Stornoway v Citicards incl Contractual Int & Pre 6 Years

[Stornoway]

I live in Scotland but i'm claiming in England by using a Mailbox I've set up as a correspondence address. The story so far ........

17 Dec 06 - Sent SAR

04 Jan 07 - Request for ID rec'd and returned

28 Feb 07 - Statements received

07 Mar 07 - Prelim sent

26 Mar 07 - LBA sent

30 Mar 07 - Decline letter rec'd (no offer)

10 Apr 07 - MCOL submitted

18 Apr 07 - Claim Acknowledged

01 May 07 - I offered to settle at a modest discount (rejected 8/5/07)

01 May 07 - Usual standard defence received

05 May 07 - AQ returned under new allocation strategy (details below)

 

Claim is for (approx figures)

- 1100.00 charges

- 1300.00 compound purchase interest (23.6%)

- 1300.00 compound contractual interest (at 23.6% purchase int rate)

- 3700.00 TOTAL

 

I'm really enjoying this whole process and whilst I would be delighted to settle out of court to avoid wasting court time, cant wait until I have my day with the infamous Mr Smith. Their claim of £12.88 costs is absolutely laughable and has holes in it bigger than the Mersey Tunnel. My brother's new girlfriend is a barrister who is now helping me in the process so roll on my day in Morpeth & Berwick Court !

[Stornoway]

My Particulars of Claim :

 

 

1. The Claimant has had a credit card account ("the Account") with the Defendant which has been open since before May 1999 and remains open.

 

 

2. During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Accounts in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

 

 

3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

 

 

4. The Claimant contends that:

a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.

 

 

5. The claimant claims compound interest on the amounts claimed, using the rate and method as applied by the defendant to monies it is owed. A schedule of the charges and interest calculated is annexed to the Particulars of Claim. The claimant’s ground for seeking restitution of the compounded contractual rate of interest is that the defendant would be unjustly enriched if the claimant's entitlement was limited to the statutory rate of interest in that the defendant has had use of the sums and would have used these sums to re-lend at commercial compounded rates. Additionally, the Claimant has not had the benefit of the sums and has therefore been unable to use said sums to repay borrowing elsewhere.

 

 

6. Alternatively, if the court decides that the claimant is not entitled to the contractual rate of interest (as outlined at point 5 above), then the claimant claims statutory interest under s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984.

 

 

7. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges on the Account in the sum of £1,100

b) the removal of any prejudicial information which the Defendant bank may have passed to third parties in relation to the Account and in particular the removal of all Default Notices registered with credit reference agencies since this was caused solely by the level of disproportionate penalty charges. The Claimant’s request is made under the Data Protection Act 1998, section 14, which gives the power to the Court to order the removal of inaccurate personal data.

c) a refund of all interest paid on the said charges amounting to £1,300

d) Compound interest on the said charges at the contractual rate of 23.60% of £1,300,

e) In the alternative to point d above, interest under s.69 County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of 85p.

f) Court costs;

 

 

8. Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under S.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982).

 

 

I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true.

[Stornoway]

I'm following the new strategy for Allocation Questionaire's (no response from judge yet):

 

In the Morpeth and Berwick County Court

Claim number XXXXX

 

 

 

 

Between

Stornoway - Claimant

and

Citifinancial Europe PLC - Defendant

 

Draft Order for Directions

The Claimant shall within 14 days of service of this order send to the Defendant and to the Court:

a) A schedule setting out each charge repayment of which is sought, showing the date, amount, and reason given (if any) for that charge being made;

b) Copies of any statement or other document relied upon as showing that each and every charge has been made;

c) A statement of evidence of all matters relied upon as tending to show that the charges are irrecoverable as penalties or otherwise;

d) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon.

If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order.

 

 

2. The Defendant shall within 14 days thereafter file and serve a response to the Claimant's schedule, stating in respect of each item claimed;

a) Pursuant to what contractual provision such charge was made, producing a copy of the contractual document relied upon;

b) Whether such charge is accepted to be a penalty, and if not why not;

c) If such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions (whether or not such action is treated as a breach of contract between the parties), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such was a proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was;

d) If such charge is not alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions then facts and matters intended to be relied upon showing the basis upon which the charge was calculated and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to show that the charge was fair and reasonable.

e) Any witness statements.

f) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon.

If the Defendant fails to comply with this order, the Defence will be struck out without further order.

[Stornoway]

All advice, support, comments and help gratefully received !

[gizmo111]

I think this is the first Citi CI claim.

Was there anything in the defence about this?

[Stornoway]

Hi Gizmo, thanks for calling in !

 

Two points in their defence mention interest;

 

10. The Defendant avers that the Claimant's claim is not a Moneyclaim but a damages action and further avers that the Claimant's interest calculation is not applicable to this action or, if it is applicable, that it is wrong and the Defendant puts the Claimant to proof that this interest is owed. Specifically, as the Defendant is a credit instituition 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 than actual one. 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.

 

11. Further or alternatively, the Defendant avers that as this is a debt action then the statutory interest rate should apply rather than the compounded interest rate claimed as this contractual rate was agreed between the parties (LIKE I HAD A CHOICE IN WHAT INTEREST RATE THEY APPLIED !!!), is neither a penalty nor a default fee and was voluntariy incurred by the Claimant as a consequence of his breaches. It has not been subject to any OFT ruling or case law and the Defendant avers that the Court has no jurisdiction to pronounce on that element of the contractual agreement freely entered into by the Claimant.

[gizmo111]

You are going to have one hell of a fight on you hands with Brian Smith.

 

Good Luck

Let me know if I can help

[Stornoway]

Many thanks. I've had a lot of success in other claims so far and I'm treating Citicards as my "wildcard" - I'm happy to gamble on this one to an extent but obviously give it my very best shot. If nothing else I love the tone and content of Brian's letters - they are fantastic, like something from a bad 60's sitcom.

 

Looking forward to my battle !!! Will keep you posted.

 

Cheers.

[Dusary]

You know - reading a thread which is totally disconnected with the reader's own fight(s) is fascinating. The *dogged* (and pioneering) work done by others who've been "at this" for longer than others is a great encouragement>

 

Stick with your "wildcard".

[mrsfoot]

Stornoway, which spreadsheet did you use for your calculations?

[Stornoway]

Stornoway, which spreadsheet did you use for your calculations?

 

I created my own - happy to share with you if you want a copy (PM me your address).

[gaz2006]

Hi there love to see your spreadsheet how many ci claims have you been successful with is this the letter in your thread yo used for all ? Regards Gaz

[Stornoway]

Hi there love to see your spreadsheet how many ci claims have you been successful with is this the letter in your thread yo used for all ? Regards Gaz

Gaz - send me a private message with your email address and i'll send some docs through.

 

Cheers

[Stornoway]

Well .....the judge has taken his time but finally received response to Allocation Questionnaire and slightly disappointed that only standard directions were received so now have to wait until 13 August for my day in court. Still it does give me time to enjoy my summer holiday and fully prepare for court.

[Dusary]

Keep at it!

[bsia666]

love your style and "patter" Stornoway, I am using the MCOL sytem for a claim against the A&L. I would like too subsribe to your thread, I'm sure you will overcome any tactics thrown delivered to you.

 

All the best..............William (From sunny Saltcoats on the west coast)

[Stornoway]

Starting to get my court bundle together - ideally I want to get it out the way before I go on summer hols. Have noticed a few mistakes in the Citi defence document including the fact that they claim to have paid me c.£500 being the difference between the charges and the OFT £12 - this is simply not true, I 've had nothing off them so far. I'll enjoy highlighting the mistakes to the judge.

[Stornoway]

love your style and "patter" Stornoway, I am using the MCOL sytem for a claim against the A&L. I would like too subsribe to your thread, I'm sure you will overcome any tactics thrown delivered to you.

 

All the best..............William (From sunny Saltcoats on the west coast)

 

Thanks William - your support is appreciated !

[gizmo111]

Starting to get my court bundle together - ideally I want to get it out the way before I go on summer hols. Have noticed a few mistakes in the Citi defence document including the fact that they claim to have paid me c.£500 being the difference between the charges and the OFT £12 - this is simply not true, I 've had nothing off them so far. I'll enjoy highlighting the mistakes to the judge.

 

Can you let me have an e-mail address as I have stuff you must include.

[Stornoway]

Hi Gizmo

 

Have sent a PM with my address.

 

Many thanks

[gizmo111]

Hi Gizmo

 

Have sent a PM with my address.

 

Many thanks

 

You have mail;)

[Dusary]

Everything sorted out in your Court Bundle?

 

Enjoy your hols.

 

If it comes to my HBOSplc claim going to court - I'll have to delay that happy moment until after August! (Hols time for me!)

[Stornoway]

Thanks Dusary - love the new avatar BTW.

 

Court bundle was delayed until after hols but in the interim period both Barclaycard and First Direct settled claims on the day before court (both with contractual interest) - i'm now on a roll !

 

The court bundle is almost ready to go and its long at 112 pages. I want to do a little more research on claiming contractual interest so may add another case law example if I can find something relevant.

 

I have also written to the court to ask if the allocated time for the case can be increased from 10mins to 2 hours.

 

Here is what I have in the bundle so far;

 

 

Documents

 

 

Description Pages

Correspondence 1 - 8

Statements 9 - 55

Latest Schedule of Charges 56 - 57

Relevant Case Law 58 - 60

Early Day Motion from Houses of Parliament 61

Dunlop v New Garage 62 – 63

UTCCR 1999 64 – 74

UCTA 1977 75 - 83

SOGA 1982 84 – 96

OFT Statement Summary 97 – 99

Copy Terms and Conditions 100 – 103

Sheldon v Outhwaite 104 – 137

Disclosure Orders 138

Response to Citicard Defence 139 - 142

[alice-rose]

Ooooohhhhh Good Luck Stornoway

 

Your Documents for your court bundle look very impressive.

 

I have just received my statements from Citicards.

took ages to get them through, requested early May.

 

I am currently claiming from A&L at the moment,

began way back in March.

but will begin on Citicards shortly.

 

They don't have a good reputation.

looking at what the moderators have to say about them on here at the top of the forum.

 

So wishing you all the best

 

alice in nodland (almost !)

xx

 

just going up to bedfordshire

 

nightie night

[Stornoway]

Thanks - Alice Rose. Give me a shout if you need any help with your claim.