Citi Cards being obstructive with SAR

[nicklea]

With the dates, it really depends what the letters actually say. If they just say that you should start paying the new creditor as of the date of this letter then that is fine. If they say that your debt was sold to the new creditor or assigned by an assignment dated xxxx then that is a very different matter and that date must be accurate.

 

With marking the debt as settled they are not being accurate so you could make a complaint to them under the Data Protection Act, however, as they have made an error in your favour by not showing the account as delinquent then I don't see what benefit that would be to you.

 

I did come across another thread here with someone in a similar position and when they informed the creditor the creditor then changed the credit file to reflect the reality.

[Master Chief]

ty nicklea.

 

Citi letter states that "This letter is to inform you that, with effect from the date at the top of this letter" 05/06/2003 "under a written assignement, we have assigned your contract......."

 

1st Crud state, in letter dated 23/05/2003 "Associates has assigend to 1st crudite Ltd the full outstanding balance due under the agreement referred to above. As a result of this agreement, the full amount outstanding is due to 1st Crud IMMEDIATELY" " We will therefore be continuously phoning you at the most rediculous times night and day and demanding money with menaces in addition to clogging up your letterbox with unlawful and unsubstantiated legal threats in direct contravention of OFT guidlines and buggering up your credit file indefinately, becuase we can get away with it"

 

Ok I made the last bit up, but that's what they should have said!

 

The settled marker fell off the file some time back, the print I have is Nov 2006, just thought it was very odd that they should do that and wondered why, then wondered a bit more etc.

 

MC

Edited November 26, 2010 by Master Chief
typos

[Master Chief]

Can post up the letters if relevant

[nicklea]

It's okay, you've typed up the relevant bits there. In both cases they just mention that there has been an assignment and do not mention the actual date of the assignment so that is fine, it doesn't matter about different dates.

 

If they had said:-

 

"This letter is to inform you that, with effect from the date at the top of this letter" 05/06/2003 "under a written assignement dated xx/xx/xx, we have assigned your contract......."

 

Then that would have been a different matter and that date in blue must be accurate.

 

The reason that they said with effect from the date of this letter is that an assignment is not effective until YOU have notice of it.

[Master Chief]

thanks nicklea.

 

As a layman, I assumed that the date of the letter indicated the 'sale' date, but obviously not. Shame.

 

But the balance 1st Crud are claiming is still wrong and of course the 'settled' marker is still unexplained, so I'm not giving up quite yet.

 

MC

[Master Chief]

Another quick question please.

 

Would the deed of sale (re: assignment) be relevant to the SAR. i.e. should I have a right to see this?

 

ty

 

MC

[babybear39]

No. Only a judge could view that as it's a commercially sensitive document.

[Master Chief]

No. Only a judge could view that as it's a commercially sensitive document.

 

And there you are again to my rescue!

 

** CAUTIONARY NOTE ** - bb, If you a in the process of eating or drinking anything, especially if it is hot, please finish your mouthful and place any such sustanance at a safe distance!

 

We can no longer fight this bb, to deny it is no less a tragedy than that of Romeo & Juliet!

 

LOL

 

Anyhoo, once you have regained your composure. CPR 31.16 or not a good idea?

 

MC

 

PS. I have to spread some rep around apparently.

[babybear39]

A little trip over to the legal issues forum is needed now 'cos me being blonde makes me a tad confuddled with which part of the CPR to use...

 

Without reading back, have they served you yet with court papers or are they at the threat o gram or LBA stage?

 

PS: My favourite is the Scottish Play

[Master Chief]

Just thought I'd give a brief rundown of what's happened so far and an update as to where I am with Citi at the moment:

 

28/10/2010 - Sent DSAR - Received 29/10/2010

 

06/11/2010 - Received letter requesting proof of ID that had already been sent along with my original request

 

08/11/2010 - Postal order banked by Citi (cashed before I had responded to their request)

 

08/11/2010 - Sent POID info again along with official complaint

 

20/11/2010 - Received SAR response, but incomplete. No NoA, Default Notice, Termination Notice or Agreement. Docs received were statements and application data, with very limited manual notes (nothing prior to SAR request)

 

22/11/2010 - Spoke to ICO regarding Citi's response to clarify certain statements that they made, essentially they were spouting a pile of poo

 

23/11/2010 - Sent SAR failure notice and requested that they comply fully. Although, this was sent to the same address as the original SAR and by 1st class recorded, the status went to being redirected with the Royal Maill and this is still the status today.

 

06/12/2010 - Phoned Citi and confirmed current postal address, then sent another letter re SAR failure.This was received 08/12/2010.

 

17/12/2010 - Received a very brief reply basically stating that they have already sent the information

 

 

So they are still attempting to avoid complying fully and they have completely failed to respond to my complaint in any way shape or form!

 

 

Where do I go from here, the ICO?

 

I know that the ICO is supposed to be under a lot of pressure, but I sent them a complaint as regards 1st Credit 12/11/2010 and I'm still waiting for it to be allocated to a case manager!

 

MC

[Master Chief]

An update as to where we are today with 1st crud:

 

I received a final response in relation to my formal complaint as regards harassment etc. They deny any wrong doing, but admit that they can see why I may have felt pressured by one of their phone monkeys in October when he repeatedly coerced me to pay the account with a newly acquired credit card. A laughable contradiction!

 

The best part though is my complaint began with a couple phone calls I received back in Aug/Sep 2008. I clearly stated in my complaint that the first call was received Sunday, 17th August, 2008. But they have replied saying they investigated a call the following day! And they also completely ignored my mention of the second phone call! And this coming from the industries leading compliance department (allegedly).

 

So a rather lenghty response has been sent today and finished with I'll now be taking this up with the OFT, FOS, Trading Standards etc.

 

Also sent today is the account in dispute letter based on CCA request failure and I've also disputed the balance claimed, was waiting for a response from the ICO, but have considered that I could be collecting my pension before I get a reply from them.

 

I've also put my money where my mouth is and withdrawn support for their Christmas party by cancelling my STO. Maybe not enough to prevent the bubbly flowing, but perhaps there will be a few bottles less and maybe they'll hold fire on the party poppers!

 

So I'll be a few quid richer this Xmas and may well have a bottle of bubbly on them for a change!

 

MC

[coledog]

Go for it - well done

[Master Chief]

Go for it - well done

 

Thanks for your support CD, I shall be shouting very loudly to all whom should listen. Will keep the updates coming as and when.

 

MC

[nicklea]

No. Only a judge could view that as it's a commercially sensitive document.

 

Actually there is case law that you are allowed to see the document of assignment. The case is Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1968] 3 ALL ER 824

 

Lord Denning MR said:-

 

After receiving the notice, the debtor will be entitled, of course, to require a sight of the assignment so as to be satisfied that it is valid, and that the assignee can give him a good discharge.

[Master Chief]

Wow nicklea, you are a star of awesome magnitude. thank you soooooooo much!

 

How would I go about making such a request?

 

BTW, my bro is getting sorted now thanks to you and others. Much obliged there.

 

MC

[nicklea]

You could write to them requesting sight of the document of asiggnment mentioneing that case. However, they will probably ignore you. If you desperately wanted to see it then you would need to take them to court.

 

However, I would suggest that the best option is just to wait until/if they take you to court and request sight of it then.

[babybear39]

If/when you have exhausted Citi's formal complaints procedure and eight weeks has passed, then you complain to the ICO

[babybear39]

Actually there is case law that you are allowed to see the document of assignment. The case is Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1968] 3 ALL ER 824

 

Lord Denning MR said:-

 

After receiving the notice, the debtor will be entitled, of course, to require a sight of the assignment so as to be satisfied that it is valid, and that the assignee can give him a good discharge.

 

Thanks Nick

[Master Chief]

If/when you have exhausted Citi's formal complaints procedure and eight weeks has passed, then you complain to the ICO

 

Thanks bb, well they have not acknowledged my formal complaint, missed the 4 week deadline and the eight weeks will be up 04/01/2011. So do I just refer immediately to the FOS as regards not dealing with my complaint?

 

The 40 day deadline for my SAR was 08/12/2010 and subsequent requests for them to comply have essentially been ignored, so is it now over to the ICO for non-compliance?

 

thanks again,

 

MC

[babybear39]

Yes, sorry, SAR time scale is 40 calender days then report to the ICO.

 

My last reply should have read, FOS instead of ICO, OOPS!

[Master Chief]

Yes, sorry, SAR time scale is 40 calender days then report to the ICO.

 

My last reply should have read, FOS instead of ICO, OOPS!

 

ty and you are forgiven bb, probably more my fault for unecessarily muddying the water.

 

So fos now or wait til eight weeks, despite not having acknowledged the complaint at all?

 

MC

[babybear39]

FOS won't look at a complaint until you have exhausted the company's formal complaints procedure or eight weeks has passed.

 

I'm 'avin a blonde 'un today lol

[Master Chief]

I'm 'avin a blonde 'un today lol

 

Could be worse, you could be 'avin an Essex blonde 'un today!

 

I am from Essex, so I'm allowed to say that!

[Master Chief]

This one is for nicklea.

 

 

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

 

20. Notice in writing.

 

In order that the assignee may obtain the benefit of the Law of Property Act 1925, express notice in writing of the assignment must be given to the debtor, trustee or other person1 from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim the debt or the chose or thing in action2. Where there are joint debtors and covenantors, notice to one who is a bankrupt is unnecessary3. The notice need not be formal4, and need not be written with the intention that it should perform the function of giving notice5; but it must be given even though the debtor cannot read6. The assignment only operates under the Act as from the date of the notice7, that is, the date on which it is received by or on behalf of the debtor8. If the debt is released or extinguished by payment or otherwise before notice is given, there is no transfer under the Act9.

It has been held that if the date of the assignment is wrongly stated the notice is ineffectual10, though if no date is given at all the notice may be good11. It may also be ineffectual if it does not state the amount of the debt correctly12.

The Act prescribes no limit of time within which the notice must be given13, and a notice given after the death of the assignor14, or after the death of the assignee15, is effectual.

The Act does not prescribe that the notice must be given by any particular person16. Thus it may be given by the personal representatives of a deceased assignee, even though no notice has been given by him or by the original or any intermediate assignee17.

In the case of a company, notice to the manager at the works, though not communicated by him to the head office, may be sufficient18.

It is thought that where there have been two assignments of the same debt, of both of which notice has been given to the debtor, but the assignee under the second assignment, without having notice of the first, gave notice to the debtor of his assignment before notice was given of the first assignment, he will have priority19.

If a debtor has given a negotiable instrument, for example a cheque, in payment of the debt, a subsequent notice that the debt has been assigned may be disregarded by the debtor even if the creditor still holds the cheque20.

 

 

 

10 Stanley v English Fibres Industries Ltd (1899) 68 LJQB 839; WF Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 2 All ER 169, [1956] 1 WLR 419, CA. It is not so in the case of an equitable assignment: Whittingstall v King (1882) 46 LT 520.

 

 

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

 

My question is as regards the bit above that I have bolded. As you may know I have earlier stated that I have two different dates given to me as regards the NoA, which (in my mind at least - small as it is) could possibly make the Asssignment inefectual?

 

cheers.

 

MC

 

Edit:

 

Here are the NoA's in pdf form, which clearly give contradicting dates:

 

[ATTACH]23745[/ATTACH]

 

Edit again: Oh and a further contradiction is that, in my SAR from Citi, they state that the account was sold to 1st Crud in March 2003, so that makes three different dates!

Edited December 19, 2010 by Master Chief
Additional Info

[nicklea]

Unfortunately, I don't really have good news for you.

 

The bit about the date of the assignment being wrong would apply if the letter had said something like:-

 

we have assigned your debt to 1st credit under an assignment dated xx/xx/xxxx

 

then the date in blue needs to be accurate. However, you will note from their letter that they don't mention the actual date of the assignment, just that there has been one.

 

Why they say that it is effective immediately or from the date of the letter is that it is only effective from the date that you are given notice - ie when you receive the letter.

 

However, one thing to bear in mind is that the assignment has been made to 1st Credit (Finance) Ltd.

 

If they attempt to take you to court under any other name eg 1st Credit Ltd then they will not have any standing before the court as the assignment was made to 1st Credit (Finance) Ltd and if any other part of their group tries to take you to court there must have been another noa to that effect before they can start proceedings..