Chalkitup v Citi / 1st Credit

[diddydicky]

good point dd, i will do that. Re sig - aye right is a unique Glasgow expression. If you were listening in Maths, when you multiply two positive numbers - for instance 3 x 2 - you would get a positive. "Aye right", despite being two positive expressions - aye and right - in the magical world that is Glasgow, one gets a negative. Its in the intonation which doesnt travel too well on the printed page.

 

i knew an scots indian once

 

his name was hawkeye the noo!!

[Chalkitup]

Could someone please just confirm what I am saying here is correct and ok for me to do ....... then I will send it off tomorrow.

 

My original lender on this account is not about anymore .... Citi got hold of the account ...... so if I now send SAR to Citi ......... as they also own Egg at the moment (which is another cc account I have problems with) ..... will I be able to get the SAR info for both under the same £10?

 

Or does it not work like that?

 

 

Onwards and Upwards

 

Chalkitup

[seriously fed up]

As far as I know when you are dealing with Egg you should still right to Egg, as they have retained their identity (if not their separate ownership). With the Citi card I had which originally were with other lenders, Citi issued new cards under their name. So for a card that says Egg, write to Egg, and for a card that says Citi write to Citi would be my advice

Two SARs for two accounts for one fee? Somehow I doubt it

DD, that is the kind of gag that does wonders for the Nationalist vote

[The GodMother]

It does depend as if it was a shop direct account you can ask for all information they hold on you in relation to all there sub compamys.

[seriously fed up]

No it wasnt a shop direct account - it was just a bog standard credit card. It did though have an interesting origin. This was in a points/ customer loyalty card for a well known petrol retailer that I picked up somewhere in the middle 90s. At some point - that I cant remember precisely - I seem to remember that a new card arrived with a letter telling me that - glory be - they had transformed the point/ loyalty card into a credit card. Now memory is a funny thing and it could be that I am dead wrong in this, but my memory is that there never was an executed agreement - just a form that I sent in asking to be registered for their points loyalty deal.

You might think that was a remarkably stupid thing for a lender to do. But is it more/less/ just as stupid as what M&S did with their Chargecards into &more trick in 2003 (and this must have been around the same time)

If I am right, the really funny thing is that it was seldom that I ever bought that brand of petrol.

[The GodMother]

I think u have misunderstood me.

 

I was saying it it was a company and they have multipul sub companys then you could SAR the main company for all the info they have on you but in the way of Egg and citi then l would SAR them both for the seperate accounts.

[Chalkitup]

I think u have misunderstood me.

 

I was saying it it was a company and they have multipul sub companys then you could SAR the main company for all the info they have on you but in the way of Egg and citi then l would SAR them both for the seperate accounts.

 

OK .... I will do them seperately.

 

Thanks

 

Onwards and Upwards

 

Chalkitup

[babybear39]

Unfortunately, due to circumstance, I am unable to continue to contribute to this thread. Good luck and *hugs*.

[seriously fed up]

This seems to have gone quiet so I thought i would noise it up a little bit.

I have been in correspondence with our friends at furst kredit. They have presented me with a computer print of T&Cs they allege were the T&Cs when the card in question was first taken out, as well as the current T&Cs. Now they have, it seems to me a number of problems with this, but mainly that, I am practically certain that when the card was "taken out" it was one that evolved from a loyalty card and the credit card just appeared (this was at the end of the 90s, I think) with an invitation to go use it. The account was then transferred from RBS (it was a joint venture with the loyalty card company) to Citi, and then sold by Citi to furst kredit. So testifying that "he must have signed to get the card" is going to be something of a problem for them.

Their most recent letter (received today), makes a number of interesting assertions

 

1. my letters werent signed and will be sent back to me if any future letters remain unsigned. I understand the risks of them doing a photoshop job onto a compliant agreement (and I have the feeling that this mob are just the ones to do that). Any advice?
   
2. the arguments that i presented them with - that the documents they had sent were unsigned both by me and the original creditor, so they fall on s61 and s62 respectively and thus 127(3) prevents enforcement by a court, and also that the agreement has never been executed; no default notice has ever been issued. I have been advised by Furst Kredit that these arguments are "wrong" - that's all! No argument - just we say you are wrong. Full stop
   
3. that they are relying on Carey and in particular para 234. Now, I suppose it does have to be conceded that Waksman lets them away with a lot, BUT to be a true copy it does have to be a copy of the original. To date they have strongly resisted any attempt to get them to confirm that they have an original copy. Then there is the issue that Waksman/ Carey really only deals with information and not with enforcement. Interesting that they rely on 234 which has little in the way of detail, being a sort of executive summary at the end of the judgement.
   
4. in one of their letters they made reference to "an improvement in your financial circumstances" By this they must mean that rather than having my face pressed to the floor, I have just about managed to lift it up. In their most recent letter, but I asked them where they had obtained such information. they added this "Information regarding the change in your financial position was obtained from Call Credit one of the credit Reference Agencies. The Credit Services Association/ Debt Buyers and Selling Group's proposal for debt buyers to access full data has been ratified by the Steering Committee on Reciprocity and all necessary Trade Associations. This change to the principles of Reciprocity (PoR) means debt buyers will now be able to work with the Credit Reference Agencies to receive full credit data on our customers (where the defaulted portfolio purchased was previously reported by the originator to full level and we continue to report minimum of default level data). I dont really know what this means, so could some translater for me please?
   
5. Lastly should I respond to this rubbish and get the last letter in, or just ignore it? Some advice with more experience of Furst Kredit than I have would be useful.
   
   

Edited October 20, 2010 by seriously fed up

[bustthematrix]

To be honest, it's whole lof of hot air. What's the balace currently claimed as owed? Have you gone after account charges etc?

[seriously fed up]

about 3k. I got charges for the time it was with Citi, but they sent it straight to Furst. Interestingly when I went after statements etc to make a claim on RBS, they said they had no record.

[bustthematrix]

Hmmnnn, you'll need to be clear on who's responsible and what exactly "Furst's" standing is in this. If they are now the creditor and can prove it documetarily, they are 100% responsible for everything. If they are merely an agent (on whatever level), don't waste time dealing with them.

[bustthematrix]

Please see comments in reddo...

This seems to have gone quiet so I thought i would noise it up a little bit.

I have been in correspondence with our friends at furst kredit. They have presented me with a computer print of T&Cs they allege were the T&Cs when the card in question was first taken out, as well as the current T&Cs. Now they have, it seems to me a number of problems with this, but mainly that, I am practically certain that when the card was "taken out" it was one that evolved from a loyalty card and the credit card just appeared (this was at the end of the 90s, I think) with an invitation to go use it. The account was then transferred from RBS (it was a joint venture with the loyalty card company) to Citi, and then sold by Citi to furst kredit. So testifying that "he must have signed to get the card" is going to be something of a problem for them.

Their most recent letter (received today), makes a number of interesting assertions

 

1. my letters werent signed and will be sent back to me if any future letters remain unsigned. I understand the risks of them doing a photoshop job onto a compliant agreement (and I have the feeling that this mob are just the ones to do that). Any advice?
   

Come on SFU, you know you don’t have to sign anything. It’s one of those silly intimidation tactics. They’ve sent all kinds of sensitive correspondence to your stated name and address so what changes now? If they had issues with the ID of the person(s) they were sending their threatograms to, then why continue without asking for authentication before continuing?

 

1. the arguments that i presented them with - that the documents they had sent were unsigned both by me and the original creditor, so they fall on s61 and s62 respectively and thus 127(3) prevents enforcement by a court, and also that the agreement has never been executed; no default notice has ever been issued. I have been advised by Furst Kredit that these arguments are "wrong" - that's all! No argument - just we say you are wrong. Full stop
   

Two can play that game. Just tell ‘em you don’t accept their statement without any explanation as to why they feel you are wrong, especially as the law backs you, you’ve stated your reasoning and they have not refuted any of it.

 

1. that they are relying on Carey and in particular para 234. Now, I suppose it does have to be conceded that Waksman lets them away with a lot, BUT to be a true copy it does have to be a copy of the original. To date they have strongly resisted any attempt to get them to confirm that they have an original copy. Then there is the issue that Waksman/ Carey really only deals with information and not with enforcement. Interesting that they rely on 234 which has little in the way of detail, being a sort of executive summary at the end of the judgement.
   

Again, you can quote the parts of Carey that supports your points back at them. It is then for them to refute you and explain why they think those parts do not support your position. Even so, it's not ultimately down to them but all of this will be to your benefit should it ever get to court.

 

1. in one of their letters they made reference to "an improvement in your financial circumstances" By this they must mean that rather than having my face pressed to the floor, I have just about managed to lift it up. In their most recent letter, but I asked them where they had obtained such information. they added this "Information regarding the change in your financial position was obtained from Call Credit one of the credit Reference Agencies. The Credit Services Association/ Debt Buyers and Selling Group's proposal for debt buyers to access full data has been ratified by the Steering Committee on Reciprocity and all necessary Trade Associations. This change to the principles of Reciprocity (PoR) means debt buyers will now be able to work with the Credit Reference Agencies to receive full credit data on our customers (where the defaulted portfolio purchased was previously reported by the originator to full level and we continue to report minimum of default level data). I dont really know what this means, so could some translater for me please?
   

Not sure where I'll end up if I try to interpret it thoroughly but reading between the lines it means something along the lines of the CRAs are passing us some of your credit file data. By this, we have been able to deduce that you are slightly less worse off than you once were so……..

My approach to this sort of nonsense is to ask them to come clean on whatever it is they’ve ‘seen’ and just what they think it means! It’s sheer …..( arrgh don’t get me started!!!)

 

1. Lastly should I respond to this rubbish and get the last letter in, or just ignore it? Some advice with more experience of Furst Kredit than I have would be useful.
   

Sorry, what last letter???