Citi card come to Salford CC for your money

[gizmo111]

Attach a letter along the following lines to the AQ pre empting citi's reqest for transfer and secret hearings - modify to suit. I got mine kept local after their request with this letter.

 

I refer to the defendants allocation questionnaire of which I received a copy form the court October 25, in which the defendant has made a request for the hearing of this case to be moved to Salford County Court.

I wish to object to the 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 Bristol 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

[gizmo111]

I love the last part... Really well thought out. Did you get any help in drafting it?

 

Of course - Bank Fodder

[gizmo111]

How much is claim and how mauch is balance of account.

[gizmo111]

Hi all

Well off to court on 22nd for a hearing should be fun so i have a few things printed out and ready for his honour.

Any tips would be gratefully appreciated.

 

AL:D

 

Is this a full hearing - I have one same day.

What have you put in your bundle.