I know that banks normally sell accounts to DCAs for 10-15% of the balance. So for Cabot, even though they would not be retrieving the full amount they would be in line to make a 100%+ profit on their outlay, either that or a handsome commission if they were acting as an agent. After looking into finance, and bank fractional reserve lending, plus the fact that commercial banks can create capital from nothing by use of their balance sheets -- it makes me wonder whether these low percentages at which accounts are sold represent the cost to the bank of a loan or credit card account.... as effectively they are otherwise writing off 85%-90%, which for a bank would be a very unusual action.

I think with reference to DCAs, especially 1st Credit, that less is more. Keep any reply as tight and as concise as possible -- the likelihood is that they'll disregard anything you say and twist it to suit their ends anyway, so why waste your time creating reams of text that will generally be ignored. The only thing that matters to them is extracting money out of you. With reference to Citi, they are not releasing copies of executed agreements to anyone including those such as 1st who have purchased accounts from them. They would require the executed agreement, or an exact copy to seek an enforcement order for your account through county court, especially if you have not acknowledged the alleged debt, and you raise the issue or seek to view the original via Civil Procedure Rules in the instance that the started legal action (which is unlikely). My belief is that Citi have problems with a lot of their executed agreements, and the earlier the executed agreement the more likely it is to have issues or be incomplete. In my instance I know that they are eager to see the copy that Trading Standards extracted from Citi for me, but as I am under no obligation, and know that DCAs in the past have been very able with photoshop to create agreements have effectively told them to jog on. Personally i'd be inclined to try and get Trading Standards involved, that was the only thing that worked for me. The approach might have to be made to Citi, considering that 1st Credit won't be able to obtain you a copy. It's something of a catch 22 situation for 1st Credit, as enforecement will be difficult with no admission of the alleged debt, or having a copy of the executed agreement in their possession. From your point of view it depends if you are willing to live with the default on your credit file. I have been told that normally such listings are ignored after 18 months are so.... though not sure whether that has changed due to the countries present financial circumstance. Effectively credits a nasty little thing that you don't want to take out if you can help it in the future.

It's interesting, Citi still aren't playing ball with 1st Credit. Despite the fact that I managed to secure a copy of my executed agreement via Trading Standards, they say they are unable to obtain a copy of it from Citi. Could that be because it's unenforceable???????? 1st Credit have asked for a copy of it under Civil Procedure Rules...... have had to clarify that these don't apply as no action has been commenced by either party. Essentially I think Citi are under orders not to send them out on pain of death, I believe mine was released as I had an MP and Trading Standards involved. As regards your instance Mike, don't worry, if in the unlikely event that Citi commenced legal action -- you'd CPR them for an opporuntity to view the original executed agreement.

If Capquest are trying this, i'd be very adament that I want to see the executed agreement for the account if it goes all the way to the court. They should need it to get an enforcement order if you have not admitted liability..... and Citi are tighter than a ducks ass on giving these out, even to companies they've sold alleged debts onto. Might get someone a bit more clued up on the legal process here.

Likelihood is that 1st Credit won't be able to get hold of the executed agreement. I haven't seen an instance where Citi have let a copy of an original executed agreement go to a third party DCA yet. And I think that Citi likely have problems with executed agreement, hence why they doggedly resisted giving out copies for so long.

Think that at the first sniff of legal action, a CPR31.16 request should be lodged to view the original agreement. If a company is attempting to gain an enforcement order, it is more than reasonable to request viewing of the original executed agreement, as without a legally compliant executed agreement up to April 2007 -- an enforcement order cannot be granted by virtue of what is outlined in the Consumer Credit Act.

Standard reply, fairly similar to the ones I received. In light of the Manchester Test Case, providing the Terms & Conditions is now unfortunately considered sufficient to fulfill s78(1) CCA. However, as we are aware, these aren't sufficient to judge whether an original executed agreement is enforceable or not. If it's anything like mine, after getting Trading Standards involved, Citi will not have the original executed agreement anylonger, nor will they have a full copy of it. I just received a copy of the front via TS. As for 1st Credit threatening legal action (was in my letter as well), from the basis of enforceability they'd be stupid to try and gain an enforcement order on the basis of an incomplete executed agreement -- as obviously it would be abscent prescribed terms -- and thus be unenforceable. The Office Of Fair Trading put 1st Credit under a number of conditions -- as it was sending out "Statutory Notices" as a debt collection tool. One of the conditions imposed was not to threaten legal action without the intention of carrying them out, it would appear your letter is another such instance.

As far as I am aware Citi are not releasing copies of "executed agreements" to third parties, including customers and DCAs who have purchased accounts from them. Dependent on the age of the account I would guess that they don't have compliant executed agreements, my guess would be that up until 2006 Citi would have destroyed the originals after taking a copy of the front only. Hence why the T&C have been going out for the past 4 years with rare exception in response to s78(1). Whilst, and even if they had copies of the back and front, proving that they are from the same original document is another thing -- and as we know with many DCAs they would be perfectly willing to match the front with your signature, with a back from and older/newer agreement if there was a chance of gaining money. Ultimately it's up to you to decide what to do, but if they are offering a 40% settlement it's likely that they are do so for a reason -- my guess would be that it's because the alleged debt is unenforceable. 1st Credit will likely play hardball over the markers, but as you have already admitted a degree of liability by making token payments, it may be worth offering 10%-12% in "full & final settlement of the account". When I received the T&C from 1st Credit, via Citi, I did contest it. A member of their compliance department then threatened legal action -- interesting as 1st Credit are prohibited from doing so under the restrictions imposed on them by the OFT (but then again we know many DCAs operate outside of the rules).

In accordance with clarification from the Manchester Test Case, the receiving of T&C (which would have originally been headed agreement) is enough to fulfill s78(1) CCA. Now whether they actually have a copy of the signed executed agreement is another thing, if you have not admitted the alleged debt they would need a fully compliant executed agreement to gain an enforcement order (if you highlighted that as an issue). As to whether yours is enforceable you need to see a copy of the original to find out........ I would try Trading Standards to gain you a copy of the original executed agreement if you have not already tried, as this is a document that you are legally entitled to. Essentially the older your executed agreement is, the more chance there is that it would have problems. But as with all these things, it's a matter of personal choice what you decide to do.

At a guess I would say that they are acting as an agent on behalf of Citi. They have assumed the position of managing your account as you likely have said you would pay funds through them, they are taking their cut and passing the rest onto Citi. If the account has not been assigned to them, i.e. you have not received a "Notice Of Assignment" transferring all rights and obligations to DLC, then they are a DCA without no rights to the agreement -- you don't have to pay them a penny, they cannot commence and shouldn't be threatening legal action as they don't own the account. (That said there are still rights that Citi could exert). What I would suggest is getting in touch with your local Trading Standards department. Trading Standards Institute - Home page State that you've requested a copy of the signed executed agreement, a document to which you are legally entitled, however the company has not complied. And politely request their assistance in obtaining a copy. Technically they would have complied by sending you a copy of the T&C you received -- by virtue of the Manchester Test Case guidance. However if there is no dates on the T&C it's hard to ascertain whether these truely are your T&C. It's likely that before 2006 agreements could have issues with them, but obviously without seeing the document you signed that is hard to ascertain, and something of a gamble.

I know that Citi have a lot of problems with their executed agreements.... I think half the reason that they've only been sending out T&C for some time. T&C actually fulfill s78(1) CCA in accordance with the Manchester Test Case clarification. Whether your specific executed agreement is enforceable is difficult to ascertain without seeing the document, hence why you might have to get Trading Standards involved.

Likelihood is that you will only be given a copy of the T&C -- Citi have not been releasing any executed agreements for some time. It is possible that you may have to get Trading Standards involved to help release copy of the actual document you signed.

You should have received a letter at the time the account was switched to DLC. It is also likely that in their correspondence they would at some point refer to Citi as their client -- and list the Citi account number.

Hi, out of interest when was your account opened with Citi? What you'll likely find is that eventually you will be sent a copy of the Terms & Conditions for when you opened the account, this completes s78(1) CCA in accordance with the Manchester Test case clarification. However it is likely that anything prior to 2006 would either be incomplete or have problems, essentially the earlier the better as it would appear that Citi kept incomplete copies for some considerable time until the legislation became apparent. As regards threatening a CCJ, and a charging order. They'd first have to go to court with a compliant executed agreement (either the original (which they won't have) or full and established genuine copy containing ALL the prescribed terms) and win before any of that could happen, and all for a piddly alleged debt of £2,800. As with many DCA's they will make threats with no intention of carrying them out to put the frightners on and get people to cough up more....... have seen it time and time again. These people make customers lives a misery just so they can get their pound of flesh -- shame on them. I'm quite surprised that DLC have the account, as haven't heard of them purchasing Citi accounts before. I assume you've received a "Notice Of Assignment", and that they are not operating on behalf of their client Citi? Obviously wait to see the response from DLC, and we can go from their. In the event it is assigned to them it might be worth having a word with CCCS (consumer credit councilling service). They are a charity who should be able to negotiate on your behalf to come to an arrangement that is acceptable to yourself and them. But essentially remember this, DCA's are ****. Don't get too wound up about this, or to the point of losing sleep. And in the very unlikely event that the worst comes to the worst and they do submit a case, we do have some very good heads here behind the scenes who will be able to advise you.

OK, it's been transferred to Cardiff. Citi as a rule tend to contest all their court cases.... so it is likely to go ahead, that said if you get the draft order adopted that's half of the fight done. Gonna PM it to you.

Citi can still be liable as they placed the unlawful charges in the first place. The test case related purely to bank current account overdraft charges, and not credit card penalty charges for which the OFT already have a report in place. The charges can still be judged unlawful if the penalty charges placed on your account do not bear a reasonable relationship to Citi's costs. Has your case been transfered to Cardiff? And have you submitted the draft order?

Might be worth sending a copy of that to the OFT. As encouraging or offering people to take out more debt, to pay for an alleged debt is against OFT guidelines.

I've had 1st Credit threaten me with legal action (standard DCA practice with no intention of going through with it), which is in contravention of the conditions placed on it by the OFT post it's ticking off for issuing "statutory demands" as a debt collection tool, and other practices. Strange as they don't possess copies of the executed agreement - confirmed as they wanted a copy of the one sent to me by Trading Standards. Obviously I referred them to the original creditor, which didn't go down too well with them. It's a shame as was look forward to taking them on, and something to get my teeth into. But hey, at the end of the day the currencies backed by nothing, in fact the gold standard was removed in 1933. So it would an interesting argument that items of equal value were not exchanged, as central and commercial banks can create funds from nothing.

Think your getting ahead of yourself here. The majority of times that court action is threatened by a creditor or debt collection agent -- it is VERY unlikely that it will occur. By speaking with someone at CCCS they will normally act as an intermediary with the creditor and come to a mutually satisfactory arrangement i.e. something that you can afford. In the instance of this account as it was completed online I don't think the s78(1) CCA route will hold any benefit for you, so you will not be trying to avoid the debt, but be trying to make an arrangement until your circumstances improve. Knowing Citi they will continue to operate the account as normal, which unfortunately means late payment markers (because your not making the minimum payment), and then default the account (which should bring an end to any interest/charges). That said these charges may be avoidable if CCCS have any luck. I doubt they would take you to court on the basis that a judge would likely not award them a charging order if the likes of CCCS were involved, and all they would likely gain would be a token amount of £1 a month -- which is what you are willing to pay anyways. So your next step is get in touch with CCCS regarding this Citi account if you have your other ones in hand.

I would recommend talking to CCCS. They will be able to advice, and help in negotiations with the creditor. CCCS | Free debt help and debt advice from the UK's leading debt charity

Citi run fast and lose with the regulations, I received a default notice from them -- but like yourself no termination notice. It does mean that agreements can be ran open ended, and transferred from what I have read to another creditor that might buy the account i.e. the next creditor can continue to add interest etc, though if I am wrong I would like clarification on this point. A termination notice effectively finishes the agreement/contract leaving the total remaining which cannot be added to. But have to agree with you, the FOS are about as useful as a chocolate teapot. It seems strange that they have this stance, however in others such as Bosund's they managed to get the creditor to produce a copy of the original signed "executed agreement". I would possibly wait to see what the creditors next step is.

Yes, Citi do have a special place in many peoples affections. But after dealing with them, and a number of others it can put things into perspective. After all at the end of the day, it's only money. Previously money had value, but the link with a tangible asset such as gold has been long severed. In fact our currency in Pounds Sterling is backed by nothing accept securities (paper backing paper), a central bank can therefore create money out of thin air, and more recently i've come across documents that commercial banks can likewise create money without partificipation of a central bank (got Deutsche Bank documents). So whilst it serves a purpose, and can be nice to have...... don't get mega stressed about your situation. Banks and debt collectors will deploy all manner of intimidation and harassment to get funds out of you, but once you know your stuff they tend to leave you alone. From the point of view of phonecalls, if you get inundated, the Protection From Harassment Act can come into play, and Trading Standards are normally willing to help. Companies also don't like complaints going into the Office Of Fair Trading -- let the credit know if you send any in regarding harassment. If you are unable to make your repayments the company should be willing to accept your token payment of £1. Institutions are meant to be understanding of those in financial trouble, albeit don't expect this from Citi. I would suggest that it might be worth contacting someone such as the "Consumer Credit Councelling Service" who would help and act as an Intermediary. From the point of view of Citi, I would request the CCA for your own purposes, though if they have a record of an online application your agreement by a "x" would probably be adequate proof that you entered into an arrangement with them. Maybe not exactly what you wanted to hear, but hopefully a step in the right direction. The main thing is if they apply pressure, bat it off, and if you need any help post here or PM us.

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.

See what there response is. From the point of view of Citi, you may have received a letter stating that all the credit card accounts have been sold -- so it will be upto the new creditor as to whether to accept. They are meant to be accepting of those in financial trouble, especially as hassling you could break the Protection From Harassment Act, and they rarely go to court -- as you could end up paying next to nothing a month. Out of interest when did you apply for the account?

Yep, Citi are an interesting case. Despite their own internal code of conduct enshrining a customers right to "free access" where such laws exist, they do not honour them. Things may have changed recently though, as all their credit cards accounts have been sold to a third party. My belief is that they have lots of problems with there accounts before 2006, certainly from the point of view of the much older ones they only retained copies of the front of "executed agreement". And whilst they maybe able to produce a copy of the original Terms & Conditions (often undated in the text), it would be hard for them to establish without doubt that these two documents actually belong to one another. You are entitled to withold payment whilst your s78(1) CCA request is outstanding. However in accordance with the Manchester Test Case a creditor is entitled to record entries against your credit file, request payment, and so forth...... they however can't take you to court during the period of their default, or threaten legal action -- because they simply can't do it (and to do so is against OFT rules).