Jump to content


Kashie V Citi Cards - Contractual Interest?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3899 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

Whatever the outcome Citi will loose out. If the fees deemed fair by the oft case are lower than the £12 suggested limit they will either pay the difference between that figure and the £30 fee they charge at present plus all court costs and interest, as they would bee deemed the loosing party, or disregard the figures from the oft case and continue to fight and loose cases in court, which judging by current solicitors' fees will cost them more in fees than is actually being claimed from them claimed.

In my case Citi never even offered the difference between the £12 oft figure and their £30 charges. The original claim was for £950. So far They have had to employ solicitors to attend court twice, a third time when the case is re listed, and will have to pay interest on the outstanding claim until the case is resumed. If they loose the case then it will have cost them many more times the cost of the original claim.

 

Whatever happens in the test case is irrelevant as they are only covering bank current accounts not credit cards.

The OFT figure of £12 is only the point at which the OFT said htey would take action and is not a true reflection of Citi's costs.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

So write back to court and ask for the stay to have an oral hearing for the stay to be lifted on the grounds that credit cards are not part of the OFT test case?????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, though i believe there is an additional fee for this (£65?).

NatWest - WON! £3350 Paid back

Vodafone - Default removed

Citicards - Judgement awarded for £1898, default remains though...for now....

Capital One- WON! Settled out of Court £392 + Default Removal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Help needed please............................had a letter from the courts today to do with this claim, it reads;

 

Before His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn Qc sitting at Cardiff County Court, Cardiff Civil Justice Centre, 2 Park Street Cardiff, CF10 1ET.

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

Upon it being noted that a decision has been made by the Supreme Court in the test litigation as to Bank Charges namely the Office of Fair Trading -v-Abbey National PLC and others whereby the appeal by the banks was allowed (a press summary of which was issued on behalf of the Supreme Court and is attached to this order)

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. The stay of this action is lifted.

 

2. Where an individual is the Claimant, (whether defending a claim and/or pursuing a counterclaim), the Calimant:

a)shall advise the court in writing by 02June 2010 whether he/she wishes to proceed woth the case and shall serve a copy of the same on the other party by the same date;

b)shall if the Claimant so advises the court case that it is wished to proceed, have permission to amend the particulars if Claim or Defence and Counterclaim, if appropriate, shall send a copy of any proposed amendment to the court and to the other party by 16 June 2010;

c)shall inform the court where he/she would like the case to be heard.

 

3. If the Claimant shall have so advised the court that he/she wishes the case to proceed, the bank/building society shall by 14 july 2010 serve and file an Amended Pleading, if appropriate, and advise the Court of a time estimate for the hearing, whereupon further directions shall be given.

 

4. If no action is taken by any party by 11 August 2010 then the action will be struck out with no order for costs.

 

5. This Order having been made by the Court of its own initiative each party may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed provided that is does so within 7 days after the date on which the order on it pursuant to CPR 3.3 (5) & 6.

 

 

 

 

Ok that's the letter but there was no attached as stated in paragraph one.

 

What do I do now????

 

Is is worth continuing with this claim - it's been so long I can hardly remember what has happened previously.

 

After the test case results are they still paying out on cards??????

 

Help please...........thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any clause in a contract which makes a provision by which unjust enrichment may occur may be unenforceable at law. If the amount is excessive, the injured party will be unable to enforce the charge in court. Any clause which explicitly provides for unjust enrichment is considered unlawful at common law. Credit card charges are still claimable, they may try and defend the contractual interest though.

 

Have you exchanged documents, if not it may be an idea to send in the draft order -- which requests a full breakdown of costs involved in the said penalty charges.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...