CitiCard Charges

[the_shadow]

Hi Martin/Enron

 

Just got Citi's Defence from their solicitors, any comments would be appreciated.

 

They do not appear to have objected to the limitation act.

Alan

 

Sorry to butt-in, just throwing my two pence into the coin fountain so to speak....

 

 

I think they have but not specifically....... item 9

 

Looks a bit powder puff to me.. claiming an industry standard charge of £12 to attempt to get around any suggestion of excessive and non-cost based charging perhaps. I've not seen one of their defences before so not sure if this is a standard one... Martin and Enron will be able to confirm that

 

Did you claim interest at compound rates? I dont see a mention of claiming in restitution in your POCS?

 

S.

[alangee]

Hi Shadow

 

Yes it was compounded up to the time they sold it, and from then I only charged them 8%.

 

I see what you mean by their item 9. It is an objection caveat to everything in my POC.

 

These may be new solicitors to Citi - Speechly Bircham.

 

Alan

[alangee]

Hi Martin/Enron

 

Just got my AQ together with an order for draft directions. Any help would be appreciated.

 

Alan

[MARTIN3030]

Hi Alan,What are you stuck with ?

[alangee]

Hi Martin

 

I think it was Enron in post #16 who said that he had some useful information for the AQ. You have told me about Benson v Lincoln City Council (I guess that was Kleinwort Benson?), so I have that, that I can quote from about the limitation question.

 

Did you see my post #24 where the have supplied their defence and my PoC in post #25?

 

I have a letter from ICO in which it states that Citi do not have any record of manual intervention. Do I need to mention that in the AQ?

 

It is an N149, so it is only for any useful information I can put into the "Information" section.

 

Thanks

 

Alan

[Enron]

PM'd it over to you including the draft directions earlier.

 

The interesting thing relates to their pre-estimate costs, which have been somewhat plucked from thin air.

 

Myself and Martin3030 have compared notes, and there's a very interest fact about those pre-estimates.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes Kleinwort Benson-Citi would not really have any defence on this,and its been tried time and time again.If you put it in your claim that you are relying on this,then theres no need to further address it,but will need the case summary when it comes to bundle exchange.I think there were older Citi claimants who did have evidence of manual intervention,but if the ICO has said this now-then no point to muddy the waters-unless of course you DO have some evidence.

[Stornoway]

I started a claim against Citi a long while back and it has somehow dragged to a halt and I've been too busy to chase progress. Sorry to Hijack but I'm very surprised to see that Citi offered to repay the full charges for 6 years early in the process - with me they stuck to the £12 being legit and offered a part refund only.

 

Does anyone know if they have changed tact now - are they being more reasonable ?

[MARTIN3030]

No their position is the same,in fact much of their skeleton arguement pre full hearing is reliant on cases they have won.

Much has changed since they instructed Eversheds to defend on their behalf-previously,its fair to say that their defence was far less organised and up in the air.

Despite their success,no precedents have been set,and a claimant should expect their case to be heard on its merits-not reliant on Cities wins.

 

On the day,much depends on the Judge-as we have seen.

Its very hard to imagine how Citi could claim to stand alone from every other credit card issuer-in saying their costs actually were MORE than £12.00

As such a global player,its reasonable to argue that their structures which related to costs,should certainly have meant costs being less than those of their rivals.

[Enron]

Thing is that small claims cannot set a president, and this should be highlighted if they are reliant on it. They are obviously trying to influence future claims by its conclusion.

 

There is the flip side that a lot of us here also have won claims against Citi which highlight the underhand ways in which they operate - likewise this should not be allowed to influence a judge.

 

Each and every case should be allowed to stand and be judged on its own individual merits.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes absolutely.

[Enron]

I would also say that Citi's solicitors should be aware of this, so I cannot understand why they include it.... unless they are looking to gain unfair advantage.

[alangee]

Thank you guys.

 

The AQ doesn't have to be in until 23rd September, so should I wait until the last minute to give it to the court, and should I send a copy to Citi?

 

Thanks

 

Alan

[MARTIN3030]

No need to rush with it-September 23 will be ok-theres no benefit since Citi are unlikely to interested in settling.

No just send copy to Court-I find it useful to keep a copy too.

[alangee]

Hi Enron

 

I have pm'ed you on a question about the info you provided to me. Also have you looked at the defence that Citi have provided in post #24, specifically their section 4 arguments. Are these their normal defence?

 

Thanks

 

Alan