Elsinore v Citi Cards***WON & PAID***

[Zzed]

Well??????

 

What happened? I got the same letter in November and have been tailoring your initial response to Mr Clibbens so i can try get some headway. They only told me of a Mercentile case and I should wait till they had got a reponse after the outcome of the case.

Was about it jack in but the recent balance (considering how much i have paid off and the original limit) got the juices back and am ready for another round and more.....

 

review:

I refer to your letter dated 27th November 2006.

 

Thank you for the swift and proper response regarding the above.

I am yet, however, to receive an update regarding the outcome of the Mercantile Court case you referred to and its’ perceived effect on the “final legal position of the same”.

 

Although it is perfectly proper for you to refer to the statement issued by the Office of Fair Trading on 5th April 2006, you are wrong to contend that the OFT regards £12 as an acceptable maximum charge. I quote from the OFT 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. Setting a threshold for intervention is a pragmatic pro-consumer action that is designed to give the industry the opportunity to change its practice without litigation’.

and from the OFT statement dated 7th September 2006

‘A fair credit card default charge should not exceed a reasonable estimate of certain limited administrative costs which the credit card issuer reasonably expects to incur as a result of default’

 

You state that, although you were not a party to the OFT investigation, you have undertaken to reconsider your charges in the light of the OFT statement. In the very next sentence you state that you have reconsidered these charges after a review of the market and to compete with other lenders. If you have only reduced your charges in order to compete, then you deny the veracity of the OFT. If, however, you accept the OFT rationale, then there is no need for you to mention the competitive situation...

 

Citing a recent court case, in which you were a litigant, is presumably your attempt to persuade me to withdraw my claim. May I remind you, if you are not already aware, that no precedent can be set in respect of a County Court Judgement.

Also, your ‘success’ in that case was dulled by the fact that you retrospectively refunded the claimant the differences between your charges and £12, a decision which was made possible by your policy change of 28th June 2006.

Yet you assert in your letter to me that those reductions are not retrospective. Furthermore, you have settled other claims in full both before and after your decision to reduce your charges.

Such inconsistencies in your actions indicate to me that if you are not acting upon sound, professional, legal advice, then you should be.

 

You now have until 11th January 2006 to reconsider and advise me of your decision, based on the requests outlined in my letter of 27th November 2006.

Should no response be received by the above given date, I will commence a claim in the County Court for the refund of the sum of £405.00 to which statutory interested will be added accordingly.

Yours sincerely

Zzed

[elsinore]

Funny you should ask, Zzed. I've just this minute stuck down the envelope containing another letter to Citi, this time to Mr Smith. It is in response to a letter from him that I received just before Xmas. Manners forbid me from posting it on here until he has at least received it in Salford, so I'll do it tomorrow!

 

I haven't responded to the defence, I see no reason why I should. I'm happy to let the judge decide who's right and who's wrong.

 

I am very much looking forward to AQ time (unless they settle in full, of course) as we now have another weapon in our armoury. If you don't know what I mean, PM me.

 

Yours is an excellent letter, it's just a shame though that our responses seem to fall on deaf ears. You might as well start preparing your claim now.

 

Happy New Year

Elsinore

[Enron]

By no means jack your case in, there are plenty of people here that will help you out with your claim.

[elsinore]

Received a standard offer (£12 difference) letter just before Christmas which I feel I ought to have got some weeks ago! Anyway, this is my reply:-

 

Citi Cards

CitiFinancial Europe plc

P O Box 54

Salford

Manchester M5 3BP

 

28th December 2006

 

Dear Mr Smith,

 

 

Case Ref XXXXXXXXXXXX

Account Number XXXXXXXX

 

Thank you for your letter dated 14th December 2006, which was only received on Friday 22nd December 2006.

 

• Your letter was duplicated and received in two separate envelopes. The two copies were scrutinised carefully and proved to be identical.
  
• One copy of your letter was accompanied by an important document which clearly should have been sent to another person. The document is dated 18th December 2006, which explains the discrepancy between the date of your letter and the date of receipt. The document is returned herewith.
  
• Your decision to write off the sum of £429.00 and credit the account currently being managed by 1st Credit is welcome.
  
• Towards the end of your letter you state “In the event that you are not satisfied with this and proceed to issue a claim for the full amount, CitiFinancial will defend this on the basis of the OFT’s own statement and analysis of the lawful level of default charges”. Unfortunately I have already issued a claim in the XXXXXX County Court, Claim Number XXXXXXX, which you have both acknowledged and defended.
  
• The sum of £429.00 is therefore accepted as part settlement of the above claim.
  
• In your letter you mention a previous County Court case, presumably to support your contention that, should the case between us proceed, you will prevail. As I am sure you are aware, no precedent can be drawn from that previous case which, in any event, is the subject of an appeal. Therefore, I consider your intention is to intimidate me into accepting your offer and/or withdrawing my claiim.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and the enclosed document. Your slipshod handling of important documents raises Data Protection issues, so would you please confirm that such mistakes will not occur when distributing documents relating to my case.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elsinore

 

c.c. XXXXXX County Court

[Zzed]

Good on you mate.

 

Thanks for the review of the letter, I did copy most if not all of yours though

[TideTurner]

Citi are renowned for this. Stick with your original agenda, £12.00 is way above the actual costs to themselves. If Citi continue, I can see them embarrassing themselves in Court.

[TideTurner]

Guys, get your lips around this post!

 

KAZZAW v Lloyds Asset Card - EVERYONE READ POST 15 !!!!!!

 

General Form of Judgment or Order

 

To the Claimant

 

kazzaw

 

 

Before District Judge ................. sitting at Lincoln County Court.

 

EX PARTE

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

The Court of its own motion is considering striking the Defence out as an abuse of process on the basis that it has settled all previous claims of this nature. If the Defendant objects to this course of action it is to file at Court within 14 days, a Schedule setting out a list of all claims it has pursued to trial and all claims it has settled.

 

Dated 28 December 2006

[gizmo111]

It isa great order - but not rally much use to Citi claimants as they are still defending and not settling anything over £12.

[elsinore]

Yes, picked up on it yesterday TT. It makes for great reading, doesn't it?

 

We already had the Draft Order for Directions added to our armoury, now this!!

 

Elsinore

[Enron]

It isa great order - but not rally much use to Citi claimants as they are still defending and not settling anything over £12.

 

They were settling upto July, but you know the excuse that they were unpreparred at the time to defend such cases would come out.

[gizmo111]

Elsinore standard letter we have been using with AQ - amend any bits as neccassary.

 

Dear Sir/Madam

It has come to my attention that the defendant is routinely asking in their allocation questionnaires for hearings relating to penalty charges to be transferred to Salford and heard in secret. In the likely scenario that the defendant asks for this in my case, I respectfully request that the following is taken into account prior to allocation.

I wish to object to any application for transfer on the following grounds.

1. The defendant’s application was made without notice to myself and I have not been given the opportunity to make representations.

2. I am an individual of limited means. I am a litigant in person and I am suing the defendant on my own account.

3. The defendant is a multi national company with access to huge financial resources whilst my finances are strictly limited.

4. Although the place of trial is at the discretion of the Court the normal and established practice is for the claims in which one of the parties is an individual, be transferred to that individual’s home court. In this case my home court is xxxxxxx County Court.

5. The defendant, in their defence paragraph 10, had already admitted part of my claim and have now acknowledged the amount in issue is only £588.16

I am also requesting Judgement in request of the admitted sum. The defendants have made reference to the fact of the sum that they admit has been sold onto a third party agency, however, this is not relevant to my claim. My account contract was with Citi Cards, my claim is against them, and if they have seen fit to pass money to a third party then that is matter for them to reconcile.

Order 26 to which the defendant refers to in thier application, normally is applied for the benefit of a claimant who is claiming as an individual.

The defendant refers to recent findings by the Office of Fair Trading, however it is clear that the Office of Fair Trading conclusions indicate very strongly that companies such as the defendant are acting in violation of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations. And therefore as the defendant continues its system of penalty charges in the face of the Office of Fair Trading report it is they who should justly face the burden of costs and not claimants in person who are merely seeking to enforce the law.

The defendant argues the virtue of having all cases transferred to the same court. There are presently at least sixteen cases, which have been transferred to the Mercantile Court in London so that the bank charges issue can be tested once and for all. The claimant respectfully suggests that if the Salford County Court will not return my case to the Bristol County Court that in the alternative this case should be transferred to the Mercantile Court in London to be heard before the designated Judge there along side all the other penalty charges test cases.

It is not in the interest Overriding Objective for my case to be tried in a court other than my home court of Bristol County Court.

I also understand that the defendants had asked that their evidence be received in secret without any opportunity for myself or any other person to have an opportunity to examine it in advance of the hearing. Furthermore I understand that it would not be possible to carry out any cross-examination in respect of that evidence and that I would have no opportunity to have the evidence scrutinised by my own expert or an independent expert, despite the fact that the defendant's evidence is likely to be of a technical nature.

I wish to object to the defendant’s request. It cannot be in the interests of the Overriding Objective to allow secret evidence to be taken during a small claim. Furthermore the question we are deciding is the lawfulness of the defendant's penalty charge system. The defendant claims that their evidence is" commercially sensitive". However the question of the defendant's penalty charge regime does not refer to their core business. Whilst it could well be the case that information relating to the defendants core business could indeed be commercially sensitive, the question of penalty charges relates to an incidental aspect of the defendant's business -- and which if the defendant is to be believed, produces no profit at all as according to the defendant, their penalty charges merely cover their administrative costs. It is also true to say that the defendant has in the past claimed that their costs are merely in line with those of other similar organisations. Clearly then, the defendant's penalty charge regime is not a competitive matter, according to the defendant it brings them no profit and therefore there can be no grounds for saying that the information is commercially sensitive.

If the defendant is insistent that his evidence is commercially sensitive then I would respectfully suggest that maybe this entire matter is better suited for a higher court such as the mercantile court in London or Bristol.

Yours faithfully

[elsinore]

Now that's what I call immaculate timing, Gizmo, because I received my AQ on Saturday! Thanks a million for the letter.

 

I have until 22nd January to return the AQ, but something tells me it will be back sooner than that.

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

I also received a reply from Mr Smith to my letter in post 54, in which he thanks me on behalf of his client, blames the customer relations staff for the cock-up and notes my admonition.

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

Allocation Questionnaire being submitted later today.

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

This is the letter I sent to the Court with the AQ, a copy of which Citi will by now have received.

 

It has come to my attention that the Defendant is routinely requesting, in its Allocation Questionnaire, that

a) hearings relating to penalty charges be transferred to Salford and

b) evidence be given and heard in secret.

In the event that the Defendant asks for this in my case, I respectfully request that the following is taken into account prior to Allocation.

 

I wish to object to any application for transfer on the following grounds:-

 

1. The Defendant’s application will have been made without notice to me and I will not have been given the opportunity to make representations.

 

2. I am an individual of limited means. I am a litigant in person and I am suing the Defendant on my own account.

 

3. The Defendant is a multi-national company with access to huge financial resources, whilst my finances are strictly limited.

 

4. Although the place of trial is at the discretion of the court, the normal and established practice is for the claim in which one of the parties is an individual be transferred to that individual’s home court. In this case my home court is XXXXXX County Court.

 

5. The Defendant in its defence refers to recent findings by the Office of Fair Trading. However, it is clear that the Office of Fair Trading conclusions indicate very strongly that companies such as the Defendant are acting in violation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations. Therefore, as the Defendant continues its system of penalty charges in the face of the Office of Fair Trading report, it is they who should justly face the burden of costs and not claimants in person who are merely seeking to enforce the law.

 

6. It is not in the interest of the Overriding Objective for the case to be tried in a court other than my home court of XXXXXX County Court.

 

I also understand that the Defendant may ask that evidence be received in secret, without any opportunity for me, or any other person, to examine it in advance of the hearing. Furthermore, I understand that it would not be possible to carry out any cross-examination in respect of that evidence, despite the fact that the evidence is likely to be of a technical nature.

 

I wish to object to such a request, should it be made. It cannot be in the interests of the Overriding Objective to allow secret evidence to be taken during a small claim. Furthermore, the question we are deciding is the lawfulness of the Defendants penalty charge regime. The Defendant claims that its evidence is “commercially sensitive”. However, the question of the Defendant’s penalty charge regime does not apply to its core business. Whilst it could well be the case that information relating to the Defendant’s core business might indeed be commercially sensitive, the question of penalty charges relates to an incidental aspect of the Defendant’s business which, if the Defendant is to be believed, produces no profit at all as, according to the Defendant, its penalty charges merely cover administrative costs. It is also true to say that the Defendant has, in the past, claimed that these costs are merely in line with those of other similar organisations. Clearly then, the Defendant’s penalty charge regime is not a competitive matter as, according to the defendant, it produces no profit. Therefore there can be no grounds for saying that the information is “commercially sensitive”.

 

To this end I respectfully request that the Court give consideration to the issuing of an Order in line with, or similar to, the enclosed Draft Order for Directions.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Elsinore

[stan5131]

Superb! Will copy this when the time comes.

[elsinore]

Thanks stansfield, but credit must go to Gizmo for providing me with the basis of the letter.

 

Elsinore

[gizmo111]

Thanks stansfield, but credit must go to Gizmo for providing me with the basis of the letter.

 

Elsinore

 

And the majority of it came from Bank Fodder

[stan5131]

Jeez..... modesty or what! lol

[stan5131]

While Im on here, what has happened to everyone's avatars and you used to have to wait 20 seconds between searches and now its 120 seconds - that 2 whole mins. Really slows things up!

[gizmo111]

While Im on here, what has happened to everyone's avatars and you used to have to wait 20 seconds between searches and now its 120 seconds - that 2 whole mins. Really slows things up!

 

I think there is some site maint going on tonight.

[GaryH]

Don't mind me, just subscribing.

[hondamad21]

Hi Elsinore,

 

Just wanted to say best of luck. I handed in my papers against Citi on thursday.

 

Again Good Luck!!!

 

Hondamad

[elsinore]

Thanks honda, I appreciate your support.

 

Presumably yours is a continuation of your earlier claim. If so, please let me know and I'll subscribe to your thread.

 

Elsinore

[hondamad21]

Hi Elsinore,

 

Yeah, I have started a new thread for the new court action. Hondamad vs CitiCard (round 2)

 

Lets see what happens . . .

 

Hondamad21