JOhnc v CitiCards

[johnc007]

no reply to letters court action started

[Enron]

Lots of people here to help you John. If you have any questions just ask and someone will help you out.

 

Are you filing your claim through MCOL or an N1?

 

Once you receive your transfer to your local court let someone know as Citi will most likely try and transfer it to Salford which you can object to.

 

There are new tactics in place for when you receive you AQ. PM me then.

[johnc007]

have done mine with a N1 form and sent it to Liverpool high court also sent the ex 160 form as i'm exempt from paying court fees

[Enron]

OK, if you haven't included it already do 3 copies of the schedule of charges you are claiming - and send it to the court along with a letter including your claim number.

 

Also as a pre-emptive measure i'd be include in your letter the following (filling in the blank with the name of your court)

 

--

I would like my claim hearing to be held at ***** County Court, I am an individual of limited means, a litigant in person and I am suing the defendant on my account.

 

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

--

 

Next step is when you receive your AQ. Get in touch with me when it arrives.

[johnc007]

havent done that bit will ring them tomorrow to ensure that, its covered

[johnc007]

they offered me £364 wrote a standard reply using to refusal of settlement letter, they have now sent me the cheque for this amount which say in full and final settlement, what do I ? do I send another letter saying that I will only accept this as a partial payment or do I ignore it and continue with the claim, informing the court that they have paid this amount of the claim

 

Your input will be greatly appriciated

[Enron]

Seems to be there standard trick at present....... obviously retain all correspondence sent to you.

 

But send the cheque back and say that you are unprepared to accept their offer, especially under full and final settlement.

 

CASH THE CHEQUE AND YOUR CASE IS OVER

 

Continue with your claim, when you get to the AQ stage get in touch with me.

[morsy]

I believe there is a letter in the templates forum to cover this...

[johnc007]

what a petty they forgot to file a defence !!

so I have filled the judgement for claimant and it has been awarded what happens next

[dj59]

They will probably apply for judgement to be set aside as they did in my case.

[johnc007]

Yes they did, date for hearing is the 8th of May, which happens to one of three days in May when I've got exams so will not be able to attend, anyone got any ideas

[Enron]

Phone the court and explain the situation.

 

From the point of view of the stay i'm going to PM you something in amo.

[gizmo111]

I would agree to the set aside as they will get it anyway, write to Citi agreeing to this if they agree to your draft directions which are here. They'll refuse but it upsets them when they get these.

[johnc007]

had the evidence to support the setting aside it reads as follows

 

the claimant has claimed for the recovery of default fees allegedly paid to the defendant. these fees were neither unlawful or penal and in any event were not actually paid to the defendant by the claimant whose account defaulted and was sold at a loss by the defendant owing £2348.06 in arrears. Given the failure to pay this account the defendant maintains the claimant is seeking recovery of sums never paid.

the defendant has successfully defended dozens of similar claims by former customers based on a misunderstanding of common law and the recent OFT report into default fees. The defendant believes it has a complete defence to this claim not merely a real prospect of a successful defence.

 

how do i reply to the court reference this

[Enron]

I know she's busy, but would recommend getting in touch with Gizmo111 as a DCA is involved in your case.

[gizmo111]

John have rfeplied to your PM - will post here when I hear from you.

[Enron]

Lots of bravado there.

 

If the account consisted of alot of penalty charges before being sold to the DCA then the claim still needs to be examined by the judge.

 

Hopefully a few of the points we've raised through PM will balance any arguement out.

 

Citi have been reluctant in the extreme to validate their pre-estimate figure of £12.88 per default. You can draw your own conclusions from this.

[gizmo111]

I wouldn't make a big thing out of it - I would agree to the set aside, write to Citi and send a draft directions order for them to agree in return. They'll refuse but you can ask for this at the hearing.

I had my account passed to DCA and citi put simialr in teir full defence, I'll get back to you tonight or tomorrow with a letter and directions.

The main point is that their T&C list the order in which balance is paid, and charges are at top!

Could you PM me your e-mail also.

[gizmo111]

John, I accidently deleted your e-mai laddress could you PM it to me again please thanks.

[johnc007]

had a reply to the cheque going back.

 

thank you for your recent letter,your comments have been noted however i have to advise that we will not be reviewing our decision on the basis of your argument.

 

your demands are entirely unreasonable since, to pay you as you suggest, would imply that your continued breaches of a contract you agreed to, should simply never have attracted any sanctions whatsoever. As you will understand this would not be a tenable position from which a bank could do business.

 

The OFT report, contrary to popular opinion, did not state that default charges are unfair per se. It did state that the amount currently charged by the banking industry was excessive and imposed a £12 cap. The logic of the position was adopted and we charged you £12 in retrospective reassessment. That is a fair compromise.

Citi Cards conducted itself within the law at all times and no-one has made any suggestion to the contrary. The OFT made an interpretation that did not, contrary to you claim, have the force of lay. i suggest you re-read the report and you will find it acknowledged by the OFT itself that it would have to seek a court decision on its interpretation.

 

IN over a dozen recent court cases involving Citi, we have successfully argued the fairness of the above policy and the fairness of the £12 charges. The cases have all resulted in the claims being dismissed and the courts have implicitly held that the policy is fair and the charges reasonable, being in line with both the OFT guidance and common law principles of breach of contract.

 

Citi does not wish to enter litigation with its customers but will do so if necessary to discourage speculative and ill conceived cased founded on a misunderstanding of the OFT report. With the benefit of this judgement behind it, Citi will continue to deal with claims such as your in the maner outlined above

 

Therefore, we will not be paying you any further sums, in the event that you initiate and action, Citi Cards will defend the action on this basis.

 

do i resend it back to them no mention in this letter of full and final or do i take it if i cash it my case is closed??

[snlc]

This the standard letter I got from office of Chief exec Mark Clibbens

[gizmo111]

had a reply to the cheque going back.

 

thank you for your recent letter,your comments have been noted however i have to advise that we will not be reviewing our decision on the basis of your argument.

 

your demands are entirely unreasonable since, to pay you as you suggest, would imply that your continued breaches of a contract you agreed to, should simply never have attracted any sanctions whatsoever. As you will understand this would not be a tenable position from which a bank could do business.

 

The OFT report, contrary to popular opinion, did not state that default charges are unfair per se. It did state that the amount currently charged by the banking industry was excessive and imposed a £12 cap. The logic of the position was adopted and we charged you £12 in retrospective reassessment. That is a fair compromise.

Citi Cards conducted itself within the law at all times and no-one has made any suggestion to the contrary. The OFT made an interpretation that did not, contrary to you claim, have the force of lay. i suggest you re-read the report and you will find it acknowledged by the OFT itself that it would have to seek a court decision on its interpretation.

 

IN over a dozen recent court cases involving Citi, we have successfully argued the fairness of the above policy and the fairness of the £12 charges. The cases have all resulted in the claims being dismissed and the courts have implicitly held that the policy is fair and the charges reasonable, being in line with both the OFT guidance and common law principles of breach of contract.

 

Citi does not wish to enter litigation with its customers but will do so if necessary to discourage speculative and ill conceived cased founded on a misunderstanding of the OFT report. With the benefit of this judgement behind it, Citi will continue to deal with claims such as your in the maner outlined above

 

Therefore, we will not be paying you any further sums, in the event that you initiate and action, Citi Cards will defend the action on this basis.

 

do i resend it back to them no mention in this letter of full and final or do i take it if i cash it my case is closed??

 

Oh dear another sanctions letter - you now file your claim, your case is not closed because they said so.

[johnc007]

no that's not what i meant they sent the cheque back to me, what do i do with it?

send it back to them again or what ?

[johnc007]

hi gizmo

 

had a reply for the full disclosure from the famous Mr Brian smith

 

i act on behalf of CitiFinancial Europe plc and write further to you letter of 29 April

i will respond to the main point only rather that all since i have seen this letter at least a dozen times now its is simply tiresome to have to answer all the half baked misinformation it contains. i would be grateful if, I future, you could at least attempt to litigate on your own behalf and not by rote.

 

my client does defend these cases although, naturally, it chooses not defend all as some are too small to be worth attending court. i can assure you that we will be attending court on the 8 May and will seek set aside on the grounds that you have failed to pay the sums you claiming as a debt. this simple yet telling point seems to elude many people. you claim is simply and opportunistic attempt to make money out of my client and will be defended.

 

you may if you wish show this letter to the court also as it is open

 

 

First off Mr Smith, I have paid this debt so therefore this money has been paid

Secondly, if you answered the letter, instead of beating about the bush, you wouldn't be inundated with requests for full disclosure.

Thirdly, if your client paid back what it took illegally instead of wasting the courts and our time, everyone would be happy, including you.

[snlc]

I think our Brian likes sending rude letters. I got mates who would like to meet him !

 

He wrote something similar and in the same postbag I got one from Mr Clibbens, and whilst I didn't accept what he said it was at least polite. This bloke Smith needs a lessen in manners. He only answers what he feels like and he writes as if he's writing to this website as a whole and picks up on peoples cases by name - cheeky git. If he finds it a little tiresome maybe he should get a job somewhere else and leave it to someone more professional - maybe he could get a job at Cabot - they got a bloke who needs to retire too!