Wednesday vs Citi Cards

[Enron]

Likely that Eversheds date to submit the AQ is the same as yours.

 

Its a courtesy for them to send a copy of the AQ - though from memory Citi didn't......

 

Allocation will be decided by a judge, it could be a possability that Eversheds request a stay to frustrate your process of reclaiming. But we'll come to that if it happens.

 

If its proceeds it will be a case of compiling your bundles, for which ive got a guide to help you.

[wednesday1867]

for which ive got a guide to help you.

 

Thanks again Enron.

 

Eversheds have quickly replied to my letter they have improved their offer by about 3% obviously i'm not going to accept. They state if i don't accept this offer, they will be defending my claim in full, guess i should be looking forward to receiving their AQ

[Enron]

Think they are calling your bluff as much as anything else.

 

After all we know from another claimant on here that they put in an offer of full settlement the day before an allocation hearing.

 

Essentially in their client being unwilling in the extreme to justify its costs when orderred, or unable to explain its conflicting cost pre-estimates they are just wasting court time.... which maybe something to draw a courts attention to if you get to either an allocation hearing, or main hearing (though obviously do so in a respectful manner).

[wednesday1867]

Let them call it i will tell them again the only terms i will settle on, i kind of hope they dont, because my terms covers what i owe them, if it went to court and i won, the interest would pay a donation to here and maybe a week in the sun for me plus i would of cleared the debt.

 

But we all know they play silly sods, so its not unexpected.

[wednesday1867]

Im only offering to settle to save the £150 hearing fee

[Enron]

Thats more than reasonable.

 

As it stands you are entitled to the whole amount.

[wednesday1867]

If and when i win or settle, i will be trying my luck in only offering them 50-70% of the outstanding balance to close my account, they are yet to produce an agreement to my request last year, they aren't bothering me about the debt tho and i havent paid it for a year. Just thought as charges add up to virtually same as outstanding balance, this would be the easier route of the two.

[Enron]

What they'll likely do is deduct the charges from the balance as they did with my account when I claimed charges.

 

They haven't complied with my s78(1) request either, my complaint has gone to the FOS - however I maintained payments until fairly recently while I was under the impression I was obligated to make payments, with my claim being a couple of years ago.

 

If that fails, trading standards have said there has been an offence committed in not supply the s78(1) request which they would be interested in, and i'd be tempted to persue it to court - s85 has not been complied with, and i've paid alot more than the alleged debt in interest and account charges whilst Citi have been in default of that section of the consumer credit act 1974.

[wednesday1867]

What they'll likely do is deduct the charges from the balance as they did with my account when I claimed charges.

 

Thats what i thought would happen and don't mind if it does, well i kind of do now Just liked the idea of trying my luck with a 50% offer.

 

What made me think about the offer was, in the letters containing the offers, each time they said the refunds would be forwarded to me in the form of a cheque, so guess i'll have to wait and see

[Enron]

They tend to use templates, I was referred to as a "her" in their defence which just goes to show you that there materials are not individually taylored.

 

Might be a different case with Eversheds, but they'll likely be working off materials supplied and ok'd by Citi in Salford.

[wednesday1867]

Just another question

 

Is it worth ringing Court this week, to see if they have received Eversheds AQ, mine was due to be beginning of next week.

 

Also what kind of timeframe am i looking at now?

[Enron]

Best to sit tight and wait, give it a couple of weeks past the deadline for submission of AQs and then ring the court.

 

Both documents will likely take a month or so to go through the court system once submitted - then you'll get a mailing back... stating when the claim will proceed, whether its to be stayed, or an Allocation hearing.

[JH73]

Hi Wednesday,

 

I'm also attempting to persue Citi and haven't yet received my SAR. Did you receive yours in the end? If not, how did you proceed? I've complained to the ICO today.

 

Good luck with your claim.

 

JH73

[Enron]

If youve complained to the ICO and Citi, you'll just have to sit tight.

 

Pretty poor on Citi's part not to comply, next step I would consider would be contacting your MP - though would leave this a month or so, so you can give both the ICO or Citi time to get in touch with you.

[wednesday1867]

Nothing heard in last week.

 

Am i right in thinking if Eversheds dont file their AQ,i can get their defence thrown out or i win by default?

[Enron]

Not entirely sure on whether their defence would be struck out.

 

If they litigate anything like the solicitors in Salford they'd likely say they didnt receive the paperwork to complete.

 

Wait until the deadlines expires then contact the court.

 

There is good cause for the draft order to be adopted which would do half the job.

[wednesday1867]

Well no need to contact the court, the court sent me a letter............

 

 

My claim has been stayed!!!!!!!!

 

So is there a way i can get the stay lifted?

[Enron]

If you sent my letter in with your AQ, that lists reasons why a stay shouldnt be applied to your credit card claim.

 

Looks like that wasn't sufficient to prevent the stay... might be just a case that your specific court is staying everything penalty related.

[wednesday1867]

Just gone back through the thread and re read all the posts around the AQ, i think i sent the AQ and just the draft order.......... must of lost it in the completion on the AQ

 

Is it worth sending the letter in now anyway? I can't believe i didnt sent it in

[Enron]

The arguement is basically that there is already an OFT report in place relating to credit cards. Citi have complied in lowerring its penalty charges to the maximum limit of £12.00

 

The issue here is whether the charges levied against yourself of (list the various charges i.e. £20/£12 etc) accurately represent the costs of the Defendant.

 

As the Defendant has previously submitted conflicting cost pre-estimates based on the exact same figures, using the exact same formula to courts its pre-estimate documentation are in need of validation, of which the draft order would help in bringing all matters to the fore.

[wednesday1867]

So it won't hurt if i adapt that letter ever so slightly, send it to the Court and see if they lift the stay?

[wednesday1867]

This is how ive adapted it

 

My reason for writing is with regard to my claim, I today received notification of my claim being stayed.

 

At present courts are receiving instructions to stay all penalty charge claims in light of a test case that the Office Of Fair Trading is taking to the high court. This case relates to overdraft charges on bank current accounts and not credit cards for which there is already an OFT report in place that the credit card companies have agreed to abide by. I am aware of a number of claims that have been allowed to proceed because of this fact, so with this information, I would like to apply to have the stay lifted in relation to my claim.

 

I also feel it important at this time to inform the court that the defendant is one of the few banks that will not settle before a hearing, hire legal representation and routinely requests stays without any intention of attempting to negotiate a settlement and generally delay to per tract a claim to take as long as possible resulting in the waste of valuable court time.

 

The defendant also seems unsure of it’s own costs, an exhibit giving a pre-estimate of £12.88 was submitted to courts for more than 6 months, recently a pre-estimate of £13.47 has been submitted in claims. As these are both based on the same years figures (2006), from the same formula, with the main body of text being exactly the same it does raise serious questions as to what the defendant is submitting.

 

In the Skeleton Argument that the defendant has been submitting to court the defendant states that using it’s own method prior to the OFT report its calculation for it’s pre-estimate cost per default was £27.42. However at the time it only charged customers £25.

 

Currently the defendant levies a default fee of £12 in the event of a default by a customer. It seems somewhat hard to believe that as a business within it’s rights that the full cost of a default is not being passed onto the customer if the aforementioned figures are correct and that the defendant is willing to accept a continual and sustained loss.

 

On occasion where courts have ordered full disclosure to validate these calculation the defendant has either decided to settle or default on the order. The defendant was taken to the Mercantile Court in London during December 2006 where it had ample opportunity to justify it’s figure of £12.88. An action that would have benefited itself by quashing all similar claims of this nature. Instead the defendant chose to settle.

 

There is also documented proof that the defendants process of handling a “late payment” penalty charge is a fully automated process, evidence of which will be produced at hearing through the claimants bundle of documents. This casts doubt as to the defendants pre-estimate exhibits being accurate.

 

Thank you for your time and assistance

 

 

Just got that sinking feeling ive made a mess of this

[Enron]

Nothing ventured, nothing gained..... certainly worth sending it.

[wednesday1867]

Sent the letter.

 

Got one back from the court, with a form to fill in and requestiing a fee of £40, so cos of their mistake ive go to fork out £40, if im right, i cant reclaim this?

[Enron]

Not sure about the specifics of the costing, however if the court is requesting payment they are most likely right.