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

[elsinore]

Sent Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter 10.8.06 Already have most statements (showing £550 charges) and certain that remainder will show more.

 

Also sent suspend action letter to Mackenzie Hall who have been collecting alleged o/s debt.

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

Zilch from Citi in response to my SAR letter

Time to send a nudge letter, as their time will be up on 25th.

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

Data received today from Citi Cards.

Total unlawful charges £825 (I thought it was about £300!!)

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

Thanks adamski, I'll follow your progress closely!

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

Preliminary Approach for Repayment letter sent 11th October, £931.54

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

Received this reply to my PAR:-

 

Dear Elsinore (not Dear Mr Elsinore, just Dear Elsinore)

 

Thank you for taking the time to write to me about the charges, which have been added to your account.

 

On Wednesday 5th April 2006 the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) issued a statement regarding the default charges levied on customers by credit card issuers for breaches of contract such as making a late payment or going over their credit limit.

 

Within this statement the OFT has stated that it believes that those charges are too high and has recommended credit card companies review their position with a view to reducing their respective charges to a maximum of £12, unless there are exceptional reasons why a higher level should apply. Card issuers had been requested to review and respond to the OFT by 31st May 2006.

 

Although not a party to the OFT investigation that led to its report, Citi Cards is aware of the report and we have undertaken to reconsider our charges in light of the OFT statement.

 

In order to remain competitive with other lenders we have reconsidered these charges after a review of the market. From 28 June onwards we have lowered our charges to the OFT recommended rate of £12. This change is not retrospective in offer.

 

Citi was involved in a recent Court case in Northern Ireland, the case of Kissick v Citifinancial Europe plc, in which the fairness of these charges was challenged. The Court dismissed the case, implicitly finding that the charges are fair and in conformity with the OFT guidance and common law principles of contractual damages.

 

I understand that this was not the outcome you would have hoped for and if you would like an independent review of this, you may refer to the Finance and Leasing Association at the following address:

 

The Compliance Manager

4th Floor Imperial House

15-19 Kingsway

London WC3B 6UN

 

You may also contact the Financial Ombudsman Service. This must be done within six months from the date of this letter. I have enclosed their leaflet for you. If you have any other questions or would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact me on the number below and I will be happy to assist you.

 

Yours sincerely

Mark Clibbens

Office of the Chief Executive.

Tel: 0800 146188

Fax: 0870 9050710

Email: citicardsman.customerfeedback@citigroup.com

[elsinore]

Sent Citi this yesterday

 

Dear Mr Clibbens,

 

I refer to your letter dated 16th October 2006.

 

The last person to address me by only my surname was my C.O. in the Royal Air Force, where authority and convention made it acceptable. Fortunately I have a thick skin and was not unduly offended by your use of it. I assume that it was, like the remainder of your letter, a simple mistake.

 

Although it is perfectly proper for you to refer to the statement issued by the Office of Fair Trading on 5th April 2006, you are wrong to contend that the OFT regards £12 as an acceptable maximum charge. I quote from the OFT 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. Setting a threshold for intervention is a pragmatic pro-consumer action that is designed to give the industry the opportunity to change its practice without litigation’.

and from the OFT statement dated 7th September 2006

‘A fair credit card default charge should not exceed a reasonable estimate of certain limited administrative costs which the credit card issuer reasonably expects to incur as a result of default’

You state that, although you were not a party to the OFT investigation, you have undertaken to reconsider your charges in the light of the OFT statement. In the very next sentence you state that you have reconsidered these charges after a review of the market and to compete with other lenders. If you have only reduced your charges in order to compete, then you deny the veracity of the OFT. If, however, you accept the OFT rationale, then there is no need for you to mention the competitive situation..

 

Citing a recent court case, in which you were a litigant, is pesumably your attempt to persuade me to withdraw my claim. Perhaps you are not aware that no precedent can be set in respect of a County Court judgement. Also, your ‘success’ in that case was dulled by the fact that you refunded the claimant the differences between your charges and £12, a decision which was made possible by your policy change of 26th June 2006. Yet you assert in your letter to me that those reductions are not retrospective. Furthermore, you have settled other claims in full both before and after your decision to reduce your charges.

 

Such inconsistencies in your actions indicate that if you are not acting upon sound, professional, legal advice, then you should be. If you are acting upon professional. legal advice, you should perhaps be seeking that advice elsewhere.

 

You now have until 9th November 2006 to reconsider and advise me of your decision, based on the requests outlined in my letter of 11th October 2006. If you do not reply, or reply negatively, I will commence a claim in the County Court for the refund of the sum mentioned, to which will be added statutory interest currently standing at £263.00.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

Er, dunno.

Perhaps he only joins in after a claim is issued.

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

You're making me bite my tongue, Giz!!

[elsinore]

Thanks Michael.

I'm following your RBoS biggie with interest (pun intended!) as I also have a biggie in the offing.

Good luck with that.

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

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.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Mark Clibbens

 

Roll on 9th November.

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

Claim issued 9th November 2006 £1318.48

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

Thanks Adamski.

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

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

Sorry guys!

[elsinore]

Site maintenance?

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

:lol:

 

Elsinore

[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

[elsinore]

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

 

Elsinore

[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

[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

[elsinore]

Funny you should ask, Zzed. I've just this minute stuck down the envelope containing another letter to Citi, this time to Mr Smith. It is in response to a letter from him that I received just before Xmas. Manners forbid me from posting it on here until he has at least received it in Salford, so I'll do it tomorrow!

 

I haven't responded to the defence, I see no reason why I should. I'm happy to let the judge decide who's right and who's wrong.

 

I am very much looking forward to AQ time (unless they settle in full, of course) as we now have another weapon in our armoury. If you don't know what I mean, PM me.

 

Yours is an excellent letter, it's just a shame though that our responses seem to fall on deaf ears. You might as well start preparing your claim now.

 

Happy New Year

Elsinore