NYS A/G Office Mediates VOD Request

[dochand]

I've posted earlier regarding the NYS A/G agreeing to assist me with my VOD request to CitiFinancial.

The latest response was received today. The mediator from the A/G's office is "pleased to advise" me "that the company has agreed to our request to resolve your complaint. Of course, if the company fails to keep their commitment, kindly write to notify us. On behalf of Attorney General Spitzer, we are glad to have assisted you."

Enclosed with this cover letter is a copy of a letter from CitiFinancial to the A/G.

"Your letter regarding dochand has been forwarded to this office. This account was financed by CitiFinancial Retail Services Division of Citicorp Trust Bank, fsb (the "Bank"), a federal savings bank regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision and not by CitiFinancial licensed under New York State Law. Nonetheless, we welcome this opportunity to assist you.

The Bank has previously responded to dochand regarding this matter.

We received a letter from dochand on June 7, 2004 in which he claimed he was paying his account by means of a "promissory note". The "promissory note" enclosed with dochand's letter did not discharge his responsibility for the account. The Bank did not receive a payment from dochand during June 2004.

Dochand was sent a copy of the signed credit application for the account. Another copy of the application is enclosed with this letter, along with copies of the signed sales receipts for the purchases financed on this account. Dochand remains liable for payment of the account balance according to the terms of his agreement with the Bank.

We have made note on the account of dochand's request to stop collection telephone calls to his home.

If you have any additional questions or concerns, please contact me at (xxx) xxx-xxxx, ext. xxxx."

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Aadland
Senior Research Analyst

Attached to the copy of the CitiFinancial letter is a copy of a credit application and three 'merchant copy' receipts.

First, if the promissory note was not accepted as 'payment' to discharge the alleged debt, why hasn't it been returned, as I have requested in several subsequent letters to CitiFinancial?

Second, CitiFinancial never sent any 'copy of the signed credit application for the account." The only correspondence ever received from them was notice that the matter is under investigation, monthly statements and separate monthly requests for past due amounts. The copy of the signed credit application included with the A/G's letter is the first one that I've seen since requesting VOD June 1, 2004.

So many questions - but uppermost is where to go at this juncture?

Should a response be made to the A/G regarding what I have mentioned above? It appears to me, from the cover letter that the A/G's office feels that this is a done deal.

Should demand be made for return of the PN (that has probably already been monetized)?

Should demand be made, again, to see the original notes with original signatures?

Any thoughts and/or suggestions, for research purposes only, will be gladly entertained.

Doc

[sadie]

I have found that filing complaints with FTC OCC AG and others result in their claiming that they have obtained verification and so you now owe the debt.

Instead of this working to our benefit it is becoming a hindrance. The bank now has their letters against us.

It is all so much bull ****

I wouldn't bother responding to the AG as it is clear they are on the side of the banks.

Go after the bank regarding not returning your note. Use HJR192.