PPI Claim Against Citi / Opus

[Womble68]

Good evening fellow CAGer's,

 

I have a query that I am hoping that someone with more experience in these matters that me can help or advise me with.

 

I hahave been in dispute with Citi for over a year regarding a miss-sold PPI policy on a credit card sold in 1998. To cut a long & very boring story short the FOS found in my favour that the policy was miss-sold. I'm still arguing with the lender regarding the exact refund amount as the figures that I have come up with are far in excess of theirs.

My question is that since Citi sold all accounts to Opus in November who do I file against on the court documents? I am still inclined to go for Citi as they have accepted their miss-selling but just refused to correctley remedy it. However I have read that in the case of an absolute assignment, Opus having bought the account & alledged debt that under s.189 of the CCA is it not the case that the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties therfore making Opus now responsible for Citi's

miss-selling

actions as well as any claims for the repayment of penalty charges.

 

I initiall filed in December but the paperwork went missing so I have to file the papers again & since Opus insist that they legally bought the account despite Citi closing it in May when the balance was zero would it be best to file against Citi or Opus.

 

Thanks in advance for any suggestions or advice that you may be able to provide me with.

[The abused]

Sounds as if you are in same boat as me, ie who is liable for the repayment of unfair/legal charges. I have just written OPUS a letter asking them to confirm this very situation, I also put in the letter that I would if required be presenting the letter I am just sending to them in a court along with their reply to my letter if the response to my dispute was not with satisfactorily.

 

I like you am seriously cosidering employing a solicitor. I am not in arrears and I am not trying to get my debt written off. I believe I have been unfairly treated and when you try to complain to CITI they dont even bother replying.

 

 

It will be interesting to see what OPUS comes up with. With regards to writing to CITI they recieved from me on the 11th Jan 2011 a letter requesting that they comply with their terms and conditions. I aint heard anything yet. The letter I sent also requested them to confirm whether any monies owed due to unfair/illegal practices was their responsibility or that of OPUS. Strange no reply as of yet

[The abused]

Just a question. Did CITI close the account and if so why has it been sold to OPUS? Did you try and contact CITI with this problem prior to the sale to OPUS,

What I am getting at is if CITI owe you money which from the "unable to get the same amounts syndrome" would indicate, then they are trying to shaft OPUS by passing your account on to OPUS, CITI are as crafty as a bag of monkeys. Confirmation I believe of who is ultimately liable must be established.

[Womble68]

Citi did close my account & sent me notification in writing exercising section 30.1 of their terms & conditions which stated that "the account would remain open until the balance was paid" since at the time of them exercising their right under section 30.1 the balance was zero then the account should have been closed. When I subsequently refused their offer of settlement the simply added £529 back (despite informing me that the account would be closed) onto the account & sold it on to Opus.

 

I have been disputing the account & the repayment with both Citi & Opus ever since. Opus now use the same lines as Citi that they will no longer co-respond on this matter & that all letters will be treated as information only. I disputed Citi's right to add the charges back onto the account & also the legality of Citi selling a closed account. The problem for them is that they have sent me a letter in which they state that as far as they are concerned they purchased the account legally from Citi & as such they have the legal authority to collect the debt.

 

That's good enough for me if they claim they legally hold the account then as far as the law is concerned they also legally hold the responsibility for Citi actions & the way it operated the account. So it looks like it's not just use Citi have royally screwed Opus too :o) the sold them an account with a balance of around £500 on which they have admitted mis-selling a PPI from 1997, the charges alone are £2000 & interest brings the total amount to around £7000.

 

I was also in the process of claiming late fees most of which were caused by Citi's refusal to pay my claim when I was redundant so they'll have to pick that one up too. Not such a good purchase for Opus this one.

[Womble68]

Thought that you might find this useful regarding the responsibility of a sold/transferred/assigned account.

 

The burden of a contract cannot in principle be transferred so as to discharge the original contracting party without the consent of the other party. There are two exceptions to this, if the contractual rights have been assigned, those rights will be subject to the original contract. An instance of this is seen in Britain & Overseas Trading Ltd v Brooks Wharf Ltd, an exemption clause in the original contract was binding on the assignee of the contract. Such cases are examples of the "conditional benefit" principle. This principle applies where the right which has been assigned is on the condition that certain restrictions are observed. These are an intrinsic part of the right, so that the burden is annexed to the benefit of the contract. Therefore, the person with the benefit must perform the burden, or otherwise forgo the benefit. Whether a conditional benefit arises is dependent upon the proper construction of the contract.

 

Additionally the following should be noted from Jeffery Jenkins vs Young Brothers Transport ltd Williams’ submission reflects what according to Treitel is the "general rule", namely that the assignee of a benefit of a contract makes no promise to perform the obligations of the assignor and in such a case, the assignee does not become liable under the contract. (See Young v Kitchin [1878] 3EX.D.127).

 

However, Treitel sets out exceptions to this general rule (see Treitel page 702). An example is where the obligation to perform a contract in place of the assignor is annexed to the assignment of the benefit of the contract. Where this is the case, the assignee must perform the burden of the contract or forego the benefit if he fails to do so. Treitel describes this as the "conditional benefit principle", which arises where the right assigned is conditional or qualified, the condition being that certain restrictions should be observed or certain burdens assumed (see Tito v Waddell (No.2) 290 et seq)

 

So the benefits of debt are intrinsically linked to the burden of the debt, in our case Opus has bought the benefits of the debts and can't profit from the benefits of the debt without also taking on the burden of obligation.

 

You can't assign the burden of a contract but Debt falls under the conditional benefit principle so the burden is part of the benefit.

 

Thats why banks have no liability once they sell the debt on hence Citi now washing it's hands and ignoring us. If banks could only sell the benefits of a contract then they would be open to court action from debtors for incorrectly drawn up agreements even after the sale of the debt.

 

When debts are sold debt purchasing companies, banks or debt collectors buy debt from other banks they take on the benefit of the contract and along with that the burden and responsibility. If this is not the case then the question in regards to the complete and total diminished liability of a lender post sale of a debt still remains in question