Re: Citi Preliminary asking for costs too - Help needed Please
Letter to Citi asking for refund 12th May 2007
POC submitted 6th July 2007
Defence to the Claim submitted 31 July 2007
I dispute the full amount claimed
1. The Defendant is a Credit Card company whose registered office is at etc
2. The Defendant admits that it operates a credit card business at etc
3. The Defendant furthur admits that the claimant currently has a credit card account (?the Agreement?) with the defendant which was opened in or about August 2003 and avers that the outstanding balance on the account as at the day of filing is £280.21.
4. The Defendant admits that the Agreement with the claimant contains terms entitling the Defendant to levy late payment and overlimit charges and avers that the claimant knew and agreed to such clauses at the time of entering into the agreement.
5. The Defendant denies that :
5.1. the charges exceed the defendant?s losses caused by such breaches:
5.2 the term permitting the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable under the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999, the unfair contract terms act 1977 and at common law; and or:
5.3 unreasonable under section 15 of the supply of goods and services Act 1982 and puts the claimant to strict proof of this by reference to specific cases,citation of relevant sections of Acts or Regulations.
6. The Defendant denies that it unlawfully debited the claimants account. The Defendant submits that the claimant has failed to particularize the same and puts the claimant to strict proof of the sum claimed by reference to dates and amounts.
7. The Defendant admits that, during the life of the account, the sum of £300 (net of 1 refund of £25 overlimit fee) was debited to the claimant?s account by way of late payment and over limit fees as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement which the Claimant entered into with the Defendant.
8. The Claimant is claiming as a money claim a sum equivalent to that which he claims was unlawfully debited to his account over the term of the agreement in over limit charges and late payment fees. This claim is entirely based on the recent OFT statement on the alleged unfairness of such default fees. The OFT stated that the level at which default charges, though not the principle of default charging itself, was unfair in the context of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999. It also reported that the charges were, in its opinion, a penalty contrary to common law principles of damages for breach of contract.
9. The Defendant has agreed to obide by the OFT report and adopt a lower level of default fees which it has set at the new industry standard of £12. Over the lifetime of this account the claimant has set its charges at £25. The Defendant has made an ex gratia refund of the difference between £25 and the current default charge of £12. This amounts to £156 and this sum is being credited to the claimants account.
10. The Defendant avers that it does not owe the claimant any furthur monies claimed whether on the basis of the case stated or at all.
11. The Defendant avers that the claimants claim is not a money claim but damages action and furthur avers that the claimants interest calculation is not applicable to this action or if it is that it is set out without particularity and the
It stops there hadnt noticed at the time it is typed into a N98 form and there is no more space in that block!
Letter to Citi asking for refund 12th May 2007
POC submitted 6th July 2007
Defence to the Claim submitted 31 July 2007
I dispute the full amount claimed
1. The Defendant is a Credit Card company whose registered office is at etc
2. The Defendant admits that it operates a credit card business at etc
3. The Defendant furthur admits that the claimant currently has a credit card account (?the Agreement?) with the defendant which was opened in or about August 2003 and avers that the outstanding balance on the account as at the day of filing is £280.21.
4. The Defendant admits that the Agreement with the claimant contains terms entitling the Defendant to levy late payment and overlimit charges and avers that the claimant knew and agreed to such clauses at the time of entering into the agreement.
5. The Defendant denies that :
5.1. the charges exceed the defendant?s losses caused by such breaches:
5.2 the term permitting the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable under the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999, the unfair contract terms act 1977 and at common law; and or:
5.3 unreasonable under section 15 of the supply of goods and services Act 1982 and puts the claimant to strict proof of this by reference to specific cases,citation of relevant sections of Acts or Regulations.
6. The Defendant denies that it unlawfully debited the claimants account. The Defendant submits that the claimant has failed to particularize the same and puts the claimant to strict proof of the sum claimed by reference to dates and amounts.
7. The Defendant admits that, during the life of the account, the sum of £300 (net of 1 refund of £25 overlimit fee) was debited to the claimant?s account by way of late payment and over limit fees as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement which the Claimant entered into with the Defendant.
8. The Claimant is claiming as a money claim a sum equivalent to that which he claims was unlawfully debited to his account over the term of the agreement in over limit charges and late payment fees. This claim is entirely based on the recent OFT statement on the alleged unfairness of such default fees. The OFT stated that the level at which default charges, though not the principle of default charging itself, was unfair in the context of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999. It also reported that the charges were, in its opinion, a penalty contrary to common law principles of damages for breach of contract.
9. The Defendant has agreed to obide by the OFT report and adopt a lower level of default fees which it has set at the new industry standard of £12. Over the lifetime of this account the claimant has set its charges at £25. The Defendant has made an ex gratia refund of the difference between £25 and the current default charge of £12. This amounts to £156 and this sum is being credited to the claimants account.
10. The Defendant avers that it does not owe the claimant any furthur monies claimed whether on the basis of the case stated or at all.
11. The Defendant avers that the claimants claim is not a money claim but damages action and furthur avers that the claimants interest calculation is not applicable to this action or if it is that it is set out without particularity and the
It stops there hadnt noticed at the time it is typed into a N98 form and there is no more space in that block!
Comment