I Need Help Please This Is My First Time On This Site.im Sorry If I Put This In The Wrong Spot But I Need Help.got This Letter In The Mail From An Old Credit Card Debt Yes Its Mine.it From Citibank And It Says Notice That Your Delinquent Account Has Been Sent To Our Arbitration Department For Further Review.it Says Now Looking At The Possibility Of Enforcing The Arbitration Clause Which Is Stated In Your Original Contract.and Goes On To Say If They Choose To Arbitrate On Your Account And Receive An Arbitration Award,this Award Is Legally Binding.at Any Time Our Client May Elect To Litigate On Your Account As Opposed To Arbitration.

I Know This Is Long But I Need Help What Does This Mean Please Some One Help I Don't Understand.I Would Love To Pay But They Won't It All It Is 1200 Bucks.

It says that instead of sueing you in court and getting a judgement, that they have the right to use a abrbitrator ( informal hearing) but binding

Send them this, certified mail return receipt

It works very well with those 4-5 years old arbitration clausules
They just want to know if you are going to figth back


--------------------------------------------------------------
FROM:


Re: Account #

TO:



<DATE>


To whom it may concern,

The undersigned hereby refuses and objects to participation in any arbitration process for the following reasons.

(1) There were no existing or legitimate disputes between the parties at the time the claimant made the attempt to include any arbitration provision in any purported agreements.

(A) Additionally, if this clause was part of any original written agreements between the parties, it violates House Resolution 5162 which amends Title 15 USC 1601 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act.
(B) It also violates amendments to the Federal Arbitration Act (S. 192) which make pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements in consumer credit contracts invalid and unenforceable.
(C) Additionally, H.R. 1054 and 3607 that amend the Truth in Lending Act make pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements between a lender and consumer void and unenforceable.

(2) In addition, any arbitration forums chosen by the claimant are unfair and, unconstitutionally violate respondent's rights to due process and they constitute an unfair trade practice as recently established by the California Appellate court.
(A) "The arbitration agreement in a credit cardholder agreement is unconscionable and unenforceable, to the extent it prohibits class treatment of small individual claims, where presented as a 'take it or leave it' clause with no opportunity for negotiation" Szetela v. Discover Bank, No. G029323 (Cal. 4th App. Dist. April 22, 2002)
(B)The purported arbitration clause is not enforceable because it unconscionably requires the respondent to arbitrate in a distant state under an organization and rules designed to favor the purported lender.
(a)Patterson v ITT Consumer Financial Corp. 14 Cal. App. 4th 1659, 18 Cal Rptr 2d 563 (Cal App. 1993)
"The claimant has no authority to unilaterally change any terms of any agreements that may or may not exist between the claimant and respondent. The post-agreement, unilateral arbitration clause is unenforceable because it exceeds the unilateral right of one party to make subsequent, substantive, changes to the agreement, violates the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and because the resulting jury waiver was not unambiguous and unequivocal, as required to waive a constitutional right."

(3)In addition,mandatory arbitration may not be imposed without the MEANINGFUL consent of BOTH parties.
(A)The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that arbitration under the [Federal Arbitration Act (F.A.A.)] is a matter of consent, not coercion.
(a)Allied-Bruce Terminex Co. v. Dobson (1995) 513 U.S. 265, 270;
(b)First Options of Chicago, Inc.
v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 944;
(c)Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. (1995) 514 U.S. 52, 55-56;
(d)Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees (1989) 489 U.S. 468,
478.
(e) AT&T Tech. Inc. v. Communications Workers (1986) 475 U.S. 643, 648:

(4)A party cannot be required to submit to arbitration to any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.

I therefore reiterate, I refuse to accept arbitration and dispute your claim in it's entirety.


Sincerely,