CITICARD PPI/ PENALTY CHARGES and CABOT TOO!!!

[millymollymoo]

Re: CITICARD PPI/ PENALTY CHARGES and CABOT TOO!!!

Don't worry, Milly - if you make several posts in rapid succession, the software 'auto-merges' them. It's nice to see old friends 'doing the business' here again, too !!!

When we reclaim the 'apportioned' debited account interest, it doesn't matter what method or rate was used, as we are simply claiming back a portion of what was actually charged to the account. However, we also claim 'compensatory' interest on this - and this is usually at the Statutory rate of 8% simple. Any higher rate - or a compounded rate - is not normally supported by the FOS, and would probably need to be claimed through the courts, and argued for convincingly, too. It looks like you may have claimed this interest at the contractual rate, in which case we may have to be ready for a revision of the figures.

As you have already sent them a PPI claim letter, with your reasons for considering the PPI to have been mis-sold, then we really just have to wait and see if they accept it was mis-sold. Your reasons seem good enough to me, Milly. Meanwhile, maybe we can check out the figures and decide if we want to revise the claim, and/or combine the PPI and penalties. Late payment fees would be difficult to claim, but overlimit should be OK.

Oh so thats what was happening with my posts :tung:

Maybe it might be best to seperate the PPI from the charges then as there is lots of them

The credit card charged at the compounded rate though, so 8% wouldn't be the amount that they charged daily/monthly . I think I am confusing myself as usual.:tinysmile_cry_t:

What I mean is the schedule charged JUSt at the 34.40 compounded standard rate nothing else on top.

Milly xxxxxx

[millymollymoo]

Re: CITICARD PPI/ PENALTY CHARGES and CABOT TOO!!!

As I remembered you all..real lovely people. So glad I'm back!

[Angry Cat]

Re: CITICARD PPI/ PENALTY CHARGES and CABOT TOO!!!

As I remembered you all..real lovely people. So glad I'm back!

Many of us have been or, are in a similar boat.

So, let us all sink theirs (or at least, make it spring a leak)!

[Bill-K]

Re: CITICARD PPI/ PENALTY CHARGES and CABOT TOO!!!

I've looked at your figures now, Milly, and I think it may well be better to keep the penalty charges separate after all.

First of all, though, I can now see that you have indeed claimed compensatory interest at the full contractual rate, as opposed to the 8% Statutory rate. In the past few years, it has become increasingly difficult to successfully claim at the contractual rate. Although I still agree with claiming at a higher rate than 8% SI, it is not something I would advise doing unless you are prepared to argue the case in court - and I mean prepared.

If we revise the claim to use 8% SI instead of contractual rate, then I'm afraid it drastically reduces the amount - from approx. £4700 to £1400

Now, I believe the primary object of this exercise is to get the default removed from your OH's CRF, and the way you wanted to do this was to reclaim the mis-sold PPI, unlawful penalties, and contractual interest - and in doing so, get the debt written off, along with the default. I note that they have not complied with a CCA request, and that unenforceability is a possible issue, too.

If we revise the claim to use 8% SI, then I assume that the reduced amount will not be enough to write off the debt, and in that case would not be enough to get the default removed. So - if we have a DCA wanting to settle the debt, and apparently willing to settle for less than the full amount, then perhaps we can negotiate.

What I am thinking is that, if the debt is unenforceable, then the DCA knows it cannot get a penny from you. Therefore, if you point out that approx. £1400 of the debt is reclaimable as unlawful PPI & penalty charges, offer them a reduced amount in settlement, and on condition that the default is removed - then maybe you can achieve the primary object of the claim. In effect, you are inviting them to voluntarily remove the default in return for receiving a reduced loan settlement. The alternative would be for them to receive nothing at all, due to an unenforceable debt, and to face the (theoretical) prospect of STILL having to remove the default because of unenforceability.

Just my suggestion, though, as I think this claim needs thinking about, now.

[millymollymoo]

Re: CITICARD PPI/ PENALTY CHARGES and CABOT TOO!!!

I've looked at your figures now, Milly, and I think it may well be better to keep the penalty charges separate after all.

First of all, though, I can now see that you have indeed claimed compensatory interest at the full contractual rate, as opposed to the 8% Statutory rate. In the past few years, it has become increasingly difficult to successfully claim at the contractual rate. Although I still agree with claiming at a higher rate than 8% SI, it is not something I would advise doing unless you are prepared to argue the case in court - and I mean prepared.

If we revise the claim to use 8% SI instead of contractual rate, then I'm afraid it drastically reduces the amount - from approx. £4700 to £1400

Now, I believe the primary object of this exercise is to get the default removed from your OH's CRF, and the way you wanted to do this was to reclaim the mis-sold PPI, unlawful penalties, and contractual interest - and in doing so, get the debt written off, along with the default. I note that they have not complied with a CCA request, and that unenforceability is a possible issue, too.

If we revise the claim to use 8% SI, then I assume that the reduced amount will not be enough to write off the debt, and in that case would not be enough to get the default removed. So - if we have a DCA wanting to settle the debt, and apparently willing to settle for less than the full amount, then perhaps we can negotiate.

What I am thinking is that, if the debt is unenforceable, then the DCA knows it cannot get a penny from you. Therefore, if you point out that approx. £1400 of the debt is reclaimable as unlawful PPI & penalty charges, offer them a reduced amount in settlement, and on condition that the default is removed - then maybe you can achieve the primary object of the claim. In effect, you are inviting them to voluntarily remove the default in return for receiving a reduced loan settlement. The alternative would be for them to receive nothing at all, due to an unenforceable debt, and to face the (theoretical) prospect of STILL having to remove the default because of unenforceability.

Just my suggestion, though, as I think this claim needs thinking about, now.

Hello Bill

I'm happy to go down that route reduced to stat interest. The default really is all we care about not really about making any money. Its a bane we could do without really.

What would you suggest I do about Citicard then as you can see the letters I sent, should I wait for them to reply or push them and see what they offer?

By the way Cabot have not replied and their deadline is up 15th April. I asked for the CCA off of them also, Citicard never sent S.A.R or CCA 3 years now!

Thanks Bill for taking the time to look at my spreadies

[millymollymoo]

Re: CITICARD PPI/ PENALTY CHARGES and CABOT TOO!!!

Received another letter today regarding the charges.

Basically refusing to refind the £12 charges and only giving the difference between £25 and £12, clearly stating that the OFT case did not apply to them as they did not take part.:crazy::crazy::crazy:

Your advice on the above please.










Milly x

[Bill-K]

Re: CITICARD PPI/ PENALTY CHARGES and CABOT TOO!!!

This needs comment from someone more au fait with current penalty charge claims than myself, but I don't think you mentioned the OFT ruling, did you Milly ? In which case, Citi appear to have brought this into the discussion, only to to then state that they don't consider themselves as being bound by it anyway - in which case they have clearly abandoned even the implication that £12 may be a fair level !!!

As I recall the OFT did NOT pronounce the £12 level of charge as lawful or even fair - even though the banks preferred to read it that way. What I believe they stated was that any charges over £12 were considered unfair and excessive, but £12 or less would be subject to further scrutiny.

So, IMHO, all the letter seems to confirm is that Citi will NOT be relying on the old OFT implication that £12 may be a fair level, and have thus left themselves with no alternative but to prove that £12 is fair.

Having now read the recently-posted scans of the letter, it seems that you have a choice as to whether to accept the offer of £13 per £25 charge (+ 8% SI) - or go for the full amount of each charge, whether it be £12 or £25. There is also the matter of whether or not to reclaim the debited account interest on the charges - this is not a very large amount, and would need extra work, though.

[millymollymoo]

Re: CITICARD PPI/ PENALTY CHARGES and CABOT TOO!!!

This needs comment from someone more au fait with current penalty charge claims than myself, but I don't think you mentioned the OFT ruling, did you Milly ? In which case, Citi appear to have brought this into the discussion, only to to then state that they don't consider themselves as being bound by it anyway - in which case they have clearly abandoned even the implication that £12 may be a fair level !!!

As I recall the OFT did NOT pronounce the £12 level of charge as lawful or even fair - even though the banks preferred to read it that way. What I believe they stated was that any charges over £12 were considered unfair and excessive, but £12 or less would be subject to further scrutiny.

So, IMHO, all the letter seems to confirm is that Citi will NOT be relying on the old OFT implication that £12 may be a fair level, and have thus left themselves with no alternative but to prove that £12 is fair.

Received another letter today regarding the charges.

Basically refusing to refind the £12 charges and only giving the difference between £25 and £12.



Hi Bill

No I didn't mention the ruling perhaps I should of done.


However the template they have sent is funny because they often refer to the 'Credit agreement' which they have still not supplied for over two years (payment cashed)!! Oh also the SAR sent to a Richard cooke over two years ago. so how would O/H know then :lie:


Help with what needs to be said in a good rejection letter would be gratefully received I will have a look through my oldies and see what I can muster and then will post up. maybe peeps could add or delete bits?

Milly x

[millymollymoo]

Re: CITICARD PPI/ PENALTY CHARGES and CABOT TOO!!!

VERY INTERESTING!!!!!

DEFAULT DATE REGISTERED ON CRA'S : 21 January 2010.

I have a letter dated June 2009 that states : 'We are writing to you beacuse you held a Citi Issued Card between 21 March 2006 and 2 December 2008.Although your account is closed the following information relates to the terms and conditions when you wer given the card.'


Hmmm...so the account was closed by them June 2009...soooo how were they allowed to process the DEFAULT after that date then?? Grounds for removal or Not??

[Angry Cat]

Re: CITICARD PPI/ PENALTY CHARGES and CABOT TOO!!!

IMHO, you need to make a SAR to Citi.

[Bill-K]

Re: CITICARD PPI/ PENALTY CHARGES and CABOT TOO!!!

No, I don't think you needed to mention the OFT ruling, Milly.

So, it appears that they are in breach of the DPA by not complying with your DSAR. Have you got proof that it was received, and/or any response to the DSAR at all ?

It appears that they have not complied with your CCA request, either, and are thus in breach of the CCA.

So, if we are going to try negotiating with them, then I guess we have to use the above. We could mention that the DPA breach would make it very difficult for them to pursue the debt in court, as I believe it is classed as a criminal breach.

We could then go on to mention that the Agreement to which they refer does not seem to exist, as they have not complied with the CCA by sending a true copy of it. This would also make it very difficult to pursue the debt in court.

The difficult bit would be in how we word our negotiation, I think, because on the one hand we are denying that the debt is enforceable - but on the other hand we are offering partial payment of it, thus acknowledging it.

This is not territory I am familiar with, I'm afraid.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Further to recent posts, the account closure date looks interesting - and I guess, as AC suggests - send a fresh DSAR. They're still in breach of the original one.

[millymollymoo]

Re: CITICARD PPI/ PENALTY CHARGES and CABOT TOO!!!

We did Bill in 2007 and still no reply!!! Should I send again??? Iwas thinking of emailing them a copy of the letter sent and recorded delivery slip as proof, as why should we pay again!!!
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

IMHO, you need to make a SAR to Citi.

Hi Angry Cat would an email with the proof attached suffice? meaning letter and recorded delivery slip?


Milly X

[Bill-K]

Re: CITICARD PPI/ PENALTY CHARGES and CABOT TOO!!!

Worth a try, Milly. It may be worth saying that, although they remain in criminal breach of the DPA by not complying within the prescribed time, their eventual compliance now might be to their advantage.

[millymollymoo]

Re: CITICARD PPI/ PENALTY CHARGES and CABOT TOO!!!

2nd Letter to send combining everything It is Work in Progress and would really like your inpu as to what should be taken out etc as it rambles a wee bit






Off to bed now Nite all

Milly Xxxxxx

[Paul210]

Re: CITICARD PPI/ PENALTY CHARGES and CABOT TOO!!!

Hi all, sorry to jump in but had a quick look at the way this is going and thought I'd offer a few thoughts.

it seems there are 2 options here, either attempt to go down the CCA74 non compliance route and argue debt unenforceable, is a risky plan as even if you can defend any actions by Cabot on this basis after McGuffickvRBS case they still have the option to note the balance and default with CRA's so doesnt acheive your original aim of removing default from cred file.

the other option (and best IMHO) if to go down the route of negotiating a settlement of the account, factors in your favour include debatable levels of charges and ppi made to the account, failure of citi to comply with DPA requests and failure of CITI and Cabot to comply with CCA requests. Further the fact the account is with a DCA means that the expected return on this will be reduced anyway. I would definately make an offer to clear the account with a lump sum/monthly payment or combination of the 2 (assuming your in a financial position to do so). This means you can save some money on the outstanding balance, win a slight moral victory by reducing the amount you pay them and recover something by way of reduction due to charges/ppi.

If going down the settlement route there are a few very basic rules to remember -
1. never make a payment until you have confirmation of the terms of the agreeement in writing, too many peaople make an agreement over the phone only for the DCA to not recall the conversation and conveniently be unable to recover a call recording, always get in writing!.
2. When making an offer always state the offer is in "full and final settlement" of the debt, this stops them taking your payment and then reneging in the deal and chasing for the balance.
3. make sure you list all the terms you want in your offer i.e. removal of reference to debt with CRA's, its no good trying to do get this after the event as no guarauntee they'll play ball.
4. even when you have an agreement, pay by cheque and in the covering letter state that by cashing the cheque they are in agreement with whatever terms you made, this way there is a basic contract and they cant renege on the deal.

theres plenty of people on here with experience of doing this so feel free to draft up letters and get them checked on here, if you want me to look over a draft/assist then pm me.