Elsinore v Citi Cards***WON & PAID***

[elsinore]

Sorry guys!

[adamski]

Yes we sure do especially reading Brians drivel!

[gizmo111]

Where our signatures gone?

[adamski]

yeah good point

[adamski]

They appear to have changed the layout

[gizmo111]

They appear to have changed the layout

They did that the other night - but sig seems to have gone today - as it was there last night - bizarre

[adamski]

how bizarre!

[elsinore]

Site maintenance?

 

Elsinore

[gizmo111]

Site maintenance?

 

Elsinore

 

Brian?

[elsinore]

:lol:

 

Elsinore

[TideTurner]

Changed mine tonight and it's gone missing. By the way, the OFT estimated the average cost to a bank for a standard letter would be 49p (inc postage and other overheads). They added that anything above £12 would be contested. This does not mean that the banks may charge £12, the banks have to justify anything above their actual costs, else this is considered to be a penalty which is unrecoverable under Common Law.

[gizmo111]

Changed mine tonight and it's gone missing. By the way, the OFT estimated the average cost to a bank for a standard letter would be 49p (inc postage and other overheads). They added that anything above £12 would be contested. This does not mean that the banks may charge £12, the banks have to justify anything above their actual costs, else this is considered to be a penalty which is unrecoverable under Common Law.

 

Yeah we know that - that's what our claims are based on!

[elsinore]

Well, Mr Clibbens has managed to refer to me as Mr Elsinore in his latest letter, which is nice. Unfortunately he referred to his previous letter of 26th September when he really meant 26th October. Oh well!

 

The letter is the same as that received by others recently, in that it refers to a pending Mercantile Court case.

 

By now they should have notice of my claim.

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

Mackenzie Hall, who were collecting on behalf of 1st Credit, completely ignored my 'account in dispute' letter and have pestered me, on and off, for the last three months. Phone messages, red postcards, letters threatening death and destruction, etc., none of which I have responded to.

 

I received the following letter from them yesterday:-

 

Pursuers:- 1st Credit Ltd v Mr Elsinore

Principal Sum £xxxxxxx

Account Ref £xxxxxxx

 

GOOD NEWS!

REDUCED SETTLEMENT OFFER-REVIEW DEPT

As you are aware your (sic) have netered into repayment plan with Mackenzie Hall to repay your outstanding balance to 1st Credit Ltd.

 

At present our client is happy with the arrangement that is currently in place. Your account will be reviewed each quarter.

 

However, as a gesture of goodwill, our client is prepared to offer you a reduced settlement payment offer on your account.

Therefore, it is imperative that you call Morgan Smith on Telephone Number 01563 554540 no later than 28th November 2006 to receive the time Barred Offer. The offer will not be offered again....it is in your interest to call!

 

Morgan Smith

 

Yours sincerely

 

Review Team

Mackenzie Hall Ltd

 

The letter is exactly as received. What can one say? I've had better letters from Readers Digest!

 

Elsinore

[TideTurner]

So what's thrown them into a panic to recoup ASAP?

[elsinore]

I think it's just their cunning plan to jolt me into paying half a debt that I don't owe.

 

Elsinore

[TideTurner]

Have you requested a copy of any CCA you have signed? Go for SAR from creditor and write to DCA requesting legislation upon which they are acting, including copies of any authorities you have provided.

[elsinore]

I did all that months ago TT and I'm quite content with the situation as it now stands.

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

Submitted my claim on the 9th Nov, but it was only sealed and issued on 21st Nov.:o

 

That means any defence should be in by 7th Dec.

 

Ho-hum!

 

Elsinore

[TideTurner]

They have 28 days as you know. I'm about to issue. Let me know how you get on

[elsinore]

double post

[elsinore]

Quite right, I should have said acknowledgement by the 7th.

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

Defence received from Citi 15th December.

 

• The Defendant is a credit card company whose registered office is at 87 Castle Street Reading RG1 7DX
  
• The Defendant admits that it operates a credit card business at 1 Exchange Quay Salford Manchester M5 3EA
  
• The Defendant further admits that the Claimant had an account with the Defendant which was opened in or about 2001
  
• The Defendant denies that it debited the Claimant’s account by £825.00
  
• The Defendant avers that between 2000 and 2003 the claimant breached the terms of the account on no fewer than 26 occasions and the sum of £650 was debited to the Claimant’s account by way of late payment and over limit fees as per the Terms and Conditions of the Credit Agreement which the Claimant entered into with the Defendant.
  
• The Claimant’s account with the Defendant was consistently in arrears and was charged off and assigned to 1st Credit Limited (“1st Credit”) in August 2003. At that time the balance of the account was £661.59. The Defendant sold the debt to Hillesden for £79.39. This represented a loss to the Defendant of £582.19.
  
• Nevertheless, the Defendant would has made an ex gratia refund of the difference between the £25 fees incurred by the claimant and the current default fee of £12. This amounts to £338.00. As the Claimant’s account has been sold to 1st Credit, £338.00 would have been transferred to 1st Credit and the debt outstanding from the claimant to 1st Credit been reduced accordingly.
  
• The Claimant is claiming a sum equivalent to that which he claims was debited to his account over the term of the Credit Agreement in over limit charges and late payment fees. This claim is based on the recent OFT statement on the unfairness of such default fees. It is the Defendant’s defence that the Claimant has sued the Defendant in error and has no case against the Defendant.
  
• The Defendant understands that the Claimant has paid 1st Credit the sum of £120.07 so far and last made a payment of £1 on 11 November 2006. The Defendant relies on the fact that the Claimant acknowledged the debt due to the Defendant when it paid the assigned debt monies to 1st Credit.
  
• The Defendant avers that it does not owe the Claimant the monies claimed whether on the basis of the case stated or at all because either the Claimant never paid the £661.59 of the monies levied on his account to the Defendant. The Claimant has confused payment to 1st Credit with settlement of his former outstanding indebtedness to the Defendant.
  
• The Defendant acknowledges that the Claimant has paid a sum to 1st Credit. The Defendant notes that the assigned amount was in excess of the default fees charged to the account.The Defendant avers that as a sum greater than the default fees remained owing from the Claimant, the Defendant cannot be required to return the same. If the Claimant wishes to recover this sum the Defendant believes that he ought to make a claim against 1st Credit for the sum paid.
  
• In the event that the Court were to find in the Claimant’s favour, the Defendant will have sustained double the losses represented by the Claimant’s claim due to the fact that it assigned the account debt at a loss and is then required to pay the Claimant monies which the Claimant never actually paid to it but to a third party.. The Defendant avers that the Claimant’s claim is restitutionary in nature but that there can be no claim for reimbursement because the Defendant never received the sum claimed from the Claimant.
  
• The Defendant will also aver that had it not assigned the debt to 1st Credit, it would have had a defence of set-off against the claimant in respect of these monies. In the event, the opportunity to raise such a defence has been denied the Defendant by the Claimant’s failure to honour the terms of the Credit Agreement which meant the Defendant had to assign the Claimant’s account at a loss equivalent to the sum claimed in order to recoup any of its losses.
  
• Save as otherwise admitted, the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are denied and each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is specifically denied.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Statement are true. I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement

Brian Smith

Solicitor for the Defendant

13.12.06

 

This defence is incorrect in almost every respect.

1. The sum claimed is correct.

2. The fact that Citi sold the debt cheaply is of no consequence to me. They didn't have to.

3. An ex gratia payment has never been offered.

4. I have no idea why Hillesden are mentioned. I have had no dealings with them at all. My payments were made to our old friends Mackenzie Hall!!

5. I have not requested reimbursement of the unpaid balance, merely that Citi credit the account with the equivalent value of unlawful charges and send me the rest.

6. Double loss? Bunkum!

7. My claim is not based on the OFT statement.

8. I can't be bothered to go on!

 

Elsinore

[TideTurner]

Like the fifteenth roung in boxing the last mile of a marathon is always the toughest.

 

You have your bullet points just need to stick to them.

 

The whole defence looks rushed as if someone has picked up a file and made themselves aware of the facts in 5 mins.

 

Get the feeling the Courts may ask you for more info in particular with respect to balances so be prepared and remember who your original contract was with and the fact that those third parties referred to would not be in the equation had they not applied unlawful charges.

[gizmo111]

Defence received from Citi 15th December.

 

• The Defendant is a credit card company whose registered office is at 87 Castle Street Reading RG1 7DX
  
• The Defendant admits that it operates a credit card business at 1 Exchange Quay Salford Manchester M5 3EA
  
• The Defendant further admits that the Claimant had an account with the Defendant which was opened in or about 2001
  
• The Defendant denies that it debited the Claimant’s account by £825.00
  
• The Defendant avers that between 2000 and 2003 the claimant breached the terms of the account on no fewer than 26 occasions and the sum of £650 was debited to the Claimant’s account by way of late payment and over limit fees as per the Terms and Conditions of the Credit Agreement which the Claimant entered into with the Defendant.
  
• The Claimant’s account with the Defendant was consistently in arrears and was charged off and assigned to 1st Credit Limited (“1st Credit”) in August 2003. At that time the balance of the account was £661.59. The Defendant sold the debt to Hillesden for £79.39. This represented a loss to the Defendant of £582.19.
  
• Nevertheless, the Defendant would has made an ex gratia refund of the difference between the £25 fees incurred by the claimant and the current default fee of £12. This amounts to £338.00. As the Claimant’s account has been sold to 1st Credit, £338.00 would have been transferred to 1st Credit and the debt outstanding from the claimant to 1st Credit been reduced accordingly.
  
• The Claimant is claiming a sum equivalent to that which he claims was debited to his account over the term of the Credit Agreement in over limit charges and late payment fees. This claim is based on the recent OFT statement on the unfairness of such default fees. It is the Defendant’s defence that the Claimant has sued the Defendant in error and has no case against the Defendant.
  
• The Defendant understands that the Claimant has paid 1st Credit the sum of £120.07 so far and last made a payment of £1 on 11 November 2006. The Defendant relies on the fact that the Claimant acknowledged the debt due to the Defendant when it paid the assigned debt monies to 1st Credit.
  
• The Defendant avers that it does not owe the Claimant the monies claimed whether on the basis of the case stated or at all because either the Claimant never paid the £661.59 of the monies levied on his account to the Defendant. The Claimant has confused payment to 1st Credit with settlement of his former outstanding indebtedness to the Defendant.
  
• The Defendant acknowledges that the Claimant has paid a sum to 1st Credit. The Defendant notes that the assigned amount was in excess of the default fees charged to the account.The Defendant avers that as a sum greater than the default fees remained owing from the Claimant, the Defendant cannot be required to return the same. If the Claimant wishes to recover this sum the Defendant believes that he ought to make a claim against 1st Credit for the sum paid.
  
• In the event that the Court were to find in the Claimant’s favour, the Defendant will have sustained double the losses represented by the Claimant’s claim due to the fact that it assigned the account debt at a loss and is then required to pay the Claimant monies which the Claimant never actually paid to it but to a third party.. The Defendant avers that the Claimant’s claim is restitutionary in nature but that there can be no claim for reimbursement because the Defendant never received the sum claimed from the Claimant.
  
• The Defendant will also aver that had it not assigned the debt to 1st Credit, it would have had a defence of set-off against the claimant in respect of these monies. In the event, the opportunity to raise such a defence has been denied the Defendant by the Claimant’s failure to honour the terms of the Credit Agreement which meant the Defendant had to assign the Claimant’s account at a loss equivalent to the sum claimed in order to recoup any of its losses.
  
• Save as otherwise admitted, the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are denied and each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is specifically denied.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Statement are true. I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement

Brian Smith

Solicitor for the Defendant

13.12.06

 

This defence is incorrect in almost every respect.

1. The sum claimed is correct.

2. The fact that Citi sold the debt cheaply is of no consequence to me. They didn't have to.

3. An ex gratia payment has never been offered.

4. I have no idea why Hillesden are mentioned. I have had no dealings with them at all. My payments were made to our old friends Mackenzie Hall!!

5. I have not requested reimbursement of the unpaid balance, merely that Citi credit the account with the equivalent value of unlawful charges and send me the rest.

6. Double loss? Bunkum!

7. My claim is not based on the OFT statement.

8. I can't be bothered to go on!

 

Elsinore

 

Almost similar to the rest - cut and pasted a bit different in places, and a few extra bits added on the DCA - AQ and requests for secret hearings next.