SteveH2508 v Citicard

[SteveH2508]

Prelim letter in the post today (R/D). Expecting to have to fight this one 'up to the third lace-hole'.

[gizmo111]

Good Luck.

 

Any questions or difficulties with Citi just ask.

[SteveH2508]

The history of this account is that when they raised the interest rate, I availed myself of the term whereby I returned the card, did not draw further on the account and I am paying it off at the prevailing rate. This was about 18 months ago (before knowledge of CAG, unlawful charges and S78 requests etc..)

 

I have sent a prelim letter re charges and got the usual boilerplated ‘go away’ letter. I then issued a S78 request on 5th April 2007.

 

I am still getting regular monthly statements showing interest, the odd late charge, minimum repayments and the odd little nasty message etc..

 

There is no DCA involvement with the account (and no defaults).

 

I received this letter in response to my S78 request today!

 

Thank you for your letter in which you have asked us to provide copies of your agreement with CitiFinancial under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

We have to inform you that we are under no obligation to comply with a request for a copy of your agreement under the Consumer Credit Act as we no longer have a contractual relationship with you, nor are we seeking to enforce any agreement against you. Your right to be provided with this information from CitiFinancial ended with the closure of your account.

 

I am returning the £1 you have sent in relation to this request (if payment sent).

 

Should you have any questions please feel free to call me on 0800 146 188 or write to me at:

 

Citi Cards

CitiFinancial Europe plc

1 Exchange Quay

Salford

Manchester M5 3EA

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Richard Cooke

Data Protection Officer

 

 

Reading between the lines I guess they have no copy agreement. (The original account was with People’s Bank, Connecticut back in the 90s)

 

The sentence “…as we no longer have a contractual relationship with you, nor are we seeking to enforce any agreement against you.” seems to say that I do not have to pay them any more!

 

My initial take on this is:

• No agreement thus no further need to pay. (I reckon I have paid back the principal several times over so no moral dilemma there)
  
• They have no right to process my personal data any more.

I am minded to write to them after 1 month (so I see the next statement) and to emphasise my withdrawal of Data Protection Act permission for data processing. I think I shall also try to get them to confirm a write-off and a zero balance.

 

Has anyone else been in the same situation with Citicard?

 

I’ve read enough about their playing hardball that this seems a bit out of character. (Maybe I’m being a bit paranoid here!)

 

Any thoughts/comments from fellow CAGgers?

[zubo]

The history of this account is that when they raised the interest rate, I availed myself of the term whereby I returned the card, did not draw further on the account and I am paying it off at the prevailing rate. This was about 18 months ago (before knowledge of CAG, unlawful charges and S78 requests etc..)

 

I have sent a prelim letter re charges and got the usual boilerplated ‘go away’ letter. I then issued a S78 request on 5th April 2007.

 

I am still getting regular monthly statements showing interest, the odd late charge, minimum repayments and the odd little nasty message etc..

 

There is no DCA involvement with the account (and no defaults).

 

I received this letter in response to my S78 request today!

 

 

 

 

Reading between the lines I guess they have no copy agreement. (The original account was with People’s Bank, Connecticut back in the 90s)

 

The sentence “…as we no longer have a contractual relationship with you, nor are we seeking to enforce any agreement against you.” seems to say that I do not have to pay them any more!

 

My initial take on this is:

• No agreement thus no further need to pay. (I reckon I have paid back the principal several times over so no moral dilemma there)
  
• They have no right to process my personal data any more.

I am minded to write to them after 1 month (so I see the next statement) and to emphasise my withdrawal of Data Protection Act permission for data processing. I think I shall also try to get them to confirm a write-off and a zero balance.

 

Has anyone else been in the same situation with Citicard?

 

I’ve read enough about their playing hardball that this seems a bit out of character. (Maybe I’m being a bit paranoid here!)

 

Any thoughts/comments from fellow CAGgers?

 

Steve,

 

I cannot see how they can refuse your request - just because you no longer use the card - they are as you surmised trying to muddy the water and probably have no executed agreement to show you.

 

Play hardball - insist that they either comply with your lawful requests or that they set your balance to zero.

 

I did just that with one DCA and managed 3 letters later to get them to set £6k to zero - but under threat of £2,500 fine for each of three agreements they did not have.

 

Watch your timeframe and remind them...

 

Z

[davefirewalker]

The history of this account is that when they raised the interest rate, I availed myself of the term whereby I returned the card, did not draw further on the account and I am paying it off at the prevailing rate. This was about 18 months ago (before knowledge of CAG, unlawful charges and S78 requests etc..)

 

I have sent a prelim letter re charges and got the usual boilerplated ‘go away’ letter. I then issued a S78 request on 5th April 2007.

 

I am still getting regular monthly statements showing interest, the odd late charge, minimum repayments and the odd little nasty message etc..

 

There is no DCA involvement with the account (and no defaults).

 

I received this letter in response to my S78 request today!

 

 

 

 

Reading between the lines I guess they have no copy agreement. (The original account was with People’s Bank, Connecticut back in the 90s)

 

The sentence “…as we no longer have a contractual relationship with you, nor are we seeking to enforce any agreement against you.” seems to say that I do not have to pay them any more!

 

My initial take on this is:

• No agreement thus no further need to pay. (I reckon I have paid back the principal several times over so no moral dilemma there)
  
• They have no right to process my personal data any more.

I am minded to write to them after 1 month (so I see the next statement) and to emphasise my withdrawal of Data Protection Act permission for data processing. I think I shall also try to get them to confirm a write-off and a zero balance.

 

Has anyone else been in the same situation with Citicard?

 

I’ve read enough about their playing hardball that this seems a bit out of character. (Maybe I’m being a bit paranoid here!)

 

Any thoughts/comments from fellow CAGgers?

 

Ok then

 

they probably dont have the agreement......youve got two options

 

1 walk away happy

 

2 go for restitution of interest

 

if they havent got an agreement then they should never have charged you any interest. you could become a whole lot richer, if you do it right

 

Dave

[Zimmie]

Hi, sorry I'm not one of the experts you needed but............

 

I agree with Zubo, I don't see how they can justify refusing your CCA request.

If, as they say they no longer have a contractual relationship with you...why are they sending you statements, adding interest...and accepting your payments. Isn't all that part of a contractual relationship?

If returning your card, as they suggest closes your account, should you be paying a non existant account?

Maybe you should remind them that under the CCA they are obliged to provide the requested documentation whether or not they are the original creditor.

Maybe they are worried that they might have some future trouble with someone who has been paying up when they can't provide the agreement!

[davefirewalker]

theres not much point in pursueing them for not supplying the cca. what good will that do, you might get them fined or something.

 

as zubo said get them to zero the balance. and walk away happy

 

or go for the restitution of all the interest youve EVER paid them

 

I wouldnt worry too much about non compliance, if they have the agreement theyll defend if they dont they'll pay up!

 

your call

 

Dave

[tamadus]

They are actually right, and do not have any obligation to supply copy agreements under sec 77/78 of the CCA once an account is closed.

 

However this is usually when there is no longer any outstanding balance.

 

As the poster is still making payments and they are processing data (presumably under the consent given in the agreement) they are still enforcing the agreement, so it must be in place.

 

The choices here are fairly simple as zubo says, If they say they are not enforcing it then push for them to reduce the balance to 0 and stop processing data, otherwise they need to provide the agreement as requested.

[SteveH2508]

Thanks all for your input. I'm going to consider this carefully over a very nice 10 year old Somerset cider brandy or three!

 

Had a lovely Malaysian meal today as well - all in all not a bad day!!

[SteveH2508]

Well - nearly 3 years on and I've just received an envelope with a typed 'version' of a Peoples Bank agreement (undated) and a typed version of Citi's supposedly current T&Cs (mentioning bmicard??)

 

The covering letter dated 17th February is virtually the same as others already posted on CAG, except it gave a balance figure and said that the account was up to date!!

 

I guess they've been reading up on McGuffick and are now going to try it on.

 

Curiously, I also recently received an annual statement of account from 1st Credit for the same account.

 

I think I shall sit back and watch the confusion!

[Enron]

It'd be interesting to see the reverse text.

 

The problem is that we could be getting the text from any old Peoples Bank executed agreement, unless it can be specifically linked to the front i'd be very dubious about such a document.

 

In my instance when I got Trading Standards involved, Citi only manage to secure me the front the "executed agreement".

 

Remember Citi have not exactly been straight with us in the past.......

[SteveH2508]

I have never had any front provided so no 'proof' of any signature and nothing to link to.

 

If they tried to enforce based on this, they might have a problem with their reliability, having already admitted making a mistake with their 'not seeking to enforce' letter. We could cast some serious doubt on their systems.

[Enron]

Think it's similar to what everyone else has had happen.

 

You have to ask yourself why have they gone to the trouble to retype old Terms & Conditions and add your name to it when they could have simply provided copies of the "executed agreement".

 

Whilst they are entitled to exclude the signature, signature box and signature date - what they are not entitled to do is substitute one document for an entirely different one as in this case. And that was the basis of our arguments previously.

 

The document which you signed was not the Terms & Conditions.

 

I understand that in a few court cases a judge has taken original Terms & Conditions to fulfill a s78(1) CCA, but that has not happened in all instances.

 

Additionally dates how can you ascertain these were the specific terms for your account.

[SteveH2508]

As far as dates go - the letter says something about the earlier dated T&Cs are the original and later ones the varied T&Cs. Guess what - no date shown! One might take a SWAG at the approximate date from the code at the top but hey-ho Citi do not seem to have their 'ducks in a row' yet

[Enron]

Put simply, they haven't provided you with a copy of the "executed agreement".

 

I'll PM you.

[the_shadow]

Hi Steve,

 

Whilst there is some debate about what satisfies a s78 request and we await the final oft s78 guidelines although the draft is available... if they were to seek "enforcement" you have the original binding letter plus if you were to claim the agreement was unenforceable under s127(3) then defended correctly with a good judge they would need to produce the original or the copy of an original at trial, i.e. a complete document... which they dont have we suspect.

 

What excuse did they give you for sending the "mistaken" letter, in my case it was that the account was recorded as charged off and sold when in fact it wasnt.

 

S.

[SteveH2508]

"Further to your recent request for a copy ...blah blah..."

 

Recent = 3 years ago

 

There are a couple of other grammatical errors in the letter as well.

 

Nothing about being charged off. I know I still have that original binding letter and Mr Smith's classic wriggle as well.

 

We are still in a game of who blinks first. Do they dare try to take it to court, given the various 'difficulties' they are trying to weasel around?

[Enron]

These seem to be filtering through due to complaints made by us to the OFT.

 

Again though Citi are playing games and not sending out copies of what we have requested. I suspected they would do this, and noted it at the time to the OFT because of the wording of their letters.

 

I think we will have to wait for the Manchester Test Case to continue in the High Court, as far as I am aware what has come out so far is just guidance, and the case will continue.

 

It's interesting that 1st Credit Ltd haven't provided me with anything as of yet, that said they are aware that I already have half of the "executed agreement" after I got Trading Standards involved - that said they'll likely give me a random Peoples Bank Connecticut T&C stating that this is the "executed agreement".

[SteveH2508]

Update

 

Just received the same typed-up cr*p from 1st Credit.

[creditman09]

Hi SteveH2508

 

I have a similar situation as you and came to the conclusion that a Peoples Bank Agreement was not held by Citicard as they sold it very quickly to 1st Credit.

 

I will follow this thread with interest and if I have anything to add will make this known.

[Enron]

I've had 1st Credit threaten me with legal action (standard DCA practice with no intention of going through with it), which is in contravention of the conditions placed on it by the OFT post it's ticking off for issuing "statutory demands" as a debt collection tool, and other practices.

 

Strange as they don't possess copies of the executed agreement - confirmed as they wanted a copy of the one sent to me by Trading Standards. Obviously I referred them to the original creditor, which didn't go down too well with them.

 

It's a shame as was look forward to taking them on, and something to get my teeth into.

 

But hey, at the end of the day the currencies backed by nothing, in fact the gold standard was removed in 1933. So it would an interesting argument that items of equal value were not exchanged, as central and commercial banks can create funds from nothing.

[SteveH2508]

Funnily enough I got a comparatively polite threat-o-gram from 1st Credit today.

 

'We introduce our DEBT HELP TEAM to you.' blah blah blah.

 

There are a couple of dubious bits in it about re-mortgaging or taking out a loan to clear my debts please tell them. Yeah right!

 

I'm not even going to bother to reply - they will have to take me to court and comply with the CPR, producing a signed original, before they get anything.

[Enron]

Might be worth sending a copy of that to the OFT.

 

As encouraging or offering people to take out more debt, to pay for an alleged debt is against OFT guidelines.

[SteveH2508]

It is quite cleverly worded - it is not actually encouraging you to re-finance to pay off the debt (only obliquely by implication) - it is saying that if you do then please tell us. It is probably enough to wriggle around the OFT guidelines. (OFT would bottle out anyway)

 

I know how the OFT works (or doesn't) due to my previous job. We used to call them the Office of Few Talents!

[SteveH2508]

Update

 

Now had two threat-o-grams from Connaught Collections - I've treated them with the same contempt as Citi/1st Credit (ignored)

 

Yesterday Judge & Priestley solicitors appear on the scene. Usual cr*p (25% off yada yada) but the last sentence of the letter started me thinking about whether we are into CPR territory now.

 

"If you do not respond to this letter within 10 days proceedings may be issued without further notice."

 

I have all letters safely filed (including Citi's "we no longer have a contractual relationship with you, nor are we seeking to enforce any agreement against you").

 

As I see it my options are:

 

1. Ignore

2. Send an 'in dispute' letter (not really on S78 now due to the Carey case but S172 gives them a problem)

3. Send a CPR request for a true copy of the original (which I'm quite sure by now they do not have)

 

Is it worth wasting time, electrons, paper and postage on these muppets?

 

I'm inclined to think not - who blinks first? - not me!