Jump to content


keren29 v Associates (citicards)**Defence Struck Out**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5471 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hey - LTWFB - you are in the first entry!!

 

Have to confess Googling my full name gives me the top 8 hits!!! (but I have got an unusual name!!)

 

I've also googled the actor Brian looked like in my dream and it is Nigel Terry. He was a support role in Spooks. Looks a bit like Richard Harris!!

Abbey - Claim 1

full hearing 22 Feb 07 - Settled in full £710 :D

Abbey (Claim 2)

full hearing 22 Feb 07- Settled in full £4000 :D

Abbey (Claim 3)

Court date 27 June -

Capital One (claim 1)

£467 Settled in full 20 Sep :D

Capital One (claim 2)

£72 refunded 19 Aug :-D

Associates (Citicards)

claim 8 Aug/judgment by default 30 Aug/set aside hearing 9 Oct/Stay denied, ordered by Judge to reveal breakdown of charges andfull hearing 24 May/FULL DISCLOSURE ORDERED BY 8 MARCH/JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE AS NON-COMPLIANCE/DEFENCE STRUCK OUT PAYMENT IN FULL REQUIRED IN 14 DAYS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not going to happen.

Why does he need to register ?

He already gets what he wants from here

Dont you Brian ?

:rolleyes:

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have news.

 

got the order today and gave the court a ring as the court funds office still hadn't had the money. She got the file out and was fantastic.

 

Citicards have written to the court and complained about the order (no surprise there then), but the bottom of their letter says 'please find attached a cheque for £530. 61'. Excellent news. The full amount.

 

So, now all I need is the defence and it can move forward.

 

Apparently the Judge is looking at the file (again!) tomorrow, so I will have more news soon.

 

I wonder if I am allowed to see the letter? Anyone know?

Abbey - Claim 1

full hearing 22 Feb 07 - Settled in full £710 :D

Abbey (Claim 2)

full hearing 22 Feb 07- Settled in full £4000 :D

Abbey (Claim 3)

Court date 27 June -

Capital One (claim 1)

£467 Settled in full 20 Sep :D

Capital One (claim 2)

£72 refunded 19 Aug :-D

Associates (Citicards)

claim 8 Aug/judgment by default 30 Aug/set aside hearing 9 Oct/Stay denied, ordered by Judge to reveal breakdown of charges andfull hearing 24 May/FULL DISCLOSURE ORDERED BY 8 MARCH/JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE AS NON-COMPLIANCE/DEFENCE STRUCK OUT PAYMENT IN FULL REQUIRED IN 14 DAYS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst arguing commercial confidentiality, you would think that conversely if the figures that Citi have presented are correct they would be eager to disclose them as an aid to defend any future cases against them that may arise.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess so!! If they sent out a copy of the breakdown of the charges with each letter when replying to a claim, then everyone would know just how they were made up! :D

 

Obviously though, as my claim is for charges way back in 2002/2003, I'd need a breakdown of the charges from then,rather than their current charges, because obviously they won't be the same as now ........will they......;)

Abbey - Claim 1

full hearing 22 Feb 07 - Settled in full £710 :D

Abbey (Claim 2)

full hearing 22 Feb 07- Settled in full £4000 :D

Abbey (Claim 3)

Court date 27 June -

Capital One (claim 1)

£467 Settled in full 20 Sep :D

Capital One (claim 2)

£72 refunded 19 Aug :-D

Associates (Citicards)

claim 8 Aug/judgment by default 30 Aug/set aside hearing 9 Oct/Stay denied, ordered by Judge to reveal breakdown of charges andfull hearing 24 May/FULL DISCLOSURE ORDERED BY 8 MARCH/JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE AS NON-COMPLIANCE/DEFENCE STRUCK OUT PAYMENT IN FULL REQUIRED IN 14 DAYS

Link to post
Share on other sites

wow was directed here by lula.

 

have to stay good on you keren!

 

its a tonic for me who is having loads of probs with c**pwets are all their antics and delay tactics.

 

Its keeping me focused learning from your example!

Allyxia

KEEP FIGHTING FOR YOUR MONEY - EVEN WHEN IT GETS TOUGH

The Banks are somewhere which lends you an umberella when it is sunny, and takes it away when it rains

 

HSBC £1200 - Settled in Full

Cap 1 2 X £100 - Settled in Full

Nationwide £1641 - Settled in Full inc Default and CCJ Removed by Court Order

NatWest £2215.60- Settled in Full and Removed Default Natice

Woolwich £3690 - Settled in Full

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to remind everyone (and Brian, too). From one lawyer to another ...... Citi have to plead and prove each loss and show that these losses would NOT have occurred but for your breaches. So they cannot claim any surrounding costs such as staff training, implementing systems and computer software. Just the losses which DIRECTLY flowed from your breaches.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

great

Was not the 42 cpr recently introduced mentioning the access to both parties unrestricted ? for all material to be used in defence.

How then can they just turn up with evidence that has not been made available to the claimant prior to a hearing ?

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to remind everyone (and Brian, too). From one lawyer to another ...... Citi have to plead and prove each loss and show that these losses would NOT have occurred but for your breaches. So they cannot claim any surrounding costs such as staff training, implementing systems and computer software. Just the losses which DIRECTLY flowed from your breaches.....

 

 

This is a quote from Gizmo111 v Citicards http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/citicards/18681-gizmo111-citicards.html: Post No 2

 

" I refer to your fourth and fifth paragraph in the aforementioned letter where you state that your interpretation of the OFT’s statement of April 6th 2006 is that you are entitled to levy a fee for breach of contract, as they cover more than just the price of a stamp or envelope etc but just not one in excess in of £12

 

Please read and consider the following extract from the OFT’s statement

 

‘Where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair, and is likely to challenge the charge unless there are limited, exceptional business factors in play. A default charge is not fair simply because it is below £12

A default charge should only be used to recover certain limited administrative costs. These may include postage and stationery costs and staff costs and also a proportionate share of the costs of maintaining premises and IT systems necessary to deal with defaults

 

 

How does this reconcile itself with Rosemary's points above?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a quote from Gizmo111 v Citicards http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/citicards/18681-gizmo111-citicards.html: Post No 2

 

" I refer to your fourth and fifth paragraph in the aforementioned letter where you state that your interpretation of the OFT’s statement of April 6th 2006 is that you are entitled to levy a fee for breach of contract, as they cover more than just the price of a stamp or envelope etc but just not one in excess in of £12

 

Please read and consider the following extract from the OFT’s statement

 

‘Where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair, and is likely to challenge the charge unless there are limited, exceptional business factors in play. A default charge is not fair simply because it is below £12

A default charge should only be used to recover certain limited administrative costs. These may include postage and stationery costs and staff costs and also a proportionate share of the costs of maintaining premises and IT systems necessary to deal with defaults

 

 

How does this reconcile itself with Rosemary's points above?

 

Means citi needs a law book!

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, maybe the OFT are wrong, heavens forbid

Lloyds TSB (SARS) request sent 9th June 2006

£2191 Moneyclaim Issued 11/08/2006, Acknowleded 17th August Defence 14 Sep, AQ returned 5/10/2006.SETTLED IN FULL £2,670 26/11/2006/ Lloyds Credit Card SETTLED IN FULL £267

MBNA SETTLED IN FULL 15/09/2006 £829

Citicard (SARS) request sent 22nd June 2006 Moneyclaim issued 19th Sep, Defence and AQ received 5/10/2006, AQ returned 5/10/2006, part refund received 10/10/2006

GE MONEY SETTLLED IN FULL £400

Barclaycard Me and Mrs SARS sent 19/10/2006 settled £350

Welcome Finance PPI 2 accounts one settled £1018 waiting on other

GE Money PPI 1 account settled 8/5/2008 £560 2nd account SETTLED IN FULL £3,599.78p 15thAugust 2008

Lloyds TSB PPI CC complaint sent 10/04/2008

Black Horse PPI with FOS 20/05/2008

HFC PPI complaint sent 22/05/2008

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

try htis on for size-I found this for Bankfodder.....

 

I've been searching about for info on the penalty charges not being divided up against all customers.I found this extract from the OFT which I think addresses exactly what CITI did to us....

 

sections 3 and 4 are the bits to read

 

oft842 - Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Keren and all others who have contributed to this brilliant thread. It has made great reading.

 

May I suggest a possible result of the very large hole that Smith & co have dug for citi cards.

 

My thread is here

 

To save you having to read it, I have just received a "nice" letter from citi cards telling me that they will again look into my claim for refund of charges. My LBA was sent in May! Why should they, all of a sudden, write to me again. Perhaps they are trying to pacify those of us who haven't issued a claim yet.

 

Hi Brian, we haven't locked horns yet but if citi cards don't refund my charges in full, we will!!!

 

Best of luck Keren and all other claimants, although we don't really need it. We have the law on our side!

Don't let the fatherless chillen get ya! :grin:

 

Barclays - settled in full £4799.38 ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all - further thoughts... certainly looking at the OFT statement, this seems to cover all these areas. However, we're not saying we won't pay their losses - just what are they?

 

Firstly, Citi have to establish that our 'breaches' are the direct cause of their loss complained about (which they have typically claimed in their £30+ charges). The test for breach of contract is that our breach is the effective or dominant cause of their loss (ie. the doctrine of causation). If Citi have suffered losses which have flowed as a result of our 'breaches', what are they?

However, these losses are limited by the rules of remoteness, ie. whilst our breach may be a factual cause of the harm suffered by Citi, the rule of remoteness of loss prevents them claiming consequential losses which extend too far. AND THIS IS THE RUB. What could they reasonably claim. If the direction of the OFT is to be relied upon, then this is the line Mr BS is following (bettcha dollar he is!) So, what are his commercial costs for running his department and how many accounts do they have to spread those costs over? Interesting!? Mr BS - any comments?;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rosemary, I just read your post you have just removed - I hadn't read the OFT report before but these small posts don't do justice to the items read. Unfortunately after reading it I refreshed the screen and it vanished :x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andrew

 

Yes, I had tried to highlight and paste the relevant important bit in the OFT report, but it failed to copy across the highlighted bit only and I ended up with a monster of a paste!!! Scary!

 

Anyway, I'll try again.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

No - it's too big but 'Lickthewallfatboy' in #118 has the link.

 

I'm reluctant to discuss this too much, as I feel we're doing the thinking and debating for the benefit of Mr B.S. & Co. Although as solicitors, they'll be aware of the salient points and will be arguing the same points but from a different perspective, no doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've had my first letter from Brian! Confirmation that the money has been paid to the court. Should get the defence pretty soon (only two and a half months since I filed the claim.........)

Abbey - Claim 1

full hearing 22 Feb 07 - Settled in full £710 :D

Abbey (Claim 2)

full hearing 22 Feb 07- Settled in full £4000 :D

Abbey (Claim 3)

Court date 27 June -

Capital One (claim 1)

£467 Settled in full 20 Sep :D

Capital One (claim 2)

£72 refunded 19 Aug :-D

Associates (Citicards)

claim 8 Aug/judgment by default 30 Aug/set aside hearing 9 Oct/Stay denied, ordered by Judge to reveal breakdown of charges andfull hearing 24 May/FULL DISCLOSURE ORDERED BY 8 MARCH/JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE AS NON-COMPLIANCE/DEFENCE STRUCK OUT PAYMENT IN FULL REQUIRED IN 14 DAYS

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...