Citi Cards being obstructive with SAR

[Master Chief]

I really have problems with this bloody uploader, just randomly works, then not! Grrrrrrrrrr

[Master Chief]

So hopefully here are the statements along with some additional notes. Which at some point I would quite like to have some clarity on.

 

 

[ATTACH]23325[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]23324[/ATTACH]

[Master Chief]

Hi I'm still looking for some assistance as regards my attachments in post #16 & #18, if anyone fancies a challenge

 

1st Credit are out of time as regards the CCA request (as of the 18th Nov), but I have decided to not send the account in dispute letter quite yet (for other reasons).

 

What I would like to know if possible is this:

 

The OC (Associates/Citi) marked my CRA file as the debt settled 05/08/2002, which indicates that the account had been terminated and sold. Yet in the SAR they claim to have sent me statements beyond this date. The address shown would have been correct at the time, but I DID NOT receive statements from them to this address.

 

Citi & 1st Credit have failed to produce a valid default & termination notice to challenge the information I have as regards the CRA file settled marker 05/08/2002. Subsequent to this date, shown in their statements they have continued to charge late fees, overlimit fees and interest.

 

Is this acceptable? Or do I have grounds to challenge the balance that 1st Credit state that I owed/owe?

 

Additionally, there is a discrepency between the Associates final balance on their dubious statements and the opening balance with 1st Credit. In the SAR response from 1st Credit they clearly state that they have not charged any fees or interest on the account.

 

Again, do I have grounds to contest the debt on this basis?

 

Thanks in advance

 

MC

Edited November 22, 2010 by Master Chief

[Master Chief]

Anyone?

[coledog]

Hi

 

I think that you have a lot of evidence to contest this and don't really understand why you are not sending the account in dispute letter.

 

I have received an almost identical response from Citi and, as with you, there are no copies of any corespondence sent to me, as they are saying that they do not keep these, which appears to absolute rubbish. Also no details of who the account was sold to and when and no details of manual intervention. I am going to send the following - the list can be adapted to suit.

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Account:

 

I am in receipt of the documents that you have supplied in response to my Data Protection Act information request dated --.--.-- The disclosure of personal data is incomplete in that at least the following documents are missing.

 

1) You have failed to provide a notice of assignment

2) Whom the debt was sold to in this must include company name, full address, and Telephone numbers

3) You have provided no notes, or documents relating to instances of manual intervention.

 

This is not an exhaustive list by any means, it is just an example of some of the information I am missing.

 

Accordingly, I have to tell you that you have not yet complied with your obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

You have a further 24 days to comply.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

-------------------

[Master Chief]

Excellent CD, thanks, I was looking for something to throw at Citi & 1st Crud as regards SAR failure. I'll plagiarise this if you don't mind.

 

I'll send you a PM as regards why I'm holding off sending the account in dispute letter.

 

Cheers.

 

MC

Edited November 22, 2010 by Master Chief

[coledog]

This is my letter - snap, although I think I got less than you!

SAR Anon.pdf

[Master Chief]

CD, what do you make of their decleration as regards Sec 7 DPA, correct or bluster?

 

I'm looking at it now and can't see what they are trying to get at!

[coledog]

I don't either but if you have a look at Batleyboy's thread, Citifinancial have tried to say that he has to ask for this info under CCA, I have no idea where they are going with this or why they have no records of correspondence sent out. Link to BBs thread, look at the latest posts.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?273801-HFO-have-today-contacted-me

[Master Chief]

Hi all and thanks very much for everyones help thus far.

 

I am currently looking at the validity of the balance claimed as owed by Citi/1st Crud and I'm pretty sure that it is incorrect.

 

I wonder if any 'unfair charges' guru might take a look at the statements that I posted a little earlier in this thread and give me their opinion and perhaps some advice as to how I might calculate what, if anything, needs to be deducted from the balance claimed?

 

The relevant information would begin on Page 7 of the pdf, statement 18/03/02 - where the account number changes for the second time.

 

The first relevant entry is a balance transfer of £74.24 on 27/02/2002 (from old account number and is purely charges as a result of already resolved fraud), which although is credited back as an adjustment 15/03, I wonder if there is an element of interest carried forward from this charge?

 

Of course there are plenty of other charges following this and I would like to know if these would be considered 'unfair' and how much I could reasonably expect to have knocked off as a result?

 

There is of course the question that beyond the 05/08/2002, when the OC marked the account as settled, whether any of the subsequent charges are lawful at all? And his is something that I would dearly love to have clarified, if any knowledgable caggers are able to answer this I would be most greatful.

 

Thank you.

 

MC

[Master Chief]

No takers?

 

Ok, perhaps let me put it another way.

 

If an account is marked settled, are any charges for late payment, overlimit penalties and interest beyond the point of settlement legitimate?

 

MC

[babybear39]

Only if it is within the T & Cs of the ORIGINAL agreement.

[Master Chief]

Only if it is within the T & Cs of the ORIGINAL agreement.

 

ty babybear.

 

Although what I'm trying to get at is that I believe the debt was sold to 1st Credit at the time it was marked settled 05/08/2002. But the official assignement not completed until they had tracked me down in the early part of the following year.

 

We know that DCA's don't always act within the letter of the law and we also know that they have a 'special relationship' with thier suppliers/clients.

 

I am of the opinion that the they were allowed time to trace me and in the meantime the balance owed would grow as a result of charges etc and also it gave them the opportunity to mark a much later default on my credit file.

 

I'm pretty sure that charges are not lawful between the sale of a debt and the NoA.

 

Also what is rather peculiar is that Citi and 1st Crud can't seem to decide the actual date of sale, the NoA from 1st Crud is as of 23/05/2003 and Citi's says as of 05/06/2003. And I think this fact adds weight to my argument that they have not been straight up with when the debt was indeed sold.

 

Additionally, there is a discrepancy between the final balance claimed by Citi and that stated by 1st Credit as their starting balance is some £82.00 more. Which I find interesting, because in my SAR from 1st Crud, they clearly state that no charges have been added at any time!?

 

In 1st Crud's SAR they provided me with a 'System Log' file which supposedly records all the activity on my account, however there are a number of sections within the log file that raise doubts as to its authenticity/accuracy. Particularly at the beginning when the intial 8 entries are all made at 09:00 (dates between 05/06 & 04/07/2003), I think it is highly unlikely that over the course of a month 8 entries were made at exactly 09:00 to the second! It blatantly does not acknowledge, or attempts not to acknowledge activity on the account prior 05/06/2003.

 

As I have said previously, Citi NEVER sent correspondence the address stated on thier statements from August 2002 (statement 19/08/2002), this is a retrospective change. I know this because the last address they had for me was a B&B (DSS Hostel type) and I did not pass on my forwarding address.

 

And furthermore, as we know, the account is marked settled on 05/08/2002. Which shows on the 'retrospective' statement (dated 19/08/2002) with an account number change and balance carried forward.

 

My last use of the card was 31/07/2002, subsequent to that it was either declined/retained by an ATM, which is what I believe happened, or it simply naturaly expired 12 months from original issue. If the former is true then this indicates that the account is closed (agreement cancelled/terminated). If the latter then why have they not provided me with a replacement card for me to use?

 

What you have to understand is at this particular time I was desperate, severly depressed, and skint to the point that I regularly did not have money for food, let alone a couple of quid for a pack of cigarrettes. Given that the 'retropective' statements show that until November '02 I have an 'Available To Spend' amount, why have I not used it? Simples, because I don't have a card! Although, they seem to think at this point that we still have an agreement.

 

Given that since the begining of my use of this credit facility end of Feb '02 I clearly had difficulties in keeping within the credit limit and repaying required amounts on time. And when they were made aware in June/July '02 that I was under the care of the local council in B&B, becuase I was broke, jobless and homeless; I think their concern would have immediately gone from mild-concern to full-on Defcon 1 and dropped my account like a proverbial hot potato.

 

Hence the account marked settled 05/08/2002.

 

Apologies for another War & Peace post, it wasn't intended to be.

 

My question is, does an account mark 'Settled' indicate anyhting other than it had been sold on?

 

MC

[Master Chief]

Sorry, an addition to the above post which I forgot to mention is that there is an erroneous payment of £5.00 against the account in December '02, which I definately did not make!

 

MC

[babybear39]

Some DCAs have a habbit of creating fictitous payment, allegedly. A payment eight years ago is not going to make any difference if the account is statute barred.

[Master Chief]

ty again bb, not SB I entered into a repayment agreement in 2003 and been paying ever since. But, hopefully not for much longer and hence all my stupid questions.

 

ATM just looking for a advice on whether the account marked settled 05/08/2002 could be construed as anything other than the debt having been sold?

 

I can't see any other reason myself, but then what do I know!

[babybear39]

No worries...Got confudled there a bit lol...

 

It's very common for the OC to mark a debt as settled on your CRF when they sell. So, no advantage to you.

[Master Chief]

I think I love you babybear, will you marry me?

 

Just have to check that's ok with the g/f first.

[Master Chief]

Hang on, I may want a divorce already bb.

 

Are you saying there is no advantage to me or no, the advantage is mine?

 

Who's getting confuddled?

Edited November 24, 2010 by Master Chief

[babybear39]

Now you owe me a new keyboard and lappy 'cos I just spat lasagne st them

[Master Chief]

Now you owe me a new keyboard and lappy 'cos I just spat lasagne st them

 

Tis OK, I can fix it, tiz my job

[Master Chief]

Hang on, I may want a divorce already bb.

 

Are you saying there is no advantage to me or no, the advantage is mine?

 

Who's getting confuddled?

 

 

bb ??????????????????????????????

[Master Chief]

@ guest

[Master Chief]

Hang on, I may want a divorce already bb.

 

Are you saying there is no advantage to me or no, the advantage is mine?

 

Who's getting confuddled?

 

babybear, glad you got the lasagne cleaned up.

 

Could you just clarify the above or I'm afraid I'll have to call off the engagement!

 

BTW Your PM box is full.

[Master Chief]

Hello guest