MKAndy Vs Citicards

[Enron]

Think its a case that Citi have a standardised tactic for dealing with claims.

 

Sending a cheque for the difference as full & final settlement, and threatenning to get the hearing moved to their local court are part of that - and nothing to be worried about.

 

As for the cheque, return it to them stating that you find their offer unacceptable and as such are returning it.

 

If your claim is made up of alot of late payments, or over limit charges the cost to Citi will be a matter of pence and not what they have been extortionately charging customers as its a completely automated process. My manual intervention sheets demonstrate that fact, and I am willing to write a letter for use in your claim saying as much if you didn't get manual intervention sheets when you submitted your SAR.

 

Transfer of case, as the individual in this claim you can object to a transfer. After all your not a large multi-national... or as Brian has liked to state on occasion to court the worlds largest bank.

 

The main point in the process is at the Allocation Questionnaire stage - at this point I have alot of stuff for you to submit with the completed AQ, get in touch with me when you get that far.

[mkandy]

Thanks for the input Enron, much appreciated.

 

As an aside to this, when i applied for SAR, i got no detail of Manual Intervention, as the system was 'purged' in 2006. There was actually a verbal agreement for a repayment plan for the Credit Card, one I stuck to in it's entirety. I was defaulted on the same day that i actually first paid them this agreed amount, proven by their statements showing my payment to them, and my credit file showing the default placed on the same day.

 

Without evidence of this manual intervention i am unable to prove this agreement, but am suffering because of their obvious inept internal communication. Is this something i can factor into my case around default removal? Is there anything that states they should hold all cases of manual intervention for a given timespan?

 

I have written a letter explaining this situation, though as often happens, i have heard nothing back. No doubt it's at the bottom of a pile of other SAR's!

[mkandy]

Rejection letter drafted, sending recorded today.

[Enron]

Hi, you have it in writing that they purged all their "Manual Intervention" information in 2006.

 

If thats the case I think that a letter to the Information Commissioners Office is in order, as you are entitled to this kind of information. Also as you asked for it in your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) they will be in breach of your request which may get them in trouble if this is raised in front of a judge.... and should be your first point of order when your case gets as far as a hearing.

 

When you receive your Allocation Questionnaire, get in touch as i'll give you a hand as you'll have to include a few supplemental materials.

 

Once thats done and mailed, i'll let you have the bundle preparation guide for Citi.

 

I received my manual intervention sheets which highlighted the fact that there was no human involvement in an event such as a "late payment charge" being added. Therefore the cost to Citi will be a matter of pence - as the billing of this will be a very small event in their entire IT billing system... and not the £25, £20 or £12 they have been levying on customers. And will write a letter for you to support that fact.

[mkandy]

Thanks Enron, i used to work for NatWest so fully understand the procedure for late payments etc (a.k.a a completely automated system, albeit the letters being folded and put into envelopes!)

 

Regarding the manual intervention, yes i got a half a a4 page of a spreadsheet, it had details around my recent letters requesting SAR and such, but it said all other information was purged. The account is closed off, but as far as i know, should ALL information on my account with them be kept for 6-7 years?

[Enron]

Hi, yep they are a financial institution so should retain that - I think it's been purged specifically to prevent people being able to demonstrate that certain processes are entirely automated.

 

Time to get in touch with the ICO, and raise the issue that your Data Protection Act request hasnt be complied with - in that "manual intervention sheets" havent been sent, with Citi stating they have purged their database - including copy of letter if you've got that in writing:

 

Information Commissioner's Office - ICO

 

Then raise the issue in front of a judge at the beginning of your hearing, explaining why you wanted these, i.e. to prove that certain charges are an entirely automated process... costing the company a matter of pence and not what they charge customers.

 

I'm pretty sure from memory that it was either a Halifax or RBS claim, where the claimant went before a judge to state that the organisation had not compiled - i.e. the claimant had received no statements - the judge remarked that if he knew the name of the Data Protection Officer he would be looking at a prison term. So this kind of stuff is taken pretty seriously (normally a letters included with your statements given the Officers name - Richard Cooke from memory).

 

I'll do a letter for you which i'll include as part as your bundle prep materials that highlights the fact that in my m.i. sheets - there was no reference to late payment charges.

 

Interestingly manual intervention sheets and non-compliance with my request will be forming part of my attack against my next target to reclaim charges. They sent a letter saying that manual intervention actions were made with relation to their Terms & Conditions.... so i've applied again specifically requesting them.... if I get those sheets they don't have a leg to stand on.

[mkandy]

Excellent thanks Enron. Citi have complied with the release of Statements, it's just everything else. I find it pretty poor that they hold no other information other than statements.

 

No doubt the Manual Intervention did show that i am correct and the default on my credit file was an internal communication breakdown, hence why they purged it. However, as with everything in IT, you never truly purge information, no doubt it's all stored on a tape back up somewhere

[Enron]

Think there might be an alternative motive to their purging of "manual intervention" details, contact the Information Commissioners Office and see what they have to say.

 

Certainly if you were to highlight the default you incurred as an issue of miscommunication internally at Citi, and they had nothing to refer to on manual intervention of your account - it certainly would not make them look good. Though if you wanted the default removed, you'd have to do your research as have heard that Citi fight as hard to retain those as they do in contesting peoples claims for penalty charges.

 

The manual intervention sheets I received coverred a period off approximately 14-16 months - during this period 3 late payment charges were incurred.... and surprise, surprise..... no entry relating to them appeared.

 

Working on my fourth and final claim against an institution, and needless to say know all the weak points in these kind of cases by now.

[mkandy]

The fact that the default was added the same day as i paid Citi would lead you to naturally assume they jumped the gun in applying it. More annoying for me, as there is no manual intervention to support my case, they could merely claim it was coincidence that i was defaulted on the very same day that i paid them £X amount,even though I continued to pay the same amount, every month until they actually owed me money.

 

Needless to say, i'm bundling default removal and charges together, as the charges total up to more than the default amount. So whether inaccurate through internal imcompetence, or through the application of unlawful charges, it doesn't really matter, i have two arguments as to why the default shouldnt be there, funny how Citi seem to completely ignore what i'm saying though.

[mkandy]

Letter sent to the Information Commissioners Office

[mkandy]

Filed. Finally.

 

Now the wait...

[mkandy]

Phew! Missed something off the POC and only realised this morning, luckily the Court hadn't yet served the case, so let me amend the POC free of charge, without the need for N244!

[mkandy]

Case has now been served.

 

Quick question though, as per a few posts back i recieved a Cheque from Citi offering less than half the amount of charges, claiming that £12 amount was fair an reasonable. I haven't cashed this as i don't want this at settlement.

 

Should i send this back to Citi with a covering letter, or keep it and when it gets to court get them to make up another cheque with the difference, provided i win obviously!

[Enron]

If the letter that came with the cheque mention it is in full & final settlement of your claim DONT CASH IT!!! return it saying that it is unacceptable.

 

If the letter doesn't say full & final settlement, or nothing about discontinuing the claim then it is cashable. In this instance write to Citi stating that you accept the cheque as partial payment towards your claim...

 

I have some very useful information, two conflicting cost exhibits which should cast doubt on any pre-estimate cost documents Citi produce, and help you get the draft order adopted.

 

And proof that "late payments" are completely automated, and thus the true cost to them of such an instance would be mere pence as part of an overall IT billing system which makes millions of computations, entries per year - instead of the £12/£20/£25 that they have been charging customers.

[mkandy]

Thanks Enron, i have already sent Citi a letter rejecting the offer but retaining the cheque. I did say i would accept the cheque as partial settlement of the total amount, and would ask for the rest in court. I have as of yet, received no response.

 

I have not cashed the cheque. Shall i hang onto it for the time being?

[Enron]

Upto you, though i'd be tempted to return it if it said full & final settlement in the letter - obviously not cashing it because that would be your claim over.

 

If it did say anything along those lines then yes you can cash it, and you have given Citi notice that you are accepting it as partial settlement.

[mkandy]

Well the County Court passed judgement on the 2nd May, i waited 7 days, nothing. Sent a letter recorded delivery to the Salford address on the 13th. Still nothing.

 

I'm thinking it's time to send some nice baliffs up there.

[mkandy]

Just called the Court, Citi have contacted them and said that Eversheds are now representing them, and want a copy of the judgement. Funny, considering i sent them a copy of this, by recorded delivery on the 11th of May. They've had 22 days to reply to the judgement, and haven't bothered.

 

Rather helpfully, they haven't included me in any correspondence either.

[Enron]

Another delaying tactic. Get the bailiffs in!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Its a common courtesy to cc correspondence sent to the court to a defendant/claimant by either party - obviously something that Citi don't do, and have been criticised for doing previously.

[mkandy]

In speaking to the Court she said i should probably wait till next week to see what Eversheds would do. I did remark that in all likelihood they would come back and say 'we never received the court case paperwork' and then ask for a setaside. She said 'Hmmmm, crafty, but they would have to convince a District Judge that they didn't and aren't just stalling'.

 

Incidentally, i want a default notice removed too, and this was included in the case file. How do i go about getting this removed, is there an email address i can use?

[Enron]

The default notice shouldn't be too much of a problem to remove, as if it includes any penalty charges or interest/charges from the issuance of a second card it'll be unlawful.

 

Though you'd have to look into the detail of bring an application to court for the removal of a default.

 

Hope thats of help.

 

---

There is the issue of any penalty charges applied which is unlawful, and would reflect inaccurately on your credit reference profile (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999)

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.85

 

s.85 (1) Whenever, in connection with a credit-token agreement, a credit-token (other

than the first) is given by the creditor to the debtor, the creditor shall give the debtor a

copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it.

(2) If the creditor fails to comply with this section—

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;

and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

 

As Citi Financial Europe Plc only issue terms & conditions with the issue of a new card - any interest or charges made since the issue of a second card would be unlawful and something from which Citi have illegally profitted. Thus making the majority of your balance unlawfully applied.

 

Data Protection Act 1998 s.14

 

14 Rectification, blocking, erasure and destruction

 

(1) If a court is satisfied on the application of a data subject that personal data of which the applicant is the subject are inaccurate, the court may order the data controller to rectify, block, erase or destroy those data and any other personal data in respect of which he is the data controller and which contain an expression of opinion which appears to the court to be based on the inaccurate data.

 

(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the data accurately record information received or obtained by the data controller from the data subject or a third party but where the data accurately record such information, then—

 

(a) if the requirements mentioned in paragraph 7 of Part II of Schedule 1 have been complied with, the court may, instead of making an order under subsection (1), make an order requiring the data to be supplemented by such statement of the true facts relating to the matters dealt with by the data as the court may approve, and

 

(b) if all or any of those requirements have not been complied with, the court may, instead of making an order under that subsection, make such order as it thinks fit for securing compliance with those requirements with or without a further order requiring the data to be supplemented by such a statement as is mentioned in paragraph (a).

[mkandy]

As it was originally included in the POC, and assuming Citi pay out the money side of the claim, surely as a acceptance of judgement, a letter to their credit file ammendments team should be enough to get the change made. After all, they have to meet my terms, i.e pay the money and remove the default?

[Enron]

If default removal is in your POC then it should happen, though I would want written notification from Citi that its happened.

 

Otherwise its back to court to state that they haven't complied.

[mkandy]

Finally a full month after recieving serving judgement against Citicards, i get a response from Eversheds. As follows

 

 

We have only just recieved instructions on this matter and understand that Default judgement has been entered into XXXX County Court.

 

We will be applying to have this Judgement set aside and will then seek to Defend the Claim and we are likely to succeed on both counts.

 

Out client views the terms and conditions as fair. In particular the charges levied pursuant to Section 7.1 of your client's credit agreement ("the Agreement") with Citifinancial Europe Plc are a genuine pre-estimate of loss rather than a penalty.

 

Our client has agreed to abide by the OFT report and adopt a lower level of default fees which it has set at the new industry standard of £12. The Defendant has previously set its default charges at £25.

 

In the particular circumstances of our case we put forward the following settlement proposal:

(a) Without any admission of liability and on a purely commercial and ex gratia basis our client will within 14 days of your return of the signed Tomlin Order enclosed with this letter, refund by the way of cheque the sum of XXX. This sum is made of the difference between (i) the current default fee of £12 and (ii) the amount at which default fees claimed were charged to your account.

 

 

It then goes on about guff in relation to me having 14 days to comply with the order otherwise they will withdraw it and seek a setaside.

 

First impressions?

1. What a complete farce, Citi have already offered me this and I have conclusively rejected it.
   
2. Since when can they set timescales for me to comply when they have systematically breached every timescale possible
   
3. Since when do they decide they are 'likely to suceed on both counts', i think a Judge will decide that
   
4. They're still clinging to this £12 'industry standard' garbage.
   
5. Bring on court, i'm looking forward to tearing their defence to bits.
   

[Enron]

£12 is the maximum fee at which the OFT won't investigate and start proceedings (Egg is an exception).

 

Point is that they've submitted inaccurate and conflicting figures to court previously, won't comply with any orders in relation to giving a full breakdown of their costs etc.

 

Additionally I have evidence that their late payment fees are "fully automated", costing them a matter of pence per default fee and not the £12.88, £13.47, £25+ that they have stated. Every Citi Claimant is more than welcome to this information to use in their bundles.

 

Citi Financial are renowned for drawing things out, and no doubt Eversheds are under similar instruction.

 

Citi are renowned for loosing paperwork at times that would benefit them, I would contemplate informing the court of this and send a duplicate copy of that correspondence to Eversheds.

 

Your probably looking at half of the people on here who have had Citi play games with documentation on them, from memory, Gizmo111 judgement order not received, myself they supposedly didnt receive the bundle (despite it being signed for at their end), and another 3 or 4 instances spring to mind.