Kashie V Citi Cards - Contractual Interest?

[kashie]

Hello everyone,

 

I have just worked out the charges on both mine and my husbands Citi Credit cards.

 

I understand that we can claim contractual interest on these claims but nowehere on the statements does it mention the interest rates that they were charging at the time. I cannot ring them up as both cards are now inactive and in the hands of a 3rd party debt collector.

 

SO, can anyone help and let me know the rate that they were charging for years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004?????

 

 

Any help greatly appreciated.

[too strong]

Hello everyone,

 

I have just worked out the charges on both mine and my husbands Citi Credit cards.

 

I understand that we can claim contractual interest on these claims but nowehere on the statements does it mention the interest rates that they were charging at the time. I cannot ring them up as both cards are now inactive and in the hands of a 3rd party debt collector.

 

SO, can anyone help and let me know the rate that they were charging for years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004?????

 

 

Any help greatly appreciated.

 

There is a very good chance that the interest rate you have been charged is not the same as everyone elses. Interest rates can be a personal thing. The way to work it out is.....to divide the interest charged by the total balance for the same month, then times that figure by 100.

....and there you have it your interest rate.

[gizmo111]

You can claim contractual interest on claims and some have been successful out of court, however be aware with Citi you will end up in a courtroom and wil lhave to expalin your figures to a judge.

[kashie]

Thanks for that, I had a feeling that was the case ie 'being a personal thing' .

 

Much appreciated reply thanks again:D

[kashie]

You can claim contractual interest on claims and some have been successful out of court, however be aware with Citi you will end up in a courtroom and wil lhave to expalin your figures to a judge.

 

So do you recommend that i just go or the 8%????

[gizmo111]

So do you recommend that i just go or the 8%????

 

Atthe end of the day it is up to you - but Citi are a tough nut to crack and object to everything have a look round the citi forum and you wil lsee how they react.

[kashie]

Thanks will do that...

[kashie]

Hi,

 

Sent a letter to Citi Cards requesting £500 worth of unlawful charges. I had a respsonse outlining that they have reduced thier charges to £12 in response to the OFT review dated April 2006.

 

They also said and I quote;

 

In over a dozen recent court cases involving Citi, we have successfully arged the fairness of the above policy and the fairness of the £12 charges. The cases have all resulted in claims being dismissed and the courts have implicity held that the policy is fair and the charges reasonable, being in line with both the OFT guidance and common law principles of damage for the breach of contract.

The letter goes onto refer me to the Finance and Leasing Association and the Financial Ombudsman Service with a time limit of six month in which to do so.

 

SO?

What should I do now,

Continue with the small claims court?

AND

Is the information above true?

PLEASE HELP!

[Curlyben]

That's seriously smelly.

If this was the case then alot more CC companies would be claiming this as well.

 

Sounds like typical scare tactics to me.

The OFT didn't say that the £12 was "fair" just that it wouldn't investigate charges less than this level.

[kashie]

So do you sugest that I proceed?

[Rooster-UK]

Yes.

[kashie]

Thank you.

[Curlyben]

Definatly.

Let them take you to court and see how fast they offer to pay up

[stroke a badger]

I had the very same letter. I'm only claiming for £190, and the more I think about it the more I want to take it all the way. LBA was issued at he beginning of the week, so the clock is ticking.

 

Don't worry, CitiCards are known for their supercilious schoolboy tatics.

[kashie]

Filed an N1 for Citi cards decided to only claim the 8% as the contractual was doing my head in, and I thought they might offer an earlier settlement. They have issued a defence saying they are going to defend all the claim using the fact that I defaulted on several occassions. What that has to do with is I don't know but there we go.

 

Sent off AQ yesterday - sitting playing the waiting game now.

[kashie]

Hubby and self had direction of hearing date this morning - 14th Aug.

 

Any advice??

[kashie]

Hello can somebody help?

 

I recieved a direction of hearing letter on the weekend and started looking into what i have to do for this regarding Citicards.

 

I have been informed that this is probably going to go all the way to court and so got out my defience and started delving into it.

 

I compared my husbands defence with my own and realised that they are more or less the same but because we both defaulted our accounts with them, I am starting to panic abit about how this might effect our claim.

 

Here are the defences:

 

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

 

2. The Defndant admits that the Claimant had a credit card account ('the Agreement') with the defndant 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 law and/or

4.2 invalid under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999; and puts the claimant to proof of this by specific refernce to the case law relied upon and/or the exact citation of the relevent parts of the sections of laws and regulation relied upon.

 

5. The defendant denies that it has unlawfully debited the claimants account. The defendant avers that the claimant expressly authorised the defendant to levy such chargess on the express understanding that the trigger for any such charge would be the claimants own breach of the agreement.

 

Here is where things get different.

6. The defendant avers that between feb 2003 and march 2004, the claimant breached the agreement as no fewer than 21 occassions thereby authorising the defendant to levy £500 to the claimants account by way of default fees, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.

My husbands reads:

6. The defendant avers that between 2001 and 2002, the claimant breached the agreement on several occassions thereby authorising the defandant to levy charges to the claimants account by way of default fees,as per terms and conditions of the agreement. The defendant avers that the claimant has failed to stipulate either dates or amounts levied and cannot therfore plead the case properly.

7. The claimant is claiming as a money claim sum equivalent to that which she claims was unlawfully debited to this 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 not the principle of default charging itself, was unfair in the context of the Unfair Terms in COnsumer Contracts regulations 1999. It also reported that the charges were, in its opinion, a penalty contrary to common law principles of damages for the breach of contract.

 

8. The defendant has agrred to abide by the OFT report and adopt a lower levle 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 of £25.

 

The next bit starts off the same;

9. the claimants account with the defendant was consistantly in arrears and was charged off in and around XXXX 2004.

 

My bit goes onto read:

At that time the balance of the account was £XXXX in debit, i.e. outstanding from the claimant. the claimant made payments of £396 until she ceased paying in Dec 2006. The claimant therefore currently owes the defendant £xxx. The defendant avers that the claimants claim is fatally flawed as she has not paid to the defandant the sums she is claiming as a debt and the claimant is put to strict proof that she has paid the sums due and eclipsed her debt to the defendant such as to make it liable to repay her any monies.

My husbands reads:

At the time the balance of the account was £xxxx in debit, i.e. outstanding from the claimant. The account was sold to Cabot Limited at a considerable loss. the defendant avers that the claimants claim is fatally flawed as he has not paid to the defendant the sums he is claiming as a debt and eclipsed his debt to the defendant such as to make it liable to repay him any monies.

10. The defendant avers that the claimants claim is not a money claim but a damages action and further avers that the claimants interest calculation is not applicable to this action or, if it is applicable, that is wholly wrong and the defendant puts claimant to strict proof that this or any interest is owed.

 

11. Furthermore, the defendant avers claimants has claimed interest from the date each default fee was incurred, rather than 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 of this account, including the default fees imposed. It is averred by the defendant that it is only from the time if any such oayment that interest could have accrued on such payment as if it were a debt.

 

12. Save as otherwise admitted, the claimants particulars of claims are denied and each and every allegation in the particulars of claim is specifically denied.

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

 

 

 

 

My way of thinking is that OK yes we defaulted on the payments of this card but without thier charges we wouldnt have been unable to make the repayments.

 

I am concerned that they have put something in here that I may overlook and need to include in my directions for the Directions hearing in August.

 

So any help form anyone would be welcome.

 

Thanks in advance.

[gizmo111]

It is standard Citi defence where a DCA is involved. The fact that you haven't yet paid the charges makes no difference as the charges left you liable for the whole debt. Their commercial decisions causing losses are no concern of yours. At the directions hearing you need to ask for disclosure.

[kashie]

Thanks gizmo, but what is disclosure?

Sorry to be so dull!

[gizmo111]

Thanks gizmo, but what is disclosure?

Sorry to be so dull!

 

Full disclosure of their costs breakdown

[bongobaz]

Full disclosure of their costs breakdown

 

which is very hard to get from citi!!!

[Hax]

which is very hard to get from citi!!!

 

It's hard to get from any bank. But, if you at least try to get the judge to request full disclosure then there's another hurdle put in Citi's way and one that they're not likely to want to jump either.

 

If the judge orders full disclosure then it's likely that Citi will either default on the order or simply settle out of court. In either of those cases, the claimant wins! Although, if I recall correctly, there have been cases where Citi have produced some very vague and woolly figures that don't show any breakdown or proof of the costs involved - but I would hope that a reasonable judge would dismiss those as being inconclusive.

 

P.S. If I'm wrong in the above - feel free to correct me all - it's only my "understanding" of how things have gone so far!

[bongobaz]

It's hard to get from any bank. But, if you at least try to get the judge to request full disclosure then there's another hurdle put in Citi's way and one that they're not likely to want to jump either.

 

If the judge orders full disclosure then it's likely that Citi will either default on the order or simply settle out of court. In either of those cases, the claimant wins! Although, if I recall correctly, there have been cases where Citi have produced some very vague and woolly figures that don't show any breakdown or proof of the costs involved - but I would hope that a reasonable judge would dismiss those as being inconclusive.

 

P.S. If I'm wrong in the above - feel free to correct me all - it's only my "understanding" of how things have gone so far!

 

 

ohhh the wonderful vague figure and calcution to get to £12.88!!

my judge was not too impressed with that one!!

[kashie]

PLEASE HELP?

 

Is this what you mean by applying for disclosure?

 

 

If so does it matter that I did not send this in as part of my allocation questionaire?

 

I have a direction of hearing on the 14th August and need to send off relevant paperwork. I intend to send:

 

1. The draft order of directions

 

2. The above letter

 

Is this all I need? and do I need to include the list of charges as these were sent previously with AQ?

[kashie]

I have also been told to include this http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/telso/josh/img203.jpg

 

Is this correct?