Kafka v Citi

[Kafka]

Well this is a long saga...

I requested the statements back in July, but with no response I have recently complained to the Information Commissioner about them.

Anyway, the neat parcel arrived Saturday, with a letter saying that a delivery in August could not be made and as I had not responded to the postie's card (I've never seen) then they are trying again.

So now I have them and it comes to over 1000. These people broke a repayment arrangement with them and sold it on to a company that were totally unreasonable, resulting in a charging order because of this. This is a grudge one. :fight:
:gun:

The prelim letter goes tomorrow.

[WendyB]

Re: Kafka v Citi

Good luck with this one Kafka, i know they're a slippery crew to deal with. I'm weakining on mine already, and I haven't even had an offer yet.

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka v Citi

Looks like I didn't update this one.

I sent Prelim Letter 13 Nov.

They replied 20 Nov saying they would look into my query. The letter states that they they will provide a full written response within 10 working days, and 80% of all Section 75 claims are remedied within 21 days, subject to verification. They say they will write again after 4 weeks if they have not resolved the complaint.

They haven't done any of these things, and I feel an LBA coming on.

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka v Citi

LBA has gone today for this one

[Tools]

Re: Kafka v Citi

A new found fire in yer belly after the Lloyds result maybe ?

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka v Citi

No no, sent this LBA before the Lloyds letter arrived.

Just expect these people to fight and as the Welsh courts stay everything there seemed no rush to chase them. As its over 1000 I wouldn't expect them to just pay up, but in light of the strange LTSB result I suppose anything could happen.

The other 2 credit cards left after these are Goldfish and the other LTSB. Both have been SARd and are many months overdue do have had to complain to the IC. They are on the case, but it does seem to take an age to get a result. As they are both old and closed accounts, by the time I get the statements I will have lost a load of old charges if they cut off at 6 years. I suspect this is part of the plan as no real action will be taken about their non-compliance, which will probably save them repaying 100s of my money with 6 years interest too.

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka v Citi

Well Citi have finally responded after 4 months, to say how wonderful they are and that they're not going to pay up.

I was planning to file some cases next week anyway so this one will be going in. Claim is for over 1000 and with CI it doubles.

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka v Citi

I have now read elsewhere that many Claimants have received the same letter from Citi.

After saying how good they are etc....

From 28 June 2006 onwards we lowered our charges to the OTF recommended rate of £12. This change is not retrospective in effect.

Citi Cards does not believe that the T&Cs of the Agreement are in any way unlawful or unfair. Citi Cards recognises that customers sometimes exceed their Credit Limits and/or fail to make a payment and has systems and processes in place to deal with this. These include the use of computer systems, staff and other necessary costs. The charges set out in condition 12 of the Agreement are calculated by taking into account the costs incurred by Citi in maintaining these systems and processes. These charges therefore represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused to Citi by customers who break the terms of their Agreement.

We have successfully argued the fairness of the above policy and the fairness of the £12 charges in court, with the result that claims have been 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 damage for breach of contract.

An interesting point here is that none of the charges in the claim fall after the 2006 statement, so the comments about current issues don't apply to me. They have basically failed to comment on historic charges.

[scoobydoo]

Re: Kafka v Citi

So does that sound like they are subject to claimants bringing cases that even £12.00 is unfair? Sorry I am not up on CC claims I thought that claims were normally as yours - for the pre £12.00 recommendation?

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka v Citi

I'm not clear what lies behind this, which is why I posted the text.

What is clear is that they are making a big deal out of the 'sytems' that they have to put in place to deal with breaches, with all the items that make it a major cost. This is connected to them trying to consolidate a claim that their penalty charges are genuine pre-estimates to cover cost.

In fact, Citi were the highest chargers I had and when everyone else charged £20 for items they charged £25. So if you could not pay because of the arrears caused by charges, they charged 25 for late and another 25 for going overlimit, even if you were already overlimit. All of this was automated, with no letters being sent, so they charged £50 effectively for automated updating of records and adding charges to your account.

They are refusing to deal with the pre-2006 excess and have no intention of offering anything back. Interesting claim that they have won cases in court that upheld their charges as fair.

[scoobydoo]

Re: Kafka v Citi

yes wonder if you wrote back and asked them to detail those cases what the reply would be?

I have just got stung by A&L again - my sons payment for keep went wrong as he was trying to adjust it ( he is young and not experienced with changing standing orders ) and as it is just an account for paying bills I did not realise it had gone OD. they have changed the charging system and I did not open my post until the weekend as busy. It still hurts! the worse thing is it still take days to transfer money across so it soon mounts up.

[WendyB]

Re: Kafka v Citi

Kafka, that sounds much like the letter they sent to me, except t took them ages, then I had a letter refunding the £13 for each charge and writng off xxx, ex gratia payment etc. Wrote back accepting as a partial. But haven't got round to filing N1 for the rest yet. They said if i took it to court they would defend etc, move it to Salford blah blah. Oh yes, and they've successfully defended loads of cases (according to them) When I asked by telephone if they could enlighten me as to what these cases were, as pbviously there was no need for secrecy as they must be a matter of public record if they'd won, the bloke ummed and aahed then came back and said he wasn't at liberty to tell me, i'd have to look them up for myself. Now there's a surprise lol.Faxed them a reply stating my intention to file, but have never had a reply to it. Just need the 30 quid then i'll bung in an N1.

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka v Citi

Well after a brief interlude (LOL) I was finally in court today with Citi facing a barrister. Although I won the claim and will get the amounts above £12 back, I failed to win the argument against £12 and the void charges under UTCCR 8, in what were very difficult circumstances. I did win the Limitation argument and also fought off an attempt at costs for unreasonable behaviour.

I refused a pre-court settlement, largely on the grounds that I was not prepared to sign a gagging clause. As I am no longer needing to keep the documents off main forums, I have placed the key details in a thread at PC to assist others.

Taking Citi to court

Please feel free to refer members to this and contact me if you have any questions.
:santa3:

[Amethyst]

Re: Kafka v Citi

What was the judgment on point 8 of their defence?

Costs bit is here
Penalty Charges Forum (will need to register on PC to view)
Couldnt get much vaguer really - did the disclose this any further to the court or was that ?


Paragraph 11 of their witness statement is interesting - have you FOI'd the OFT on that ? (ahh okay you deem it was covered under Nicks FOI on credit card default fees)

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka v Citi

What was the judgment on point 8 of their defence?

Costs bit is here
Penalty Charges Forum (will need to register on PC to view)
Couldnt get much vaguer really - did the disclose this any further to the court or was that ?

Paragraph 11 of their witness statement is interesting - have you FOI'd the OFT on that ? (ahh okay you deem it was covered under Nicks FOI on credit card default fees)

Point 8 of the defence was flipped in by the barrister and the DJ was clearly not interested in looking further on that point (like others) so I did not push it. In truth, there was little effort made to identify how experienced I was, while the barrister clearly knew the individual judge and was very adept at slipping dodgy items past him.

I did not chase other data, because I really never expected this one to go all the way. Unfortunately I did not see the witness statement before I had to send disclosure documents and so I was unable to focus in time on the key issues that they were planning to defend on. If I could go back I would have focused more on these and send more in the bundle to prepare for it, but I don't know how much it would have helped in the circs.

I am still thinking about how to tie up the thread with recommendations so that others can take them to court better prepared. I think there is a lot of mileage in this and I am pleased to be able to share my info as I did not agree any gagging clause at all.