keren29 v Associates (citicards)**Defence Struck Out**

[andrew1]

I just googled Brian - the top two entries ? CONSUMER ACTION GROUP !! :D

[lickthewallfatboy]

any wonder??

 

he's making a name for himself-and again I challenge him to register here,make known who he is and defend citi's tactics.

 

We are waiting........

[keren29]

Hey - LTWFB - you are in the first entry!!

 

Have to confess Googling my full name gives me the top 8 hits!!! (but I have got an unusual name!!)

 

I've also googled the actor Brian looked like in my dream and it is Nigel Terry. He was a support role in Spooks. Looks a bit like Richard Harris!!

[MARTIN3030]

Its not going to happen.

Why does he need to register ?

He already gets what he wants from here

Dont you Brian ?

[keren29]

I have news.

 

got the order today and gave the court a ring as the court funds office still hadn't had the money. She got the file out and was fantastic.

 

Citicards have written to the court and complained about the order (no surprise there then), but the bottom of their letter says 'please find attached a cheque for £530. 61'. Excellent news. The full amount.

 

So, now all I need is the defence and it can move forward.

 

Apparently the Judge is looking at the file (again!) tomorrow, so I will have more news soon.

 

I wonder if I am allowed to see the letter? Anyone know?

[lickthewallfatboy]

I would certainly ask to see the letter-this concealment crap has to stop!!!

[Enron]

Whilst arguing commercial confidentiality, you would think that conversely if the figures that Citi have presented are correct they would be eager to disclose them as an aid to defend any future cases against them that may arise.

[keren29]

I guess so!! If they sent out a copy of the breakdown of the charges with each letter when replying to a claim, then everyone would know just how they were made up!

 

Obviously though, as my claim is for charges way back in 2002/2003, I'd need a breakdown of the charges from then,rather than their current charges, because obviously they won't be the same as now ........will they......

[Allyxia]

wow was directed here by lula.

 

have to stay good on you keren!

 

its a tonic for me who is having loads of probs with c**pwets are all their antics and delay tactics.

 

Its keeping me focused learning from your example!

[Rosemary]

Just to remind everyone (and Brian, too). From one lawyer to another ...... Citi have to plead and prove each loss and show that these losses would NOT have occurred but for your breaches. So they cannot claim any surrounding costs such as staff training, implementing systems and computer software. Just the losses which DIRECTLY flowed from your breaches.....

[MARTIN3030]

great

Was not the 42 cpr recently introduced mentioning the access to both parties unrestricted ? for all material to be used in defence.

How then can they just turn up with evidence that has not been made available to the claimant prior to a hearing ?

[andrew1]

Just to remind everyone (and Brian, too). From one lawyer to another ...... Citi have to plead and prove each loss and show that these losses would NOT have occurred but for your breaches. So they cannot claim any surrounding costs such as staff training, implementing systems and computer software. Just the losses which DIRECTLY flowed from your breaches.....

 

 

This is a quote from Gizmo111 v Citicards http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/citicards/18681-gizmo111-citicards.html: Post No 2

 

" I refer to your fourth and fifth paragraph in the aforementioned letter where you state that your interpretation of the OFT’s statement of April 6th 2006 is that you are entitled to levy a fee for breach of contract, as they cover more than just the price of a stamp or envelope etc but just not one in excess in of £12

 

Please read and consider the following extract from the OFT’s statement

 

‘Where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair, and is likely to challenge the charge unless there are limited, exceptional business factors in play. A default charge is not fair simply because it is below £12

A default charge should only be used to recover certain limited administrative costs. These may include postage and stationery costs and staff costs and also a proportionate share of the costs of maintaining premises and IT systems necessary to deal with defaults ‘

 

 

How does this reconcile itself with Rosemary's points above?

[gizmo111]

This is a quote from Gizmo111 v Citicards http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/citicards/18681-gizmo111-citicards.html: Post No 2

 

" I refer to your fourth and fifth paragraph in the aforementioned letter where you state that your interpretation of the OFT’s statement of April 6th 2006 is that you are entitled to levy a fee for breach of contract, as they cover more than just the price of a stamp or envelope etc but just not one in excess in of £12

 

Please read and consider the following extract from the OFT’s statement

 

‘Where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair, and is likely to challenge the charge unless there are limited, exceptional business factors in play. A default charge is not fair simply because it is below £12

A default charge should only be used to recover certain limited administrative costs. These may include postage and stationery costs and staff costs and also a proportionate share of the costs of maintaining premises and IT systems necessary to deal with defaults ‘

 

 

How does this reconcile itself with Rosemary's points above?

 

Means citi needs a law book!

[andrew1]

Forgive me Gizmo, but it looks as if these are contradictory...

[adamski]

Good point, maybe the OFT are wrong, heavens forbid

[lickthewallfatboy]

try htis on for size-I found this for Bankfodder.....

 

I've been searching about for info on the penalty charges not being divided up against all customers.I found this extract from the OFT which I think addresses exactly what CITI did to us....

 

sections 3 and 4 are the bits to read

 

oft842 - Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts

[gizmo111]

Good point, maybe the OFT are wrong, heavens forbid

 

Page 9

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2EBC491E-303E-4FAA-A24D-32EF8396255E/0/oft842.pdf

[Mrgreengenes]

Hi Keren and all others who have contributed to this brilliant thread. It has made great reading.

 

May I suggest a possible result of the very large hole that Smith & co have dug for citi cards.

 

My thread is here

 

To save you having to read it, I have just received a "nice" letter from citi cards telling me that they will again look into my claim for refund of charges. My LBA was sent in May! Why should they, all of a sudden, write to me again. Perhaps they are trying to pacify those of us who haven't issued a claim yet.

 

Hi Brian, we haven't locked horns yet but if citi cards don't refund my charges in full, we will!!!

 

Best of luck Keren and all other claimants, although we don't really need it. We have the law on our side!

[lickthewallfatboy]

I would say one thing-do NOT let your guard down!!

[Rosemary]

..

[Rosemary]

Hi all - further thoughts... certainly looking at the OFT statement, this seems to cover all these areas. However, we're not saying we won't pay their losses - just what are they?

 

Firstly, Citi have to establish that our 'breaches' are the direct cause of their loss complained about (which they have typically claimed in their £30+ charges). The test for breach of contract is that our breach is the effective or dominant cause of their loss (ie. the doctrine of causation). If Citi have suffered losses which have flowed as a result of our 'breaches', what are they?

However, these losses are limited by the rules of remoteness, ie. whilst our breach may be a factual cause of the harm suffered by Citi, the rule of remoteness of loss prevents them claiming consequential losses which extend too far. AND THIS IS THE RUB. What could they reasonably claim. If the direction of the OFT is to be relied upon, then this is the line Mr BS is following (bettcha dollar he is!) So, what are his commercial costs for running his department and how many accounts do they have to spread those costs over? Interesting!? Mr BS - any comments?;-)

[andrew1]

Rosemary, I just read your post you have just removed - I hadn't read the OFT report before but these small posts don't do justice to the items read. Unfortunately after reading it I refreshed the screen and it vanished

[Rosemary]

Hi Andrew

 

Yes, I had tried to highlight and paste the relevant important bit in the OFT report, but it failed to copy across the highlighted bit only and I ended up with a monster of a paste!!! Scary!

 

Anyway, I'll try again.

[Rosemary]

No - it's too big but 'Lickthewallfatboy' in #118 has the link.

 

I'm reluctant to discuss this too much, as I feel we're doing the thinking and debating for the benefit of Mr B.S. & Co. Although as solicitors, they'll be aware of the salient points and will be arguing the same points but from a different perspective, no doubt.

[keren29]

Well, I've had my first letter from Brian! Confirmation that the money has been paid to the court. Should get the defence pretty soon (only two and a half months since I filed the claim.........)