Markie vs CitiCards

[Markie99]

CitiCards have been sending their usual set of nastily worded letters. The latest one along the lines of:

 

"You've noted that £8 has been reimbursed but you want it all"

"You ignore that fact that dozens of judges have ruled that £25 is fair"

"Finally you ignore totally the fact that I said "I shall supply evidence to the Court that its costs are within the range contemplated by the OFT". That means my clients charges cannot be penal because they are not either unconscionable nor excessive, being higher than the amount we do charges (sic), whether it was at the old £25 rate or the new £12 rate."

Any suggestion for the reply please?

[Enron]

They`ve told you that £25 is fair?

 

Think we'll all be wanting a copy of that letter.........

 

Dont attempt to get involved in any kind of arguement with the people at Citi, be reasoned and calm and follow by the step by step process.

 

Have you made an SAR request to ask for copies of your statements, if so do it now.

[Markie99]

They`ve told you that £25 is fair?

 

Think we'll all be wanting a copy of that letter.........

 

Dont attempt to get involved in any kind of arguement with the people at Citi, be reasoned and calm and follow by the step by step process.

 

Have you made an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) request to ask for copies of your statements, if so do it now.

 

Sorry, I'm actually at the last stage with them. They have reimbursed £13 per event (£25 - £12 they think reasonable). I've been arguing for the other £12 and this is the second or third letter in this vein from Brian Smith.

[Enron]

Your in the same boat as everyone else, do you have a court date with them yet or have filed your MCOL or N1?

[Markie99]

Your in the same boat as everyone else, do you have a court date with them yet or have filed your MCOL or N1?

 

No, the court decided to send it to Salford so I am waiting.

 

MCOL done.

[Enron]

Are you in Manchester?

 

If not you should object - use this letter as a basis, you'll have to put in your claim details including in a few instances where you would like the case transferred back to. It'll have to be sent to Salford.

 

Obviously include your claim number and name, address and phone number details.

 

--

I understand from a court order that my claim has been transferred to Salford County Court.

 

This was as a result of a request made by the defendant in their Allocation Questionnaire.

 

I wish to object to the application for transfer on the following grounds.

 

1. The defendant’s application was made without notice to myself and I have not been given the opportunity to make representations.

 

2. I am an individual of limited means. I am a litigant in person and I am suing the defendant on my own account.

 

3. The defendant is a multi national company with access to huge financial resources whilst my finances are strictly limited.

 

4. Although the place of trial is at their discretion of the Court the normal and established practice is for the claims in which one of the parties is an individual, be transferred to that individuals home court. In this case my home Court is ******* County Court.

 

5. The defendant, in their defence paragraph 12, had already admitted just over half of my claim and have now acknowledged the amount in issue is only £****.

I am also requesting Judgement in request of the admitted sum. The defendants have made reference to the fact of the sum that they admit has been sold onto a third party agency, however, I fail to see the relevance of this to my claim.

 

6. Order 26 to which the defendant refers to in their application normally is applied for the benefit of a claimant who is claiming as an individual.

 

7. The defendant refers to a recent find by the Office of Fair Trading, however it is clear that the Office of Fair Tradings conclusions indicate very strongly that companies such as the defendant are acting in violation of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations. And therefore as the defendant continues its system of penalty charges in the face of the Office of Fair Trading report it is they who should justly face the burden of costs and not claimants in person who are merely seeking to enforce the law.

 

8. The defendant argues the virtue of having all cases transferred to the same court. There are presently at least sixteen cases which have been transferred to the Mercantile Court in London so that the bank charges issue can be tested once and for all. The claimant respectfully suggests that if the Salford County Court will not return my case to the ***** County Court that in the alternative this case should be transferred to the Mercantile Court in London to be heard before the designated Judge there along side all the other penalty charges test cases.

 

It is not in the interest of the Overriding Objective for my case to be tried in a court other than my home court of ******* County Court

 

9. Furthermore, the defendants registerred office is in Reading and not in Salford.

[Mike220359]

CitiCards have been sending their usual set of nastily worded letters. The latest one along the lines of:

 

"You've noted that £8 has been reimbursed but you want it all"

 

"You ignore that fact that dozens of judges have ruled that £25 is fair"

 

"Finally you ignore totally the fact that I said "I shall supply evidence to the Court that its costs are within the range contemplated by the OFT". That means my clients charges cannot be penal because they are not either unconscionable nor excessive, being higher than the amount we do charges (sic), whether it was at the old £25 rate or the new £12 rate."

Any suggestion for the reply please?

 

Typical Brian letter!

 

Markie have you asked for a copy of the original agreement yet, if it's anything like mine it doesn't conform to what is required under the CCA, meaning that not only are the charges illegal, but everything else as well.

 

Get back when you have the info.

 

Mike

[Markie99]

Mike:

 

Brian says that he cannot find my original agreement but that they are still looking for it.

 

He argues that as the card is now cancelled there is no obligation for them to find it.

 

He then argues that the case is fundermentally flawed and that it won't cost them anything to fight it as he will be attending.

 

Any other suggestions anyone?

[gizmo111]

Typical Brian letter!

 

Markie have you asked for a copy of the original agreement yet, if it's anything like mine it doesn't conform to what is required under the CCA, meaning that not only are the charges illegal, but everything else as well.

 

Get back when you have the info.

 

Mike

 

Not strictly true the absence of the CCA means that the debt is unenforceable through the court, it doesn't mean it never existed, or that the core debt is illegal.

[gizmo111]

Mike:

 

Brian says that he cannot find my original agreement but that they are still looking for it.

 

He argues that as the card is now cancelled there is no obligation for them to find it.

 

He then argues that the case is fundermentally flawed and that it won't cost them anything to fight it as he will be attending.

 

Any other suggestions anyone?

 

Is this account with a DCA?

Why did you want the agreement?

Have you asked for this to be transferred back to your home court.

[Mike220359]

Is this account with a DCA?

Why did you want the agreement?

Have you asked for this to be transferred back to your home court.

 

The requiremnt for the original agreement is tactical, it surprising what it leads to. I can't illustrate this at moment because I'm in argument with Brian et al, but in 21 days time I should be able to post.

[Mike220359]

Not strictly true the absence of the CCA means that the debt is unenforceable through the court, it doesn't mean it never existed, or that the core debt is illegal.

 

Not what I implied at all it menas that you have more ammunition to use, and the abscence of the CCA menas that it is unenforcaeble without court action.

 

Mike

[gizmo111]

Not what I implied at all it menas that you have more ammunition to use, and the abscence of the CCA menas that it is unenforcaeble without court action.

 

Mike

 

Markie have you asked for a copy of the original agreement yet, if it's anything like mine it doesn't conform to what is required under the CCA, meaning that not only are the charges illegal, but everything else as well.

 

Sorry saw this and thought that was what you meant - citi claimers even more so than others need to be absolutely sure what they are doing

[Markie99]

The requiremnt for the original agreement is tactical, it surprising what it leads to. I can't illustrate this at moment because I'm in argument with Brian et al, but in 21 days time I should be able to post.

 

I'll keep an eye out for that information Mike. Thanks.