Citi Cards being obstructive with SAR

[babybear39]

Trying to get the PM box issue cleared up. Damn new site lol...

 

There is no advantage as the alleged account would not be near being SBd. Although you could sort of drag out admin. with them, but I, as an upstanding (mostly) member of the public, would never condone debt avoidance. The strange thing I find in dealing with such companies is that all their department have a worrying tendency in communicationg with each other, the OCs and the CRAs...How long is a piece of string

[Master Chief]

ty bb, but I'm not sure if we are at cross purposes here.

 

Basically I'm just asking that, the OC marked my CRA file settled 05/08/2002 10 months prior to the official NoA. Which indicates to me that 05/08/2002 was in fact the REAL sale date. Unless there is another explanation for the setled marker on that date, what other reason could they have had?

 

 

 

LOL you must have removed the double post as I was replying and my rather more lengthy response got disappeared

[babybear39]

The NoA date has nothing to do with the original default date. Check your CRA files and get the dates ammended if they're wrong because a default on your CRA files MUST reflect the date the account was defaulted on, NOT the date they could be bothered to register it.

[Master Chief]

The NoA date has nothing to do with the original default date. Check your CRA files and get the dates ammended if they're wrong because a default on your CRA files MUST reflect the date the account was defaulted on, NOT the date they could be bothered to register it.

 

Sorry bb, I really appreciate the time you are taking to reply,...........but you are missing my point.

 

In its simplest form, my question is; Why would a creditor mark your CRA File as 'SETTLED'?

 

There is more to it than that, but I'll just start with that.

 

PS. If anyone else fells like chipping in please do, the more the merrier

Edited November 24, 2010 by Master Chief

[coledog]

There is something funny here (not just BB and MC union which is hilarious), If a debt is sold on, the CRA does not record it as 'settled' as normally the record will just be changed to show the debt 'in default' and show it to to be in the name of the new owner. CRAs normally only record a entry for 6 years after the default date so this should actually have gone completely by now.

 

I still think that you should tell all these fffffers to Foxtrot off and put it behind you. BUT keep up the complaints.

 

My SAR has revealed one interesting thing in that Citi received a letter from a Social Services department that revealed that I was in a a very bad place and was not to be harrassed. Also that I had been recommended to apply for BR and that there was no way I could ever come to an agreement with them. What did Citi do? Immediately off load this to lowlifes and I now would be very interested to know if any of this info was passed on.

 

I am happy to keep the official complaints going in the hope that someone will take some action and prevent this misery from happening, again and again.

[babybear39]

Sorry bb, I really appreciate the time you are taking to reply,...........but you are missing my point.

 

In it's simplest form, my question is; Why would a creditor mark your CRA File as 'SETTLED'?

 

There as more to it than that, but I'll just start with that.

 

PS. If anyone else fells like chipping in please do, the more the merrier

 

Because they've sold it, as in SOLD. Not just farmed it out for collection with the option of re calling it.

[Master Chief]

Hi CD, that is absolutely disgusting and 1st Credit got their knuckles rapped by the OFT for selling on 'Sensitive Cases' (OFT Requirements Feb' 2009).

 

As regards, CRA files I slightly disagree. What should happen according to the ICO is that the original file be updated to reflect the new owner and the OC/DCA have to decide between each other who is responsible for keeping the record updated. In reality, what seems to happen is that the OC marks the original record as 'Settled' and the new owner creates its own entry. And the ICO is fine with this provided the informaton is correct and the original default date stands. (which mine isn't, but that is a seperate matter)

 

In my case Citi have marked the file 'Settled' 05/08/2002, but the NoA's (which both disagree on the actual date of sale) are some 10 months later.

 

Without complicating things unecessarily at the moment. I would like to find out: What other possible reason would the OC have had in marking the entry 'Settled', other than because it was sold.

 

Suggestions on the back of a postcard welcome, but preferably on here!

 

MC

Edited November 24, 2010 by Master Chief

[Master Chief]

Because they've sold it, as in SOLD. Not just farmed it out for collection with the option of re calling it.

 

 

 

[Master Chief]

Because they've sold it, as in SOLD. Not just farmed it out for collection with the option of re calling it.

 

 

Now look at the dates:

 

Settled by OC 05/08/2002

 

NoA Citi 05/06/2003 (1st Crud 23/05/2003)

 

And ask, why the long delay and what has been happening with my account in the meantime?

[coledog]

Very suspect - will take an overworked ICO to sort this out

[Master Chief]

Very suspect - will take an overworked ICO to sort this out

 

I disagree, I think a very overworked OFT & FOS.

 

Yes, OK, ICO as well, but I can deal with that later (no whoops, I'm dealing with that at the moment lol)

[Master Chief]

Now look at the dates:

 

Settled by OC 05/08/2002

 

NoA Citi 05/06/2003 (1st Crud 23/05/2003)

 

And ask, why the long delay and what has been happening with my account in the meantime?

 

OK, well I will suggest the reason I think why. CHARGES, INTEREST AND INTEREST ON CHARGES

[coledog]

Keep it up:razz:

[Master Chief]

Keep it up:razz:

 

Now I believe that it is correct to say that following a sale of a debt, no interest or charges can be applied until the debtor has been notified of the assignmet. i.e if a sale took place on a Monday and the debtor was informed (via NoA's) on the following Monday that no interest or charges could be applied during this period.

 

I'm not certain about charges, but interest would definately be a no no!

 

In any case, if my debt was indeed sold 05/08/2002 as the CRA file suggests, why have Citi continued to charge me overlimit charges, late fees and interest up until the NoA?

[Master Chief]

Does anyone get where I think I'm going with this?

[babybear39]

Yes, a lot of us do which is why we advise that formal complaints go to each relevant department as a matter of course. They will eventually get sick of fielding these complaints and do something.

 

Incidentally, the OFT issued restrictions on Aktiv Kr@pital this week.

 

Sadly, years too late for Beryl Brazier and her family

[Master Chief]

Yes, a lot of us do which is why we advise that formal complaints go to each relevant department as a matter of course. They will eventually get sick of fielding these complaints and do something.

 

Incidentally, the OFT issued restrictions on Aktiv Kr@pital this week.

 

Sadly, years too late for Beryl Brazier and her family

 

That is tragic, so awful!

 

Companies that think they can operate outside of the law with impunity should have their licence revoked immediately, restrictions amount to a slap on the wrist, but the damage to innocent human beings has already been done. Where is the justice?

 

I fully intend to take whatever information I have and use it in the most effective way that I can. However, I have to be sure of my information first and that is why I have been asking stupid questions like:

 

What other explanation could there be for the 'Settled' marker if not to indicate it was sold at that point?

 

MC

[Master Chief]

Quick question please good people of CAG.

 

If there is doubt as to when the actual sale took place and furthermore that 1st Crud & Citi both have different dates for the NoA's, does this bring into doubt the legality of the assigment?

 

i.e. the sale was not properly/legally concluded therefore it is null & void and 1st Crud do not have a legal right to perform collection activities?

 

Meaning they have to return the account to Citi and , possibly repay any monies collected + interest of course!

 

Sorry, just the grey matter working overtime!

Edited November 25, 2010 by Master Chief

[Master Chief]

Hi good people,

 

I realise that this is not a priority question as there is no legal action being taken at present, but I wonder if I could probe the grey matter of you banana types.

 

For background information I have a thread going here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?284421-1st-Crud-CCA-SAR-Failure-(also-Citi-too)-Help-Please&p=3208917#post3208917

 

But in essence I am trying to establish the validity of the absolute assignment of an alleged defaulted Associates Credit Card account.

 

I have an NoA (letter of introduction) from 1st Crud, assignment as of 23/05/2003

The NoA from the OC (Citi) dated as of 05/06/2003

 

1st Crud are stating that they own the account before Citi say they have sold it!

 

A further complication is that for this account I have a printout of my Experian credit file of Nov' 2006, which clearly shows that Citi (the OC) marked the account as 'SETTLED' 05/08/2002!

 

I can't think of any reason (and no one else can suggest one) as to why the the OC would mark it as settled other than; the account was paid up (which it wasn't) or it was sold.

 

Have I reasonable grounds to think that the sale took place much earlier than the NoA's suggest?

 

And based on what I have said, dates of NoA's not agreeing and the earlier settled marker; are there grounds to think that the assignment is not valid and that 1st Crud don't have a legal right to enforce/collect?

 

I've never received a DN or TN from Citi/Associates either.

 

thanks in advance

 

MC

[Master Chief]

*bump*

[creditcardmug]

Two things spring to mind straight away, first in any court case you would insist on the "deed" of assignment being produced at the hearing, and in there has been no DN/temination then the "agreement" still exists, therefore it could not have been sold on.

Thats without looking at you other thread

 

Send them a CCA request, if you have not already done so

[Master Chief]

Two things spring to mind straight away, first in any court case you would insist on the "deed" of assignment being produced at the hearing, and in there has been no DN/temination then the "agreement" still exists, therefore it could not have been sold on.

Thats without looking at you other thread

 

Send them a CCA request, if you have not already done so

 

Hi CCM and thank you.

 

I have CCA'd the DCA, but not the OC yet. Have SAR'd both, results so far uninspiring to say the least. The CCA went into dispute 18/11, but for other reasons I have given them some extra time to produce before I send the official account in dispute letter.

 

With the SAR's I have written back asking for them to comply fully.

 

Have been looking at the massive thread re: the CPR 31.16, so maybe that would be worth a try if they continue to be awkward with the SAR's.

[nicklea]

there has been no DN/temination then the "agreement" still exists, therefore it could not have been sold on.

Thats without looking at you other thread

 

An agreement can be sold regardless of the state of the account. It does not have to be terminated before it is assigned.

 

I have an NoA (letter of introduction) from 1st crud, assignment as of 23/05/2003 the NoA from the OC (Citi) dated as of 05/06/2003

 

It doesn't matter what the date is on the letter, all that matters is what date, if any, they say that the assignment took place.

[Master Chief]

An agreement can be sold regardless of the state of the account. It does not have to be terminated before it is assigned.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter what the date is on the letter, all that matters is what date, if any, they say that the assignment took place.

 

They both say different dates - as of the date of this letter, which are both different!

[Master Chief]

I suppose what I'm trying to get at eventually is, if the account is marked as settled 05/08/2002 by the OC then why have they continued to charge late fees, overlimit charges and interest up until March 2003.

 

Oh, and now I have another completely different sale/assignment date, which I didn't pick up on before. In Citi's SAR response they now say it was sold to 1st Crud March 03.

 

They just contradict each other all the time and it implies to me that they have been less than honest about something and I would like to know what that is.