Have obtained judgement in default against Citi - CC charges.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Have obtained judgement in default against Citi - CC charges.

I would suggest the FOS, after first contacting them directly and explaining your thoughts as to why the default should not be there.

In my Citi case (niddy v Opus or whatever) I had the derogatory markers ordered removed by the FOS as had they not inconvenienced me to start with, I would have paid but because of THEIR error it was out of my control and thus the default was unlawful thus had to go.

The FOS get these things right sometimes so worth a formal complaint to whoever holds the account first.

Good luck

[panther12]

Re: Have obtained judgement in default against Citi - CC charges.

Thanks NID, to be honest mate I don't think that getting this one default removed will make any difference to the friends credit worthiness considering the amount of other defaults they have. DLC know they aren't going get the money back so might as well just wait till they all drop off the cra's. Will let things lie for now but I guess if DLC sell this debt onto another dca then that would give the green light to go after dlc and reclaim all the charges that they applied to the account before they sold it on.

If it helps anyone else, here is the PoC we successfully used to reclaim the charges from Citi.

• The Claimant entered into an agreement (“The Agreement”) with the Defendant on or around October 2001 whereby the Defendant was to advance credit facilities to the Claimant under a running credit account, Account Number XXXX("The Account").

• The Agreement essentially consisted of the Defendant providing the Claimant with a credit card (“The Card”) which would allow the Claimant to make purchases and receive cash advances on credit. In return the Defendant was entitled to charge interest at the published rate.

• The Agreement was a Regulated Agreement for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

• At all material times the contract was subject to the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions which could be varied from time to time.

Summary

• Throughout the course of the Agreement, the Defendant has added numerous default charges to the Account for the Claimant’s failure to make the minimum payment on the due date and or for exceeding the credit limit and or if a payment is returned. (Full particulars are set out in schedule 2).

• The default charges were applied in accordance with the standard terms of The Agreement which were:

a) A penalty payable on breach of contract and thus unenforceable: and

b) An unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“The Regulations”) and therefore not binding on the Claimant.

• The Claimant is accordingly entitled to repayment of the sums wrongly added to the Account.

The Charges

• The standard Terms of the Agreement in substance provided as follows:

a) The Defendant would provide the Claimant with the Card. The Claimant was entitled to use the Card to make purchases and receive cash advances up to a credit limit (“the Limit”) set by the Defendant. The Defendant could unilaterally change the Limit by giving the Claimant notice in writing.

b) The Defendant was entitled to charge interest on the purchases and cash advances at the published rate.

c) The Claimant was to pay the minimum payment of 3% of the amount owed or £5 (whichever was the greatest) by the due date as notified in the monthly statements.

d) In addition the Defendant was entitled to charge default fees (“the Charges”) where the Claimant exceeded the Limit, did not pay on the due date, or had a payment returned. The Charges are currently £12 and prior to 2006 the Charges were £25.

Penalty

• The Charges were payable on breach of contract by the Claimant.

• The amount of the Charges exceeded any genuine pre-estimate of the damage which would have been suffered by the Bank in relation to the Claimant’s transgressions.

• In the premises the Charges were punitive and a penalty and thus unenforceable at common law.

The Regulations

• At all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the Regulations.

• At all material times the terms of the Agreement providing for the Charges were unfair within regulation 5 of the Regulations in that contrary to the requirement of good faith they caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the Claimant.

• Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will refer to the following matters in support of the contention that the terms are to be assessed as unfair as at the time of the conclusion of the Agreement, and of each revision to the Standard Terms.

(a) The terms relating to Charges were standard terms; they would not be individually negotiated.
(b) The Charges were a penalty for breach of contract.

(c) The Charges exceeded the costs which the Bank could have expected to incur in dealing with the exceeding of the credit limit, late payment or returned payment.

(d) Accordingly the Charges were a disproportionate charge incurred by the Claimant for their failure to meet their contractual obligation and thus within the ambit of Schedule 2 (1) (e) of the Regulations and indicative of an unfair term.

(e) As the Defendant knew, the Charges were of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Agreement as a whole and would not influence the making of the Agreement.

(f) As the Defendant knew, the Claimant had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges.

(g) In the premises, the effect of the Charges would be prejudicial to the customer who incurred them, and cause an imbalance in the relations of the parties to the Agreement by subordinating the customer’s interests to those of the Defendant in a way which was inequitable.

• Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will contend that the terms’ imposing the Charges are not core terms under regulation 6 of the Regulations and relies on the following matters.

(a) The assessment of fairness does not relate to terms which define the main or core subject matter of the Agreement.

(b) The assessment of fairness does not relate to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the goods or services supplied in exchange (in other words, whether or not the relevant services were value for money).

(c) The Charges are correctly described as default charges by the Defendant in the published tariff of charges.

• By reason of the said matters the terms were not binding under regulation 8 of the Regulations.

• The Defendant wrongly applied Charges to the Account totalling some £660.00 between 07/12/2001 and 08/12/2006. Particulars appear within Schedule 2.

• For charges applied to the Account in excess of six years, the Claimant will rely on s32(1)(c) of The Limitation Act 1980.

• On 07/12/2011 the Claimant demanded repayment of the sums wrongly applied.

• Despite the Claimant’s efforts to negotiate settlement prior to the issuing of this claim, the Defendant has not repaid them or any of them.

Remedy

• The Claimant claims;

(a) A declaration that the sums totalling £660.00 have wrongly been applied to the Account.

(b) The Claimant will rebut any assertion from the Defendant that any part of the claim is excluded by default of a time limit and declares that the claim is made under s32(1) The Limitations Act 1980 as per Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council.

(c) Repayment of the said sum of £660.00 plus interest of £396.14 as calculated at 23 January 2012.

(d) Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of payment of the Charges to date in the sum of £396.14, and at the daily rate of 0.022% until judgment or sooner payment.

(e) Court costs of £80.

I believe that the facts stated in these particulars, comprising of four pages, are true.

Dated


Signed............................................ ...........(Claimant)

[panther12]

Re: Have obtained judgement in default against Citi - CC charges.

Oh and if anyone is interested I have a copy of the past 6 years CCJ’s registered against Citi. It’s in the public domain but save yourself £4 as I’ve got a copy up to 24/02/12. After all these threats of CCJ’s by the banks and dca’s, it makes a refreshing change to turn the tables and ending up getting the bank issued with a CCJ. Be a shame if it affected their ability to obtain future credit