JOhnc v CitiCards

[gizmo111]

so how did the hearing go ?

[johnc007]

still waiting for the file to come back down from the judge will be after 12

[johnc007]

they go it set aside. now awaiting the court to get their thing together, gizmo will pm you.

[johnc007]

OK folks here is their defence

 

 

1. The Defendant is a credit card company whose registered office is at 87 Castle street, Reading, RG1 7DX

 

2. The Defendant admits that the Claimant had a credit card account(“the Agreement”) with the Defendant during the relevant period

 

3. The Defendant avers that the agreement with the Claimant contains terms entitling the Defendant to levy default fees and avers that the Claimant was aware of and agreed to the same as before entering into the agreement

 

4. The Defendant denies that the same are:

 

4.1 a disproportionate penalty and unenforceable or irrecoverable as penalty charges at common lay and/or

 

4.2 invalid under the Unfair Contracts Terms act 1977 and/or

 

4.3 unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999; and/or

 

4.4 unreasonable under section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

and puts the Claimant to proof of this by specific reference to the case law relied upon and/or the exact citation of the relevant parts of the sections of laws and regulations relied upon.

 

5 The Defendant denies that it has unlawfully debited the Claimant’s account. The Defendant avers that the Claimant expressly authorised the Defendant to levy such charges on the express understanding that the trigger for any such charge would be the Claimant ’s own breach of agreement

 

6 The Defendant avers that between 2001 and 2003, the Claimant breached the Agreement on no fewer than 28 occasions thereby authorising the Defendant to debit £700 to the Claimant ’s account by way of default fees , as per the Terms & Conditions of the Agreement.(this Figure is Wrong only had 22 occasions and £550 debited)

 

7 The Claimant is claiming as a money claim a sum equivalent to that which she claims was unlawfully debited to account over the term of the Agreement in late payment and overlimit fees. This claim is entirely based on the recent OFT statement on the alleged unfairness of such default fees. The OFT stated that the level at which default charges, though no the principle of default charging itself, was unfair in the context of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999. It also reported that the charges were, in its opinion, a penalty contrary to common lay principles of damages for breach of contract

 

8 The Defendant has agreed to abide by the OFT report and adopt a lower level of default fees which it has set at the new industry standard of £12. Over the lifetime of this account the Claimant has set its default charges at £25.

 

9 The Claimant’ account with the Defendant was consistently in arrears and was charged off and assigned to Cabot Limited (“Cabot”). At the time the debt was sold to Cabot, the balance of the account was £XXXX.XX in debit, i.e. outstanding from the Claimant. This sum far exceeds the amount levied in charges and actually means the Claimant has claimed principle and interest thereon. The Defendant avers that given this fact alone, the Claimant cannot maintain an action for recovery of sums she failed to pay the Defender. Furthermore, the Defender avers that the Claimant has acknowledged the debt by repaying it to a third party.

 

10 The Defendant made a ex gratia refund to Cabot which is the difference between (i) the current default fee of £12 and (ii) amount at which default fees claimed was charged to the Claimant . Cabot confirmed that the Claimant has paid them and thus this sum of £364 was refunded to the Claimant by cheque in April 2007 ( and been return to them)

 

11 The Defendant avers that the Claimant’s claim is not a money claim but a damages action and further avers that the Claimant ’s interest calculation is not applicable to the action or, if it is applicable, that it is wholly wrong and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that this or any interest is owed. Specifically, the Defendant avers that the principle of mutuality and reciprocity do not apply to this Agreement which was entirely contractual and the Court has no power to amend the contract to amend the same.

 

12 Furthermore, the Defendant avers Claimant has claimed interest from the date each default fee was incurred, rather that date of any payment of such default fee by the Claimant. As the Defendant is a credit institution and not a deposit taker, it cannot set off default fees against money held on account. As such it cannot be held liable for interest on a notionally paid debt rather an actual one. The Claimant has a current outstanding balance on his (excuse me but I’m female) account held by 1st Credit (who) and, as such, never paid the balance of his (wrong sex) account (you can’t have it both ways! Refer to para 10) including the default fees imposed. It is averred by the Defendant that it is only from the time of any such payment that interest could have accrued on such payment as if it were a debt.

 

13 Save as otherwise admitted, the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are denied and each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is specifically denied.

 

 

 

just so theirs no confusion this is my wife's account.

[andrew1]

John, I have a similar situation myself. Just for the record, and it might only be a minor difference, but there is NO company called Cabot Limited. The debts are generally (Pre January 15th 2007) sold to Kingshill No1 Limited which changed its name on 15th Jan 2007 to Cabot Financial UK Limited. Now it might seem a trivial point, but there are DPA issues here as well as we 'Caboteers' well know. So reference to Cabot Limited 'Cabot' should be quantified by Citi and you ought to have a notice of assignment stating to whom the debt was 'sold' or assigned.

You will ONLY receive letters from another of Cabots 16 companies called Cabot Financial (Europe)Ltd which is a SISTER company to Cabot Financial UK Ltd, but which would have needed your permission to transfer/use your data. They are totally separate companies all be it within the same group of companies. CF(Europe)Ltd when asked through various SAR and CCA requests will inform you that Cabot Financial UK Ltd do not hold any data - but they buy the debt and they register any defaults with the CRA's so they must have your data to do that. If they do have it they then need your permission to pass your data onto anyone else. Both companies have registered Data Controllers with the Information Commissioners.

 

Check out tbern and seahorses threads for an up to date detailed analysis of all things Cabot - we are a kinda 'EXPERTS' on all things Cabot.

 

The other thing is that Cabot have no right to any monies claimed from Citi by you.

 

If you think about it Cabot will be unjustifiably enriched by this transaction.

 

They (cabot) pay about 10% of the face value of the debt - I have no problem with that per sa as its a negotiated business deal. Great if you can get it. But if your charges when tallied up relate to more than the debt that was sold ie: £500 debt sold for £50, Cabot take payments from you, your charges are £700 and Citi send Cabot £350 as a goodwill gesture. Cabot are enriched. My argument is that if Citi want to make charitable donations to other companies thats there business, but charges should be repaid to whoever the contract they profess was broken by - YOU.

 

Hope this helps..good luck

 

Sarah

[snlc]

error

[johnc007]

well they filed with the court last minute again pity now waiting for the court to send Q& A or date.

[keren29]

i act on behalf of CitiFinancial Europe plc and write further to you letter of 29 April

i will respond to the main point only rather that all since i have seen this letter at least a dozen times now its is simply tiresome to have to answer all the half baked misinformation it contains. i would be grateful if, I future, you could at least attempt to litigate on your own behalf and not by rote.

 

my client does defend these cases although, naturally, it chooses not defend all as some are too small to be worth attending court. i can assure you that we will be attending court on the 8 May and will seek set aside on the grounds that you have failed to pay the sums you claiming as a debt. this simple yet telling point seems to elude many people. you claim is simply and opportunistic attempt to make money out of my client and will be defended.

 

you may if you wish show this letter to the court also as it is open

 

 

Have to say, that is the funniest letter I've seen from Brian in a while!

[andrew1]

That statement " you® claim is simply and opportunistic attempt to make money out of my client" is despicable.

[BaldyBaldwin]

although there letters may seem laughable, its worth bearing in mind that citi are winning cases

[gizmo111]

although there letters may seem laughable, its worth bearing in mind that citi are winning cases

 

 

Where?

[BaldyBaldwin]

as a citi mod i,m suprised i have to tell you

[andrew1]

as a citi mod i,m suprised i have to tell you

 

So, from a citi 'green horn' - Where?

[elsinore]

Yeah! I'm not a mod either, so please tell me too.

 

Els

[BaldyBaldwin]

there are four cases that i know of on this website were the judge ruled in favour of citi

[andrew1]

there are four cases that i know of on this website were the judge ruled in favour of citi

 

Forgive me for being a bit behind ..but can you put the links in if you know them.

 

Thanks

 

Sarah

[BaldyBaldwin]

not technicaly minded enough to give you the links, ive only just mastered cutlery, but i can give you the names of the threads if that helps.

apart from the NI case and myself there are "12.88 accepted " and " citi get right stuffing" ?? not sure about the last one as the judge ruled in favour of citi ??

[BaldyBaldwin]

Sorry... second thread should read "citi got bit of a stuffing this time"

I wondered what they would have named the thread if they had won?

[andrew1]

not technicaly minded enough to give you the links, ive only just mastered cutlery, but i can give you the names of the threads if that helps.

apart from the NI case and myself there are "12.88 accepted " and " citi get right stuffing" ?? not sure about the last one as the judge ruled in favour of citi ??

 

Thanks, Just for the record, go to the thread you wish to link and click your cursor in the http://www.. box at the top of the screen highlighting the line. press the Ctrl key on your keyboard and the 'c' key at the same time, come back to the posting you wish to show the link on click the cursor on the line you want to put the link and press 'Ctrl and the 'v' key at the same time and hey presto !

 

Sarah

[johnc007]

recieved to day

 

your claim has been allocated to the small claims track on 15 May 2007 A fee of £100.00 is payable unless you had made an application for a fee exemption or remission

 

if by 01 Jun 2007 you have not paid the fee or applied for a fee exemption or remission, your claim will automatically be struck out without further order of the court and you will be liable for costs which the defendant has incurred.

 

 

have returned to forms with exemption application

 

now it a wait and see what happens next

[johnc007]

Baldybaldwin one is a win to them one is a win to us

[gizmo111]

They haven't actually won, all that has happened is the courts have agreed with them refunding the difference between £25 and £12.

[johnc007]

gizmo does the allocation to small claims track mean I'm not getting a Q&A

[gizmo111]

gizmo does the allocation to small claims track mean I'm not getting a Q&A

 

Read here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/80091-your-court-dispensing-allocation.html

[BaldyBaldwin]

if the judge finds for the defendent that means they won, but if you want to kid yourself different, good luck to you