I need some clarity?

[Coactum]

Who are Clarity? Do I need to talk to them?

 

I've just received a phone call to my business line and within 5 minutes a second call to my mobile both from a company named Clarity who were calling on behalf of Citicards.

 

I gave them my usual response that I do not give any security related details over the phone and asked them to put any questions they had in writing and that I would then respond.

 

I wrote to Citi along with all my other creditors back in April with a CCA request more info here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/203269-introduction-background-my-debts.html but that request has been ignored so far.

[Enron]

Clarity are a DCA.

 

Out of interest have you sent a CCA request off to them?

 

If they call too frequently I would suggest making a complaint to the OFT as this constitutes harassment, inform Citi of what you are doing, then if they continue you can always try to get Trading Standards involved.

[Coactum]

Hi Enron,

 

Today was the first I have heard from them. I'll await the letter I've requested from them before doing anything more.

 

I sent CCA request to Citi back on 2nd April and sent a follow up on 21st April.

[Enron]

Interesting, at least your not getting a copy of Terms & Conditions out of them which was there standard practice.

 

That said from what I am hearing now Citi are not replying to CCA claims at all now, likely the OFT have had a word in their ear.

 

After 12+2 days have passed of the s78(1) CCA request they shouldn't be doing anything, and that would include requests through mail and over the phone. We are talking Citi though who believe they are above the law and regulation.

[Coactum]

Apart from the communications referred to in http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/citicards/204540-citi-foreign-transactions.html (which I note you have already contributed to Enron) they have been silent.

[Coactum]

Just has a silent call from 01604686020 who I understand to be Clarity. Moment later my other phone went off and this time they spoke confirming that they were Clarity.

 

I stopped them in their tracks at the "can i just confirm" stage and once again asked them to write if they have anything to ask. They said they wrote on the 9th. I await the letter, however, before i got the chance to hang up my mobile went off and guess which number was calling 01604686020!

 

What sort of systems do these people operate when they call all your numbers simultaneously? No wonder half the time you answer there is no one there!

[Enron]

If they are calling you more than a couple of times a week it can be considered harassment under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997, additionally Trading Standards can prosecute under the Administration Of Justice Act 1970.

 

What I would suggest is not messing round, if they are hassling you say that you will be contacting the Office Of Fair Trading to make a complaint in writing. And do it.

 

Enquiries and Reporting Centre

Office of Fair Trading

Fleetbank House

2-6 Salisbury Square

London EC4Y 8JX.

 

I would also suggest contacting your local trading standards department to see if you can gain their assistance in this matter, lodge a complaint regarding the calls, and as for their help in gaining a copy of the executed agrement - its a document you are legally entitled to: Trading Standards Institute - Home page

 

The creditor has not completed your section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act request, and as such as clarified to me by the Office Of Fair Trading the creditor cannot enforce the agreement AT ALL until they do - which would include phoning or writing to you including payment:

 

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/telso/Image3.jpg

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/telso/Image2.jpg

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/telso/1-8.jpg

 

The important part is page 2 paragraph 4 from the above.

 

In addition to obviously being in breach of section 78(6) Consumer Credit Act which the above letter clarifies whilst they are in default of your request, in continuing to phone you they are also breaching the OFT Debt Collection Guidance - final guidance on unfair practices:

 

1.1

• failed to comply with the requirements of credit or other consumer

legislation

• engaged in business practices appearing to us to be deceitful, oppressive or

otherwise unfair or improper (whether unlawful or not).

 

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

a. contacting debtors at unreasonable times and at unreasonable intervals

 

Citi are even breaking their own internal code of conduct relating to free access:

 

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/telso/1.jpg

 

That said we are talking Citi who act as if they are above law and regulation, they will likely continue to enforce your account regardless of whether they have completed your s78(1) CCA request though - which could have implications on your credit file.

 

This is likely the reason they do it as a way of pressurising people into continuing to make payments despite the fact they are not legally obliged when the request is outstanding.

[Coactum]

Many thanks Enron. I had more or less decided to await the letter that Clarity claim to have sent then probably reply telling them the Citi have declined to furnish me with a copy of my agreement, that I consider the agreement to be in dispute and that Citi cannot therefore instruct them to act. Finally if they believe that there is a valid enforceable debt them prove it. That said you are giving me other responses that i'll need consider before concluding what way is best.

[Enron]

Clarity shouldn't be contacting you at all, at least not until Citi have provided you with a copy of your executed agreement.

 

As it stands until they do so the account is in dispute, and Clarity are trying to enforce an agreement whilst the original creditor is legally barred - and by proxy so are Clarity.

 

Just complain to the Office Of Fair Trading as obviously Citi are not complying with the law and regulations, but are instead trying to bring in the bully boys to get you to pay up when you are under no obligation to do so.

[Coactum]

Another very good point Enron. I think what I'll do is simply copy their letter when I eventually get it and send together with my prior letters to the OFT and copy both Citi and Clarity in on that response. That way I'm keeping them in the loop without actually having to answer them.

[Coactum]

I now have the letter instructing me to direct all communications through Clarity and offering me a settlement discount. I plan to write to OFT as above and copy them in.

[Enron]

Ah, just Clarity after their pound of flesh........ as long as it hasn't been transferred by Notice Of Assignment its not there account anyway, just that they take a commission on any money paid via them.

[Coactum]

I was about to send this:

 

Enquiries and Reporting Centre

Office of Fair Trading

Fleetbank House

2-6 Salisbury Square

London

EC4Y 8JX.

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Formal Complaint against Citi Cards and Clarity

 

On 2nd April I wrote to Citi Cards to request a copy of my credit agreement. A follow up letter was sent on 21st April because no communication had been received. Since then I have mentioned to callers representing Citi that I was awaiting a response to my request but to date this has been ignored.

 

I regard this account to be in dispute until I have had the opportunity to inspect my Credit Card Agreement together with my account history and verify Citi’s claim. Citi have failed to comply with section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act request, and as such they cannot enforce the agreement.

 

I have most recently received phone calls from a company named Clarity who claim to be acting on behalf of Citi and as of 08:40 this morning am in receipt of their letter of introduction. I believe that such action is in breach of section 78(6) Consumer Credit Act.

 

I will be happy to furnish you with copies of all letters sent and received if this is required but in the meantime I trust I have provided sufficient detail to facilitate an initial investigation.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

But wondered if it is best to enclose all copy correspondance from the outset?

[Enron]

That'll do it.

[Coactum]

Just double checking all my facts and note that I sent Citi another letter on 14th May

Dear Sirs,

 

I refer to your recent telephone call to solicit payment and draw your attention to past communications in connection with the above account. I refer you to my letters of 2nd and 21st April and my remarks regarding your failure to comply with section 78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I informed you that your failure to comply had placed my account into dispute and that this meant that you were not entitled to default or enforce the agreement until your breach has been rectified.

 

I also issued you with a statutory notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act instructing you to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect.

 

At this moment in time you have not complied with the aforementioned requests and may be committing a criminal offence.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

I think I had better incorporate that into my letter to OFT

[Coactum]

I'm just using this as a convenient diary of events.

 

Clarity phoned twice this evening, once to the house and the other time to my business; both circa 18:30. I was unavailable to talk and guess at this stage they may not have received a copy of my letter sent yesterday. Not al all sure I'd have spoken to them even if I were available.

[Coactum]

I am in receipt of two letters today. The first from Clarity merely acknowledges my letter and states that they are consulting with their client. The second is from Citi and acknowledges my complaint but states that it may take eight weeks for them to respond (apparently this is within FSA guidelines), but makes no reference to all the prior letters. I find it strange that it is only now that they recognise I have a grievance with them.

[Enron]

Citi's standard response, they'll likely reply with another standardised letter while continuing to operate the account as normal.

[Coactum]

Got a standard letter back from the OFT today.

 

I wonder just how many people complete and return the "permission to disclose complaint" form. I have but I suspect that many fail to do so but I'm sure that if you are prepared to put your full details forward they must take the complaint more seriously. Does anyone know if my guess is correct?

[Coactum]

I silent call and one spoken from Clarity today. I stopped the caller at the first hurdle "For security can i ask" which a "No you cannot, goodbye"

[Enron]

Think it depends on numbers, the more people complain and return the form, the more chance of something happening.

[Coactum]

I've had several silent calls in the past few days and a 1471 reveals the origin to been Clarity. They have failed to write again and Citi have so far failed to provide a CCA and have not yet corrected the default they put in my credit file.

[Enron]

Worth complaining to the OFT about both Citi and Clarity.

[Coactum]

I did. and got a reply beginning:

 

"I am very sorry to hear about the difficulties you have been experiencing, however the OFT has no authority to become involved in disputes between consumers and traders and so we cannot offer you any direct help with the complaint or advise you directly in this matter. Our role is to protect the collective interests of consumers."

 

There is more but that initial paragraph clarified that they cannot do a thing.

[Enron]

They do however act if they get enough complaints.

 

Failling that Trading Standards should be able to help.