect of recovering its costs"

 

This is very interesting! looks like I`ll be writing to the court with my objections-- any ideas anyone- including Bookworm?

 

Hi

Received same letter today 14/July. Sent letter to court based on your letter(thanks for that). Will keep you posted.

Regards

Kev

[steveoram1]

Just a quick point - when banks sell these debts on to DCA's they are then legally allowed to write off their paper "losses" against their corporation tax bill - thus they do not really lose the money but get a reduction in tax payable for the year. This reduction obviously reduces the amount going to the treasury so the public are actually subsidising these write offs.

[rich2568]

Just found out by logging onto moneyclaim today that Citibank filed a defence on 12/06/06.

 

TODAY was the LAST day before I hit the` Judgement By Default` button-- oh how co-incidental!!

 

Is this normal for the banks-- they just keep stringing it out and use every day that is possible through the court system with the intention of not ever possibly turning up in person??

[elsinore]

I guess you mean 12th July Rich!!

 

Let's hope the defence is unchanged from the original guff served up by the silly solicitors!! No doubt you'll tell us when you get it.

 

Yes, it's their idea of brinkmanship. They wait, hoping you will withdraw or default. Then, when they are sure that you mean to go into court, they make an offer. It's an abuse of the court system and, sooner or later, one of them is going to come a cropper.

 

Elsinore

[funkyparott]

Check out Section 26.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules - Automatic Allocation. This pretty much sets out that cases of company vs individual *should* always transfer in favour of the individual.

 

The courts favouring the individual like this is a fundemental part of the law. There are stated cases to support this (I have read and I can't remember now !!)

 

Why is the defendant's solicitor asking the judge to break the CPR rules ?

 

"

AUTOMATIC TRANSFER

 

26.2

(1) This rule applies to proceedings where –

(a) the claim is for a specified amount of money;

(b) the claim was commenced in a court which is not the defendant’s home court;

© the claim has not been transferred to another defendant’s home court under rule 13.4 (application to set aside (GL) or vary default judgment – procedure) or rule 14.12 (admission – determination of rate of payment by judge); and

 

(d) the defendant is an individual.

 

(2) This rule does not apply where the claim was commenced in a specialist list (GL) .

 

(3) Where this rule applies, the court will transfer the proceedings to the defendant’s home court when a defence is filed, unless paragraph (4) applies.

 

(Rule 2.3 defines ‘defendant’s home court’)

(4) Where the claimant notifies the court under rule 15.10 or rule 14.5 that he wishes the proceedings to continue, the court will transfer the proceedings to the defendant’s home court when it receives that notification from the claimant.

 

(Rule 15.10 deals with a claimant’s notice where the defence is that money claimed has been paid)

 

(Rule 14.5 sets out the procedure where the defendant admits part of a claim for a specified amount of money)

 

(5) Where –

(a) the claim is against two or more defendants with different home courts; and

(b) the defendant whose defence is filed first is an individual,

proceedings are to be transferred under this rule to the home court of that defendant.

 

(6) The time when a claim is automatically transferred under this rule may be varied by a practice direction in respect of claims issued by the Production Centre.

 

(Rule 7.10 makes provision for the Production Centre)

"

[rich2568]

I guess you mean 12th July Rich!!

 

Elsinore

 

Hi Elsinore

 

Actually it is the 12 June.

 

Bearing in mind the actual claim date was 12 June and then the `deemed serve date` was 17 June 2006 (5 days to allow the snail mail!)-- then there is a further 14 days for them to file an `acknowledgment of service`.

Citi did file this (on 22/06) and then the court still states that even after filing this they still have 28 days from the `deemed serve date`. This actually was 15 July but because this was a Saturday the court allows them until the close of business the next possible working day --which would be July 17 - the day the defence appeared on moneyclaim.

 

The actual date the defence is lodged is actually your claim date-- as per the courts standard rules.

 

I looked at this link originally to put me in the picture!!

Board Message

[elsinore]

 

The actual date the defence is lodged is actually your claim date-- as per the courts standard rules.

 

 

Ah! I didn't know that. Thanks for putting me right. How could I have doubted you?

 

Elsinore

[Mrgreengenes]

Rich, hang in there. My claim against Citi Cards will go in soon. In the beginning Citi Cards used to pay up straightaway. They must be running scared now seeing that the law is on our side.

 

 

Don't let the fatherless chillen get ya!

[thecornflake]

I noticed they're stating that the claim is base don the OFT ruling. This isn't and shouldn't be right as the OFT withdrew the part of the ruling that said it also related to banks, and that the FSA should investigate that part.

 

The legal basis of the claim is the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. You might want to bear this in mind as using the OFT ruling to claim won't be a very good idea.

 

The post earlier about CPR allocation is bang on - case always have been allocated to the closest court for the 'less well-off person' which is clearly you in this case. Not that it will go to court anyway...

[rich2568]

Today I received the Allocation Questionnaire.

 

You can see their defence as posted previously within this thread.

 

What do I write within the section G) Other Information.

 

I believe you have to put valid points and don`t go on and on to bore the judge!!

 

Let me know what I can write in this empty box??

[Bookworm]

Rich, there is absolutely no need nor reason to duplicate your information on 2 separate threads. I have merged your threads and would ask that you keep your updates onto that one thread from now on. Thanks.

[Smila]

Hi everyone I have been reading this with great interest. I to received my AQ and returned it to Court.

 

I did however receive a check yesterday for 107.00 the claim is for over 300.00, I cant quite understand their sums but from what I can gather is that they are refunding the amount over £12.00. Banked cheque!, and sent them a letter telling them the claim would remain unsettled until I got the lot!!

 

will see them in court as well as LLoyds!!

[rich2568]

Rich, there is absolutely no need nor reason to duplicate your information on 2 separate threads. I have merged your threads and would ask that you keep your updates onto that one thread from now on. Thanks.

 

Yes no prob Bookworm-- this was due to me allowing as many people to get involved and share their discussions!!

[Shanks]

...as the OFT withdrew the part of the ruling that said it also related to banks, and that the FSA should investigate that part...

 

:o When did this happen? Is there a post somewhere about this? Sorry about the questions but this came as a bit of a surprise to me

 

The legal basis of the claim is the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. You might want to bear this in mind as using the OFT ruling to claim won't be a very good idea.

 

I have just issued my claim through Moneyclaim using the template provided on this site which doesn't mention the OFT's ruling. But I did refer to it quite a lot in my past correspondence with my bank, will this give them an advantage or only if I use it in court?

 

TIA for any comments

[Shanks]

Cough and a bump :grin: :grin:

 

Anyone got any further information on this?

 

Cheers

[Bean]

Any news rich2568?