Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Today , after a lotof years i recieved a letter from this lot. Very friendly, "Were writing to remind you that we havent had any contact from you in a while".  The velvet fist, followed by  a veiled threat to get their preferred debt collectors involved. Yep dead right. In 1992/3 I took out a Student load under duress from DHSS. uP TO 2000 I hadsucessfully gotten deferment on low income. But rarther thansign on as unemployed,I decided to be self employed. I applied and they asked for all sorts of documents. I obliged and then correspondance ceased from them, circa 2001. To date  I have had no correspondance from Student Loans. I was made  redundant in 2009 and  reached 65 in 2012 , at which age the loan should have been cancelled. Now ,today, 12 years on retirement and 11 ( at least years after last contact) I get a letter with veiled threats. Do I , as I smell a scam a) ignore it and hope that Erudio will think that this phishing attempt has failed or b) respond with a statute barred letter or c) remind them of legal terms that loan should be cancelled 12 years ago or d) combination of b) +c)      
    • But I'm not mixing and matching. Sure, when researching I do check multiple avenues, but when speaking, I will open a single post. The Fb post was made in March, it is now June, time has passed, and when the suggestion was made, no further information was given on how I should progress beyond "send a letter", which has meant that I've needed to start another stream - this one, but only after taking the time to research first.
    • hes not turning you away he is simply saying that you should stick to one channel of advice. he is perfectly happy with that channel being this forum, and he will help you   all he is saying, and I agree, is that you should stick to one help channel, not mix and match 3/4
    • As long as we are clear . Do the reading and post your letter of claim in draft form as requested and we can go from there.    
    • Hold on @BankFodder, that was a bit harsh. I spoke with the EVRi complaints Facebook group to begin with, a user on that group told me to send a letter but didn't give any specifics. Here at CAG, I was looking more for specific help as I've never raised such a claim before, and wanted to be sure that my claim was correct, which is why I've researched information with the other groups too, to be sure; but you seem to have assumed that I've made some form of contact with the other groups, such that I find your comments and tone to be very unfair. And I do know a thing or two about forums, that forum users are unpaid volunteers, I happen to be a Tableau Ambassador, and so perform a very similar role helping others in an unpaid capacity  
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

citi A word of encouragement for citi claimants


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5238 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 328
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Good luck mate, I'll be watching too Brian!

If I've helped tip my scales

 

Blair Oliver & Scott, £2500 written off December 2006 Default removed January 2007:D

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/56001-mike220359-blair-oliver-scott.html

 

Monument, didn't sign the agreement

:D

 

Lloyds TSB didn't sign the agreement!

:D

 

Citicards, didn't sign the agreement

:D

 

RBS tut, tut!

:rolleyes:

 

Morgan Stanley, oh dear

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the best will be thinkning of you in the am. Go get them. Say hi to Brian from us all!!!!

First Direct - Settled in full :eek:

Lloyds TSB - AQ completed Central London CC :confused:

RBS - Settled in full :p

Morgan Stanley - Settled in full :lol:

Capital One - Settled in full ;-)

Citi Cards - Transfered to Mercantile Court 19/10/06

Nationwide - Settled in full 8)

Capital One Acct 2 - Prelim letter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to go! I can fully understand your frustration - I'm in the middle of court action with them and not only did they get their sums wrong - twice (once claiming they owed more than I was claiming) but also claimed the account balance was still outstanding - it was settled two years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They tried this with me..........they said they will refund the 12.00 differences back against 30 charges.......but I can only count 28 !:rolleyes:

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really funny, they did the same with me as well, it makes you wonder if anyone there can count at all, looks like they miss counted when they tried to use the employees finger and toes, does that count a manual intervention or maybe there argument for the mistakes is they have not upgraded their abicus to the latest model:lol:

 

Good luck in court today, I'm sure it will be interesting, I wonder what the odds are for Mr smith turning up!

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres some confusion as to whether Smithy will in fact be there as its being held in Northern Ireland.

Smith has already made requests to defend other cases in the UK by telephone.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

right guys

we're back,and the news is not good.People take note from this and adapt accordingly......

 

They did show up,a solicitor from over here,and Mr Jones,Citi Financial director,no less!!

 

Opening arguments were made(it's very nerve wracking until you get going)and I pointed out all the stuff about not getting a breakdown of actual costs incurred,Dunlop Pneumatic,genuine pre-estimate of loss etc.

 

The big shocker-under oath,citi produced a breakdown of how the charges were constructed,and arrived at a figure of £12.88,and lowered this down to the OFT "recommended" level of £12.This was the turning point in the case......

 

This was shown to the judge,not to open court,and included capital costs,training and paying of staff in the defaults dept,implementation of IT systems,depreciation,you name it.This was then divided over the defaulters to cover phone calls,letters etc and the judge took their word for it-it was presented under oath.

 

She also rejected the unfair terms in consumer agreements argument,because they had refunded the difference between the £12 OFT figure(which she took to meaning the OFT had set this in stone,despite me arguing this point).

 

All in all a temporary setback for the cause,but something to learn from.

 

and Bru-cheers-I was glad you turned up for support.We both appreciated it greatly.Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

All very interesting....

 

questions popping into my mind

 

- Is the document shown to the judge ever made public?

- Were they going down the 'manual intervention' route?

- what is the upshot of today? Were you awarded £12 per charge (or have you had that already as your partial refund)?

- was any mention made that other claims have been settled in full, thye haven't defenced other cases? (Smila was due in court last week and they settled in full)

- Are the rules any different in NI to England in any way?

Abbey - Claim 1

full hearing 22 Feb 07 - Settled in full £710 :D

Abbey (Claim 2)

full hearing 22 Feb 07- Settled in full £4000 :D

Abbey (Claim 3)

Court date 27 June -

Capital One (claim 1)

£467 Settled in full 20 Sep :D

Capital One (claim 2)

£72 refunded 19 Aug :-D

Associates (Citicards)

claim 8 Aug/judgment by default 30 Aug/set aside hearing 9 Oct/Stay denied, ordered by Judge to reveal breakdown of charges andfull hearing 24 May/FULL DISCLOSURE ORDERED BY 8 MARCH/JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE AS NON-COMPLIANCE/DEFENCE STRUCK OUT PAYMENT IN FULL REQUIRED IN 14 DAYS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite disturbing.

For the moment be careful what you say.

I think Bankfodder will be interested to hear from you.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's probabily not what you were expecting, but now they have declared the costs it will only allow people to claim back the difference, AND the Compound interest they owe us.

 

An interesting development and I'm sure other companies will jump on the bandwagon and try to do the same, we will just have to see I guess.

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites

need to bring there charges for other countries next time

 

thanks for reminding me-In used the german charges regime,and Alan Jones persuaded the judge that the cost base in other countries was not he same,and gave a couple of examples,and that argument was considered invalid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this a closed account ?

Did they refund the 12.00 previously.......(did your schedule have these as refunded)

 

So did you actually not come out with anything at all ?

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

& Keren ^^^^^^^

 

 

questions popping into my mind

 

- Is the document shown to the judge ever made public?

seriously doubt it-they wouldn't even let me see it because"the details would probably end up on the website before this evening is out"(and I quote)

 

- Were they going down the 'manual intervention' route?

it seemed to be implied implicitly but not explicitly

 

- what is the upshot of today? Were you awarded £12 per charge (or have you had that already as your partial refund)?

they informed us that they were refunding the difference in their defence

 

- was any mention made that other claims have been settled in full, thye haven't defenced other cases? (Smila was due in court last week and they settled in full)

I mentioned in the attempt to settle out of court that the judge gave us that citi had already settled in full

- Are the rules any different in NI to England in any way?

I don't think so.....can't be sure though

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this a closed account ?

Did they refund the 12.00 previously.......(did your schedule have these as refunded)

 

So did you actually not come out with anything at all ?

 

yes-the refund was given at the same time as they filed the defence.

 

both accounts are open,but I hope to consign the bottom feeders that are Citi Financial to the financial dustbin of past history fairly soon,thank goodness.This claim would just have speeded that process up a tad....

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's probabily not what you were expecting, but now they have declared the costs it will only allow people to claim back the difference, AND the Compound interest they owe us.

 

An interesting development and I'm sure other companies will jump on the bandwagon and try to do the same, we will just have to see I guess.

 

Does the claimant get to see this breakdown?

Does this means then that the balance of the charge is a penalty and therefore unlawful so the charge is unenforceable in its entirety or what. Have a claim in with Citi myself so interested to know where to go from here.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are other implications here but its best we dont speculate for the moment.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote=lickthewallfatboy- Were they going down the 'manual intervention' route?

it seemed to be implied implicitly but not explicitly

 

 

Interesting...as I have a letter which says there is no manual intervention on my account, it says records of manual intervention and telephone conversations are only kept on their system for 2 years and my a/c was closed in 2003.....

 

Mine is a closed pre-citicards account,they inherited the account number when Associates became Citicards, and I've never had a card with Citicards on it, nor have I ever had any dealing with Citicards prior to this claim, so I'm not sure how this would all hold up as it was an account held by a previous company. They would have to explain how Associates charges were made up, which is who my card was with.

Abbey - Claim 1

full hearing 22 Feb 07 - Settled in full £710 :D

Abbey (Claim 2)

full hearing 22 Feb 07- Settled in full £4000 :D

Abbey (Claim 3)

Court date 27 June -

Capital One (claim 1)

£467 Settled in full 20 Sep :D

Capital One (claim 2)

£72 refunded 19 Aug :-D

Associates (Citicards)

claim 8 Aug/judgment by default 30 Aug/set aside hearing 9 Oct/Stay denied, ordered by Judge to reveal breakdown of charges andfull hearing 24 May/FULL DISCLOSURE ORDERED BY 8 MARCH/JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE AS NON-COMPLIANCE/DEFENCE STRUCK OUT PAYMENT IN FULL REQUIRED IN 14 DAYS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the claimant get to see this breakdown?

Does this means then that the balance of the charge is a penalty and therefore unlawful so the charge is unenforceable in its entirety or what. Have a claim in with Citi myself so interested to know where to go from here.

no-for "commercially sensitive reasons" was the reason....

 

I tried the "unenforceable in its entirety" argument-it was rejected.When they disclosed the breakdown of charges to the judge I knew that I wasn't going to get a judgement in my favour.The judge seemed to take what they said at face value,as well as taking a wrong(in my view)interpretation of the OFT report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no-for "commercially sensitive reasons" was the reason....

 

I tried the "unenforceable in its entirety" argument-it was rejected.When they disclosed the breakdown of charges to the judge I knew that I wasn't going to get a judgement in my favour.The judge seemed to take what they said at face value,as well as taking a wrong(in my view)interpretation of the OFT report.

 

Is there anything that can be done, or is this it on this claim - I think we need tofind some where else to discuss this.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...