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

[gizmo111]

Great - but where is Brian?

[gizmo111]

Er, dunno.

Perhaps he only joins in after a claim is issued.

 

Elsinore

 

Never used to - he was there in the front line defending from the beginning - maybe he's on a training course or summat.

[gizmo111]

Yet another laughably inept letter from a planet far away in a distant galaxy. This is presumably in response to my last letter, although it in no way relates.

 

Dear Elsinore (Yes, they missed out the Mr again)

 

Thank you for taking the time to write to me about the refund of default charges to your Citi Card account.

 

I understand that you have contacted us previously about this matter, which we will now look into again for you. To allow me to review your request I may be required to obtain copies of your statements. Unfortunately, if this is the case, it may take between three and six weeks as they are retrieved from our archives, however if I am able to get this information sooner I will do so.

 

Once I have the information and assessed your request I will confirm in writing the outcome. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your patience, in resolving this matter and if you have any further questions in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me on the number below and I will be happy to assist you.

 

Yurs sincerely

 

Mark Clibbens

 

Roll on 9th November.

 

Elsinore

 

:lol:

 

And x to Brian

[gizmo111]

Thanks Adamski.

As with the rest of the Citi Brigade. I'm very patient and very determined!

 

Elsinore

 

And we get a few laughs along the way!

[gizmo111]

Where our signatures gone?

[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

[gizmo111]

Site maintenance?

 

Elsinore

 

Brian?

[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!

[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.

[gizmo111]

It isa great order - but not rally much use to Citi claimants as they are still defending and not settling anything over £12.

[gizmo111]

Elsinore standard letter we have been using with AQ - amend any bits as neccassary.

 

Dear Sir/Madam

It has come to my attention that the defendant is routinely asking in their allocation questionnaires for hearings relating to penalty charges to be transferred to Salford and heard in secret. In the likely scenario that the defendant asks for this in my case, I respectfully request that the following is taken into account prior to allocation.

I wish to object to any application for transfer on the following grounds.

1. The defendant’s application was made without notice to myself and I have not been given the opportunity to make representations.

2. I am an individual of limited means. I am a litigant in person and I am suing the defendant on my own account.

3. The defendant is a multi national company with access to huge financial resources whilst my finances are strictly limited.

4. Although the place of trial is at the discretion of the Court the normal and established practice is for the claims in which one of the parties is an individual, be transferred to that individual’s home court. In this case my home court is xxxxxxx County Court.

5. The defendant, in their defence paragraph 10, had already admitted part of my claim and have now acknowledged the amount in issue is only £588.16

I am also requesting Judgement in request of the admitted sum. The defendants have made reference to the fact of the sum that they admit has been sold onto a third party agency, however, this is not relevant to my claim. My account contract was with Citi Cards, my claim is against them, and if they have seen fit to pass money to a third party then that is matter for them to reconcile.

Order 26 to which the defendant refers to in thier application, normally is applied for the benefit of a claimant who is claiming as an individual.

The defendant refers to recent findings by the Office of Fair Trading, however it is clear that the Office of Fair Trading conclusions indicate very strongly that companies such as the defendant are acting in violation of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations. And therefore as the defendant continues its system of penalty charges in the face of the Office of Fair Trading report it is they who should justly face the burden of costs and not claimants in person who are merely seeking to enforce the law.

The defendant argues the virtue of having all cases transferred to the same court. There are presently at least sixteen cases, which have been transferred to the Mercantile Court in London so that the bank charges issue can be tested once and for all. The claimant respectfully suggests that if the Salford County Court will not return my case to the Bristol County Court that in the alternative this case should be transferred to the Mercantile Court in London to be heard before the designated Judge there along side all the other penalty charges test cases.

It is not in the interest Overriding Objective for my case to be tried in a court other than my home court of Bristol County Court.

I also understand that the defendants had asked that their evidence be received in secret without any opportunity for myself or any other person to have an opportunity to examine it in advance of the hearing. Furthermore I understand that it would not be possible to carry out any cross-examination in respect of that evidence and that I would have no opportunity to have the evidence scrutinised by my own expert or an independent expert, despite the fact that the defendant's evidence is likely to be of a technical nature.

I wish to object to the defendant’s request. It cannot be in the interests of the Overriding Objective to allow secret evidence to be taken during a small claim. Furthermore the question we are deciding is the lawfulness of the defendant's penalty charge system. The defendant claims that their evidence is" commercially sensitive". However the question of the defendant's penalty charge regime does not refer to their core business. Whilst it could well be the case that information relating to the defendants core business could indeed be commercially sensitive, the question of penalty charges relates to an incidental aspect of the defendant's business -- and which if the defendant is to be believed, produces no profit at all as according to the defendant, their penalty charges merely cover their administrative costs. It is also true to say that the defendant has in the past claimed that their costs are merely in line with those of other similar organisations. Clearly then, the defendant's penalty charge regime is not a competitive matter, according to the defendant it brings them no profit and therefore there can be no grounds for saying that the information is commercially sensitive.

If the defendant is insistent that his evidence is commercially sensitive then I would respectfully suggest that maybe this entire matter is better suited for a higher court such as the mercantile court in London or Bristol.

Yours faithfully

[gizmo111]

Thanks stansfield, but credit must go to Gizmo for providing me with the basis of the letter.

 

Elsinore

 

And the majority of it came from Bank Fodder

[gizmo111]

While Im on here, what has happened to everyone's avatars and you used to have to wait 20 seconds between searches and now its 120 seconds - that 2 whole mins. Really slows things up!

 

I think there is some site maint going on tonight.

[gizmo111]

She was pleasant, helpful and efficient. Very refreshing!

 

Bizarre I come across one in B&Q today as well - so much so he prompted me to write a letter of praise to the manager - I have no experience of this!

[gizmo111]

Good Luck, didn't realise it was tomorow.

[gizmo111]

Good result - Well done

[gizmo111]

Congratulations Els

[gizmo111]

Cheque for £1221.00 received this morning in full settlement.

 

Els

 

Well done - looks like just me they don't want to pay then - maybe a green alergy????

[gizmo111]

Thanks all and thank you Gizmo for the thread title change.

 

What do you mean, they won't pay you? I thought yours was all done and dusted.

 

Els

 

Waiting for baliff date:o