Charges Reclaim from Citicards **** WON ***

[panther12]

The deadline for Citi to cough up will shortly expire and I don’t expect them to play ball so will prepare for the next round of issuing the claim into court. In preparation we registered an account with MCOL but although we have yet to complete the PoC I’m not sure if it will fit into the limited space using MCOL. Is it best to do it manually on a N1 form and hand it in at our local court?

[ims21]

Hi

 

MCOL isn't the appropriate method to sue for this claim for the reasons you state...i.e. there will not be enough room for your PoC.

 

Best to do a manual one and file at court

 

ims

[panther12]

Thanks ims.

After discusing this over we have decided to just go with the stat 8% and are happy with this amount and feel more confident of arguing our corner in court if needs be.

Wondered if you could have a quick check of the draft PoC we've done and if anything wants tweaking or adding. Cheers.

 

IN THE xxxx COUNTY COURT Claim No:

 

 

 

BETWEEN:

xxxx

Claimant

 

- and -

 

 

CITIFINANCIAL EUROPE PLC

Defendant

 

____________________________________________

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

____________________________________________

 

 

 

1. The Claimant entered into an agreement (“The Agreement”) with the Defendant on or around October 2001 whereby the Defendant was to advance credit facilities to the Claimant under a running credit account, Account Number xxxx ("The Account").

 

2. The Agreement essentially consisted of the Defendant providing the Claimant with a credit card (“The Card”) which would allow the Claimant to make purchases and receive cash advances on credit. In return the Defendant was entitled to charge interest at the published rate.

 

3. The Agreement was a Regulated Agreement for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

4. At all material times the contract was subject to the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions which could be varied from time to time.

 

Summary

5. Throughout the course of the Agreement, the Defendant has added numerous default charges to the Account for the Claimant’s failure to make the minimum payment on the due date and or for exceeding the credit limit and or if a payment is returned. (Full particulars are set out in schedule 2).

 

6. The default charges were applied in accordance with the standard terms of The Agreement which were:

 

a) A penalty payable on breach of contract and thus unenforceable: and

 

b) An unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“The Regulations”) and therefore not binding on the Claimant.

 

7. The Claimant is accordingly entitled to repayment of the sums wrongly added to the Account.

 

The Charges

8. The standard Terms of the Agreement in substance provided as follows:

 

a) The Defendant would provide the Claimant with the Card. The Claimant was entitled to use the Card to make purchases and receive cash advances up to a credit limit (“the Limit”) set by the Defendant. The Defendant could unilaterally change the Limit by giving the Claimant notice in writing.

 

b) The Defendant was entitled to charge interest on the purchases and cash advances at the published rate.

 

c) The Claimant was to pay the minimum payment of 3% of the amount owed or £5 (whichever was the greatest) by the due date as notified in the monthly statements.

 

d) In addition the Defendant was entitled to charge default fees (“the Charges”) where the Claimant exceeded the Limit, did not pay on the due date, or had a payment returned. The Default Charge is currently £12 and prior to 2006 the Charges were £25.

 

Penalty

9. The Charges were payable on breach of contract by the Claimant.

 

10. The amount of the Charges exceeded any genuine pre-estimate of the damage which would have been suffered by the Bank in relation to the Claimant’s transgressions.

 

11. In the premises the Charges were punitive and a penalty and thus unenforceable at common law.

 

The Regulations

12. At all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the Regulations.

 

13. At all material times the terms of the Agreement providing for the Charges were unfair within regulation 5 of the Regulations in that contrary to the requirement of good faith they caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the Claimant.

 

14. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will refer to the following matters in support of the contention that the terms are to be assessed as unfair as at the time of the conclusion of the Agreement, and of each revision to the Standard Terms.

 

(1) The terms relating to Charges were standard terms; they would not be individually negotiated.

 

(2) The Charges were a penalty for breach of contract.

 

(3) The Charges exceeded the costs which the Bank could have expected to incur in dealing with the exceeding of the credit limit, late payment or returned payment.

 

(4) Accordingly the Charges were a disproportionate charge incurred by the Claimant for their failure to meet their contractual obligation and thus within the ambit of Schedule 2 (1) (e) of the Regulations and indicative of an unfair term.

 

(5) As the Defendant knew, the Charges were of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Agreement as a whole and would not influence the making of the Agreement.

 

(6) As the Defendant knew, the Claimant had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges.

 

(7) In the premises, the effect of the Charges would be prejudicial to the customer who incurred them, and cause an imbalance in the relations of the parties to the Agreement by subordinating the customer’s interests to those of the Defendant in a way which was inequitable.

 

15. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will contend that the terms’ imposing the Charges are not core terms under regulation 6 of the Regulations and relies on the following matters.

 

(1) The assessment of fairness does not relate to terms which define the main or core subject matter of the Agreement.

 

(2) The assessment of fairness does not relate to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the goods or services supplied in exchange (in other words, whether or not the relevant services were value for money).

 

(3) The Charges are correctly described as default charges by the Defendant in the published tariff of charges.

 

16. By reason of the said matters the terms were not binding under regulation 8 of the Regulations.

 

17. The Defendant wrongly applied Charges to the Account totalling some £660.00 between 07/12/2001 and 08/12/2006. Particulars appear within Schedule 2.

 

18. For charges applied to the Account in excess of six years, the Claimant will rely on s32(1)© of The Limitation Act 1980.

 

19. On 07/12/2011 the Claimant demanded repayment of the sums wrongly applied.

 

20. Despite the Claimant’s efforts to negotiate settlement prior to the issuing of this claim, the Defendant has not repaid them or any of them.

 

Remedy

21. The Claimant claims;

 

(1) A declaration that the sums totalling £660.00 have wrongly been applied to the Account.

 

(2) The Claimant will rebut any assertion from the Defendant that any part of the claim is excluded by default of a time limit and declares that the claim is made under s32 (1) The Limitations Act 1980 as per Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council.

 

(3) Repayment of the said sum of £660.00 plus interest of £396.14 as calculated at 23 January 2012.

 

(4) Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of payment of the Charges to date in the sum of £396.14, and at the daily rate of 0.022% until judgment or sooner payment.

 

(5) Court costs of £80.

 

I believe that the facts stated in these particulars, comprising of four pages, are true.

 

Dated

 

 

Signed

[ims21]

Hi

 

I'll get some help with your PoC for you

 

ims

[Andyorch]

Subbing and responding to IMS.

 

Get back to you shortly Panther.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[panther12]

Ok thanks guys, much appreciated.

We did receive a letter on Friday from Citi but only reiterating their previous letter that £267 is their final offer so leaves no option but to commence proceedings.

[Stornoway]

Good luck will watch with interest ....

[panther12]

Well I think I have everything ready and will hand deliver all the docs in to court later. I take it I need 3 copies of everything (one for defendant, court & a sealed one back to me). Will let you know just as soon as I hear anything.

[panther12]

Claim is now submitted. My local court said that all claims are now sent to a centralised processing centre in Salford. Apparently a new system designed to slash costs and processing times. Will now wait & see what develops.

[panther12]

We hand delivered 3 copies to our local court just over a week ago on 23 Jan but have heard nothing since. I understand the defendant has 14 days to acknowledge then a further 14 to submit defence but shouldn’t we at least receive any notification from the court as to when the claim is deemed served?

[Andyorch]

If you have not submitted your claim through MCOL (CCBC) its a tad slower check with the Court re service and notification.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[panther12]

Cheers Andy, Yes we submitted claim in our local court but they said all claims are now sent to the courts centralised processing centre at Salford. Will give it till Monday (14 days) and give the court a ring if we've not heard anything by then.

[panther12]

Received the notice of issue today. We hand delivered the claim on 23 Jan. It says claim was issued on 27th, sent to defendant on 30th and deemed to be served on 1st Feb and they have until 15th to reply. Will now wait and see what they decide to do.

[Andyorch]

Excellent Panther .... waiting game now.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Madge67]

Good luck Panther. Keeping everything crossed for you

 

Madge

[Madge67]

Panther have you heard anything - 15th is 6 days ago and this was deadline

 

Madge

[panther12]

Panther have you heard anything - 15th is 6 days ago and this was deadline

 

Madge

 

Hi Madge,

Not a great deal to report at the moment. Citi had until 15 Feb to reply to the court. I popped into the local court on the 16th and they had not received anything as yet, however all paperwork is now dealt with at the Salford Business Centre and apparently they are running 9 days behind, so they may or may not have replied and will just have to wait. My local court did advise that we complete and return the request for judgement to Salford, which will get date stamped and acted upon if Citi haven’t replied. That’s what we did so just a question of waiting now.

[panther12]

We checked with the court yesterday and they inform us that a judgement order for forthwith payment is winging its way to us in the post. We’ll await the judgement and give Citi time to comply with the order.

[Madge67]

Wahooooo well done Panth - Really pleased for you - Hopefully wont be too long for you to get you spondoolies.

Did you go for 8% int in the end?

[panther12]

Yes we decided to keep it simple and just went for the 8% stat int. Compound int in restitution would have made a huge difference but we were happy with 8% stat, and no doubt they would have vigorously defended with a few k added. Will hold off the celebrations till we actually receive payment, they may still apply to set-aside, but if they didn’t even bother to acknowledge service then I hope it won’t be granted.

[Madge67]

Dont blame you mate. We just had an offer of all our charges plus 8% interest from MBNA. If we went to court for 34.9% which is what they charged me, the claim would be over 10'000. Tempting but like you say, gotto be realistic havent you?

 

Fab new again Panth - have a pint for me

 

Madge

[panther12]

A bit of activity on this. To recap Citi had until 15 Feb to reply to the court but failed to do so and forthwith judgement for claimant was ordered on 24 Feb.

 

We’ve now received a letter from Shoosmiths solicitors enclosing notice that they are acting on behalf of Citi and an acknowledgement of service dated 28 Feb in which they indicate their intention to defend all of the claim. There was no defence enclosed only the acknowledgement. Even if they had acknowledged within the 14 days time limit it would have extended the time to submit a defence to 29 Feb, so they are in default of both the time limit to acknowledge and also the 28 days to submit a defence had they acknowledged within time.

 

I'm guessing that Shoosmiths were not aware that judgement had already been ordered before sending their letter, so what would be the next course of action – write to Shoosmiths to enquire when their client intends to comply with the court order?

[panther12]

After a few emails with the Citi solicitors I can update to say this is now done & dusted. Citi complied with the judgement order and sent cheque payment for the full amount.

[ims21]

Hi Panther

 

This is great news...well done

 

I will mark your thread accordingly for a WIN

 

 

The Consumer Action Group needs help to cover itsexpenses.

 

You could help by making a money contribution to http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/paypal.php?go=donate

 

ims

[panther12]

Thanks ims, will do that just as soon as payments cleared. It is exactly one month from the date of Judgement to receiving the cheque payment, and then it needs to clear in the banking system, so as it will be over a month when we actually receive payment will Citi have a ccj (albeit satisfied) registered against them for the next 6 years? We would feel really awful if this meant it will make it difficult for the bank to get credit!!