rich2568 V Citicards-- interesting development!!

[rich2568]

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!-- any ideas Bookworm?

[rich2568]

Super reply bankfodder-- i`m onto that letter straightaway!!

[rich2568]

Hi Guys

 

Here`s my letter :-

The Court Manager

Northampton County Court

21-27 St Katherines Street

Northampton

NN1 2LH

 

 

Dear Sirs

 

Re: Claim Number: XXXXXXX

XXXXXXXX V Citifinancial Europe plc

 

I write to you referring to a letter sent to you by the Defendant's solicitor Mr Brian Smith dated 22 June 2006.

 

In this letter he has asked the court to consider transferring the above case to the Salford County Court. I wholly object to this request and outline my reasons for doing so below.

 

Firstly the Defendant is a large multinational corporate business with large sums of capital, however I am a private individual with limited funds who is suing in person. As the defendant letter correctly states, they have a national customer base, which is something they wish to have and also profit from. They cannot now turn round and say that having a national customer base is indeed a liability and they do not wish to carry the responsibility for it.

 

The defendant states they are receiving dozens of claims and LBA`s from all over the country, however I do not see that this is relevant to my claim. Why should I be penalised for bringing my own claim. If there are dozens of other claims against the defendant then maybe they are in the wrong in the first place and surely they would save the court and the justice system a lot of time by just accepting this.

 

The defendant states that they are having to deal with the burden of having to defend cases all over the country ,however based on historic cases ,the defendant actually has not gone on to defend themselves in court in person once. Instead they test the claimant all the way to the stage of an allocation questionnaire. They then hope the claimants can be scared off by their intimidatory tactics and drop their case against them.

 

The defendant actually is not interested in litigating at all- they are just using the court and the justice system as a means to frighten legitimate claimants and this is an abuse.

 

By asking the court to transfer the case to the defendant's home court, the defendant is merely attempting to draw the justice system even more deeply into it's practice of intimidating it's legitimate claimants by increasing the hurdles which the claimant must jump before the inevitable full settlement is offered.

 

I am optimistic the court will take my views in board. To allow this request by the defendant on this occasion would set a precedent which may adversely affect the claims of other individuals countrywide, who are attempting to claim against, what I believe to be a corporate entity, Based on their market value they have more than enough resources already in place to defend themselves in court anywhere in the country, something not all private individuals have not.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

 

XXXXXXXXX

 

I`ll be ringing the court on Friday to see if they have received this letter-- if not they`ll be getting one by Special Delivery!!

[rich2568]

Hi Again Guys

 

Received the defence from Brian Smith solicitors today. Here are some snippets.

 

Basically it goes on to state that because the debt was charged off and assigned to Hillesden Securities ,then Citicards are not liable for the charges-- well who charged them then?

 

Also, because the balance at the time was 3,458.78 and they assigned it for £484.23 -YES THAT MUCH!!-- this broughtabout a loss of £2974.55 to Citicards. So they are saying that "this represented a loss to the defendant of £2974.55, a figure substantially in excess of the default fees actually levied on this account".

 

They go on to say " The claimant is claiming a sum equivalent to that which he claims was debited to his account over the terms of the Credit Agreement in over limit charges and late payment fees. This claim is based on the recent OFT statement on the unfairness of such default fees. It is the defendant defence that the claimant has sued the defendant in error and has no case against the defendant."

 

"The defendant avers that it does not owe the Claimant the monies claimed whether on the basis of the case stated or at all because the claimant never paid the monies, equivalent to the default fees levied on his account, to the defendant. The defendant relies upon the fact that the assigned amount was in excess of the default fees charged to the account"

 

"In the event that the court were to find in the Claimant`s favour, the Defendant will have sustained double the losses represented by the Claimant`s claim due to the fact it assigned the account debt at a loss and is then required to pay to the Claimant monies which the Claimant never actually paid to it"

 

" The Defendant avers that the Claimant`s claim is restitutionary in nature but there can be no claim for reimbursement because the Defendant never received the sum claimed from the claimant"

 

"The defendant will also aver that had it not assigned the debt to Hillesden, it would have had a defence of set-off against the Claimant in respect of these monies. In the event, the opportunity to raise such a defence has been denied the Defendant by the claimant`s failure to honour the terms of the credit agreement which meant the Defendant had to assign the Claimant`s account at a loss in order to recoup any of its losses"

 

"Each of the Claimant`s Particulars of Claim are denied and each and every allegation within these Particulars of Claim is specifically denied"

 

So then- this debt was paid to Hillesden at a cost of £2425.00 from a judgment of £3703.00 (even though it was sold for just £484.23!!)-- and they clearly stated that this amount was accepted in full and final settlement.

 

I assume that my £2425.00 would include the total debt so this would include any hideous penalty charges applied to the account. Also throughout the life of the account I paid a total of £2424.01-- yet they are stating I have never actually paid them the monies!!??!!

 

Anyway guys, have a look and tell me what you think-- because at this stage a lot of claimant`s will bale out!

[rich2568]

Come on guys- where are you all?

 

Lets have some feedback- then we can get even more motivated to beat the banks!!

[rich2568]

Do you know I totally agree!!

 

These solicitors are good at talking Bollocks-- I suppose I would if I was potentially going to earn £35 an hour to defend something indefenceable!!

[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?

[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??

[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

[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??

[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!!

[rich2568]

Hi All-- now at last got the court date set for 20 December!!

 

Getting myself ready- well I have got over 3 months to prepare!!

 

Looking forward to chatting with the District Judge-- us 2 will be so cosy!! Oh I nearly forgot-- there is Citicards aswell-- silly me, I was assuming that they won`t turn up!!

[rich2568]

I`m confident they are taking it to the wire!!

 

What do the mods think about this??

 

I will be there with them in court and we can have a right good argument with the judge giving his final decision on the matter-- I`ve already done my Christmas pressie list- I`ll be straight into Argos once the court case has finished!!

[rich2568]

Yeah Thanks for that!!

 

Please let me know how you get on in court-- LOL !!

[rich2568]

Saw your latest post here:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/35458-citi-only-matter-time.html

 

I don`t feel they have won anything-- just an expensive day out!!

[rich2568]

Here`s a copy from their A.Q. that I received today from the court.

 

It states that they have requested a private hearing with the judge and their Finance Director at their local court Salford- as I quote from their A.Q.:-

 

"The defendant will be relying upon its Director of Finance to explain the basis of its charges and their level. As this is commercially sensitive information, we would wish to present this evidence orally and in private. As this is potentially required in many other similar cases, it would be commercially less onerous if this could be done locally, thus minimising the absence from the business of a member of senior management.The defendant beleives that is is sensible to have such claims against it listed in the same court to keep costs to a minimum and avoid excessive use of Court time, by developing local familiarity with the accounting methodologies relied upon by the Defendant in calculating its charges."

 

Well ladies and gents-- not forgetting you Mr B.S.-- I think this will blow up in their faces well before time!!

 

Let`s stick together and let`s get the CAG crowd ready for that big "WE DID IT!!"

[rich2568]

Hiya Guys

 

It`s time now for me to submit my argument against Citicards requesting the private hearings and secret evidence to the court?

 

Do I have to use the N244 form to object or would I be best asking for an adjournment/ stay so I can view the available `commercially sensitive information`.

 

Lots of replies please as I`ve got to get cracking this week!!

 

How many have written to Mr B.S. to ask for a settlement out of court (I would assume the difference between your penalty charge and their preferred figure of £12-- without interest of course )- to save the court time- and to have some of that money in time for Chrimbo!!

[rich2568]

..

[rich2568]

That would be great stephen . PM me with it if you feel it is more secure-- you know away from those prying eyes!!

[rich2568]

PM `d you again- have a look!!

[rich2568]

I made the decision to make an offer to Citi. This was just because of the lack of time on my half plus being the normal etiquette for the claimant to give the chance to the defendant to settle out of court.

 

They have accepted my offer!- so this means for all the claimants that don`t want the burden of a court visit and all the associated paperwork- then write to them and make them an offer.The cheque should be in the post- mine was received today!!

 

For reference I did use my calculator and ask for 75% of the court claim.

 

I feel this is a minor victory plus it keeps my belief that Citicards know that their dodgy defences will eventually be smashed!!

 

My letter to them is below:-

Mr Brian Smith- Solicitor

CitiCards

CitiFinancial Europe plc

1 Exchange Quay

Salford

Manchester

M5 3EA

 

 

 

Dear Mr Smith

 

Re: Claim No.

Hearing Date:

 

 

I write to you in respect of the above case number.

 

As per the guidance given by the court, both sides should wherever necessary try to settle or come to an agreement out of court.

 

Bearing in mind Citicards have been part refunding clients who have requested refunds of these charges the difference between the O.F.T. Guidance of £8/£12 and the actual charges of £20 /£25, I would like to request whether it would be in the interest of both parties in this case ,whether or not that stance should be followed here.

 

As per your defence received by the court thus state “The Defendant sold the debt to Hillesden for £484.23. This represented a loss to the Defendant of £2,974.55”. This statement is not a decision that I agreed to but a decision that Citicards chose to commercially. Whether or not Citicards lost more than the actual default fees levied on the account does not correspond with my actual claim which is the application of charges which I view are disproportionately high and are penalties with a view to a profit. Citicards are in a position of assigning debts off to a third party whenever they feel is appropriate. If this assignment causes Citcards actual losses overall, then this is out of my control and not a fact within this court claim.

 

The actual total amount paid towards this account including a final amount paid to Hillesden was actually £5249.01- substantially more than the default fees levied on the account. In respect of the terms and conditions of my contract it states that any payments made are made towards interest and other charges first before any actual purchases and balance transfers. This is verified by the the following term taken from those conditions:-

 

9. All payments we receive from you will (unless otherwise required by law) be applied to your Account in the following order:

9.1 Citi Flex Payments Monthly Instalment (to be applied to each Citi Flex Payment facility in the order of creation);

9.2 other interest and Account Charges;

9.3 existing Promotional Balances – lowest rates first;

9.4 new Promotional Balances – lowest rates first;

9.5 existing Purchase balances and non-promotional Balance Transfers – in the order in which they were debited to your Account as shown on the monthly statement;

9.6 new Purchase balances and non-promotional Balance Transfers – in the order in which they were debited to your Account but not yet shown on the monthly statement;

9.7 existing Cash balances shown on the last monthly and/or previous statements – in the order in which they were debited to your Account as shown on the monthly statement;

9.8 new Cash balances – in the order in which they were debited to your Account but not yet shown on the monthly statement;

 

I trust the option for both parties in this instance to settle out of court will be viewed as a sensible option, so my offer of accepting the sum from Citicards of £ as full and final settlement of my claim is offered to you. This offer can only be acceptable if taken up within 7 working days of this letter. If this offer is denied then the court action will continue, which will bring about the full claim which includes statutory court interest.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

rich2568

[rich2568]

Yeah thanks for that. I feel as I said its a minor victory BUT it gives ongoing claimants a ray of light in a darkened tunnel!!

 

One previous post stated that he/ she felt it was an unwise decision-- I don`t think so. When Citi get to court-- which they sometime in the future will-- they will argue, as they have been doing, that there is a justification that a charge has to implemented- what figure it is, is up to the court to decide?

 

So all in all, by taking a cheque out of their bank account without appearing in court- thus saving my hours resourcing all the paperwork and going backwards and forwards to court plus the saving for the taxpayer towards the courts manpower for a case not proceeding etc etc.. It has to be worth it in the end!!

[rich2568]

If you read their defence you will understand more why they settled and why they paid out more than the difference between the £12.88 and the penalties!! The defence showed signs of vulnerability.

 

I made sure the timing of my letter (just before court) was spot on. Also in my last letter I shown the weakness in that defence, they then knew settlement made sense!!

 

O.K. I could of took my attack to court and eventually got a payout but by this way I get it a lot sooner and I can now go Christmas shopping instead of planning my court appearance/s!!