Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 101 to 125 of 125

Thread: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

  • Share
  • Thread Tools
  • Display
  1. #101
    Rico's Avatar

    Member



    Joined
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    214
    Mentions
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Quote Originally Posted by gravytrain View Post
    no such proof in Noddys case.
    Just the bank admitting it and the judge acknowledging it!

  2. #102
    gravytrain's Avatar

    Senior Member



    Joined
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,098
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rico View Post
    Just the bank admitting it and the judge acknowledging it!
    They acknowledged misplacing the marker not the existence of any resultant damages.

  3. #103
    Rico's Avatar

    Member



    Joined
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    214
    Mentions
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Quote Originally Posted by gravytrain View Post
    Realistically the tort is breach of duty of care under statute.

    Much of the earlier case law had no statutory authority to rely on, not so in Noddys case.
    Hi GT,

    Noddy was relying on negligent misrepresentation, as am I. It seems to be working for me.

    Our only problem is the judges!

    Are you suggesting the government has written a new law since 2008 that supercedes my case?

    I've been asking for nearly a decade now. Each time I'm told that they "can't get involved"!

    Halliday ruling was last November. Noddy submitted his claim before that. How can it be used against him?

    Cheers,

    Rico.

  4. #104
    Rico's Avatar

    Member



    Joined
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    214
    Mentions
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Quote Originally Posted by gravytrain View Post
    They acknowledged misplacing the marker not the existence of any resultant damages.
    In acknowledging misplacing the marker (damaging creditworthiness) general damages are due without proof of specific loss. It is written. Still!

    Rico

  5. #105
    gravytrain's Avatar

    Senior Member



    Joined
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,098
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rico View Post
    Hi GT,

    Noddy was relying on negligent misrepresentation, as am I. It seems to be working for me.

    Our only problem is the judges!

    Are you suggesting the government has written a new law since 2008 that supercedes my case?

    I've been asking for nearly a decade now. Each time I'm told that they "can't get involved"!

    Halliday ruling was last November. Noddy submitted his claim before that. How can it be used against him?

    Cheers,

    Rico.
    Your case may well have been negligent misrepresentation (haven't read it yet)but from the description, Noddies was just breach of duty of care. So we are talking about damages, or lack of.

    The case law merely illustrates the way the law works, if Halliday didn't exist the principles would still apply.

  6. #106
    gravytrain's Avatar

    Senior Member



    Joined
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,098
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rico View Post
    In acknowledging misplacing the marker (damaging creditworthiness) general damages are due without proof of specific loss. It is written. Still!

    Rico
    This is not the way the law works Rico, you can only claim damages in a civil suit. As you said earlier general damages still have to exist.

  7. #107
    MrN's Avatar

    Junior Member



    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    5
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rico View Post

    Halliday ruling was last November. Noddy submitted his claim before that. How can it be used against him?
    The barrister even got awya with questionning about when I wrote to HSBC asking them to settle before issue of proceedings. However, when I bought up the past it was considered as "irrelevant" she hardly referred to the particulars.

    This is why I say LiPs should get a legal rep or get ripped off.

  8. #108
    Rico's Avatar

    Member



    Joined
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    214
    Mentions
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrN View Post
    The barrister even got awya with questionning about when I wrote to HSBC asking them to settle before issue of proceedings. However, when I bought up the past it was considered as "irrelevant" she hardly referred to the particulars.

    This is why I say LiPs should get a legal rep or get ripped off.
    I had a legal rep, 2 in fact, in Edinburgh. If the judge doesn't care, the judge doesn't care. Sadly, your judge didn't care. It's not you. It's her.

    Good particulars may have sealed the deal but I've a notion that, with that judge, you were always doomed. Not just you but society as a whole. She's done plenty of damage.

    Fortunately, for those following, there's hope in the Supreme Court. I'd be quite keen to see what happens to her if she ignores them next year. Judges without a sense of justice - a court isn't the right place for them - perhaps some appropriate community service would help bring them back to their senses.

  9. #109
    Rico's Avatar

    Member



    Joined
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    214
    Mentions
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Quote Originally Posted by gravytrain View Post
    Noddies was just breach of duty of care. So we are talking about damages, or lack of.
    Noddy used my case. In using my case, it follows that he was applying for general damages for damage to creditworthiness due to a negligent misrepresentation.

    The general damages are the damage to his creditworthiness which, as Sheriff Tierney has mentioned, having considered the case law, does not require proof of specific loss. This was ratified in Scotland's highest court and will be ratified in the Supreme Court in due course.

    Further, HFC agreed that damages of this order were due simply for the mere injury to credit.

    Now, all I'm proposing is that folk with wrongful defaults that want to help prevent the banks defaulting others (because they know first hand what damage it can do) simply fire in a simple small claim, based just on my case (It'll be the first of it's kind in the Supreme Court next January)

    It's easy to follow and it's not necessary to get bogged down with all the statute law.

    Just refer to the default as a negligent misrepresentation and claim general damages for damage to creditworthiness, to be assessed by the court in a similar manner to Durkin v DSG & HFC.

    If you're in Nottingham or Edinburgh, it might be best to wait until the New Year (It's still better than 6! - closer to 7 actually if one considers the preliminary markers)

    I'm unsure that there's much more I can add but I'm keen to see justice served.

    Good luck to you all. May the odds be in your favour.

    Rico

  10. #110
    MrN's Avatar

    Junior Member



    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    5
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Rico regardless of the particulars, the Judge acknowlegded the issues and said she wont award due to no specific loss - specific loss is impossible as the bank admits the fault, so it admits it means it's pardoned? Maybe we should commit some crime and expect to be pardoned but hey that's different.

    Next time if there is a case I shall relocate so I can be allocated to a consumer favourable court

  11. #111
    Rico's Avatar

    Member



    Joined
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    214
    Mentions
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrN View Post
    she wont award due to no specific loss - specific loss is impossible as the bank admits the fault, so it admits it means it's pardoned? Maybe we should commit some crime and expect to be pardoned but hey that's different.

    Next time if there is a case I shall relocate so I can be allocated to a consumer favourable court
    She shouldn't be judging. You weren't claiming a specific loss and better judges than her, including those at the Supreme Court will and have already confirmed that you don't need to. Further HSBC's subsidiary QC accepted it at my appeal.

    There's probably a better judge at Nottingham, including the top judge there. While she's there though and there's the possibility of drawing her, it's best for folk in Nottingham to wait until next year when even "her ladyship" shall be bound. Apparently she likes to be bound, seemingly unable to think for herself what is right and wrong. Shocking. A let down to society.

    Meanwhile you may as well go and join the merry men.

    Cheers,

    Rico.

  12. #112
    gravytrain's Avatar

    Senior Member



    Joined
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,098
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Finally got around to reading your case Rico, very interesting, here is hoping the appeal goes your way regarding the joint liability issue.
    Regarding the default issue, it seems pretty sure that there was negligence and, as the judge said, they were aware of the dispute and failed to investigate it when they placed the marker, somewhat different than a creditor placing a DN in error sadly.

  13. #113
    Rico's Avatar

    Member



    Joined
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    214
    Mentions
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Cheers GT,

    I'm disappointed there's so much to read. Lawyers making a simple thing complicated in the interests of themselves. Sickening.

    Yes, my case as a whole is very different from a wrongful default in "error" (no such thing, all are malicious) hence the necessity for the claim in specific damages.

    Cheers again,

    Rico.

  14. #114
    efpom's Avatar

    Junior Member



    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    4
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    I am currently "appealing" a decision made by Ofgen viz:

    I have one further short submission.It is this:
    The decision maker misdirected himself on the law when he stated:
    You have not indicated to us the credit file has affected your financial position
    such as credit being refused, or prevented you from contracting with
    organisations in your legal/working capacity.
    A person is entitled to recover substantial, rather than nominal, damages for loss of
    reputation without proof of actual damage.The authority for that proposition of law
    is:
    Kpohraror v WoolwichBuilding Society[1996] 4 AER 119,wherethe Court of
    Appeal said the following in relation to general damages:
    “The credit rating of individuals is as important for their personal transactions,
    including mortgages and hire-purchase as well as banking facilities, as it is for
    those who are engaged in trade, and it is notorious that central registers are
    now kept. I would have no hesitation in holding that what is in effect a
    presumption of some damage arises in every case, in so far as this is a
    presumption of fact." Per Evans LJ.
    That case was cited, with approval, by the Supreme Court in Durkin (Appellant) v
    DSG Retail Limited and another (Respondents) (Scotland)[2014] UKSC 21, where
    inter alia Supreme Court refused to overturn a general damages awardof £8,000 made
    by the first instance Court in March 2008.
    Paragraph 115 of thefirst instance Court’s judgment states:-The case of King v British Linen & Co dealt with the situation where there
    had been no specific damage. The only loss which the pursuer had occurred
    sustained was the loss to his credit standing. That was valued by the sheriff at
    £100 in 1897, a figure which was not interfered with in the Inner House. It is
    clear that the reason that the Inner House did not consider it appropriate to
    interfere with it was because they were dealing with a case where, in the
    words of Lord Kinnear, "No exact measure" of damages could be fixed. The
    case is clear authority to the effect that award of damages can be made for
    simple injury to credit although noactual loss is sustained.
    Paragraph 117 of the judgment states:-Had there been no finding of specific loss in this case, I would have had no
    hesitation in finding that an award of damages for the mere injury to credit
    was appropriate. In modern societycredit plays a very big part in the conduct
    of the daily lives of a significant portion of the population. The financial
    services industry is constantly advertising loans, credit cards, store cards,
    mortgages, consolidation accounts etc. To have one's credit worthiness
    impugned so that one is at risk of being unable to obtain credit on the grounds
    that he is not credit worthy is, if anything, a more significant matter for the
    individual than it would have been at the time of King, over a hundred years
    ago.Mr Beynon has submitted that a figure of £10,000 would be appropriate.
    The figure of £100 awarded by the sheriff and left standing by the Inner House
    in King v British Linen translates, according to the Office of National
    Statistics Publication "Focus on consumer price indices" 2008, table 5/3, to
    £9,975 in the year 2008. The figure of £5,500 awarded to an individual in
    Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society 1996 4All ER 119 was not interfered
    with by the Court of Appeal in 1996 and, in today's figures, would be worth
    £8,215.
    See: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/A187_04.html.
    In arriving at a recommended settlement figure, the decision maker has simply
    adopted the settlement figure proposed by British Gas Trading Limited, and in
    consequence, has abrogated his duty to independently determine a proper settlement
    figure, in accordance with the law. That abrogation is an error of law.
    The settlement figure if calculated, in accordance with the more conservative of the
    two formulae describedby the Court, in the last sentence of 117, would, if my
    arithmetic is correct, be £9,251.42, and I submit that to be the starting point for any
    recommend settlement figure, with an uplift to compensateme for my time spent in
    attempting to resolve the matter, and for distress.
    I therefore invite the Ombudsman to make a recommended award at the statutory cap
    of £10,000.

  15. #115
    Rico's Avatar

    Member



    Joined
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    214
    Mentions
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Good Luck.

  16. #116
    ncf355's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,261
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Further piece here on the impact of Rico's case:

    HERE

  17. #117
    ironman's Avatar

    Member



    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    137
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Just butting in, i thought that there is no longer an offence as to Duty of care

    It is now negligence, lord Denning

    http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html

  18. #118
    ncf355's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,261
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Well,

    Denning as you say stated that in 1932, whereas the Supreme court stated duty of care for Rico's case in the last para (40) of the judgment and that was only this year?
    Last edited by ncf355; 10th August 2014 at 19:25:PM.

  19. #119
    stockport6's Avatar

    Junior Member



    Joined
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    10
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    I need Help. I have a wrongful default on my files. The DCA have told me and the FOS in writing on numerous occasions that the debt is not mine yet when the CRA contacts them to remove it the say they cannot and to leave it on. how is this legal.

    the DCA have offered me £250 for years of harassment. in Jan 2014 they said it was not mine and that all records will be updated but the default stayed on. in June 2015 they sent me a CCJ from the courts for the same thing they had admitted was not mine in Jan 14. I reported it to FOS who at first said they could not look into it as it was after 6 months since the first admission. Well unless I had a crystal ball how was I supposed to know they would not honour their word,

    The FOS have finally taken it on but seemed to side with DCA even with all the evidence I provided. I have given FOS until 10th nov to settle this but I am not holding my breathe. I need to look at court action now and need some guidance on what to do and how much it is going to cost me.

    just to add Lowell have confirmed the following to FOS
    Lowell has also confirmed that they have no debts that they are holdingyou responsible for"
    “Lowell acceptsthat they may have caused you distress and inconvenience when contacting you.”
    “Lowell has confirmed that they accept that the account thatthey were contacting you about, is not yours.”

    this is from the CRA
    *Lowell Portfolio ILtd (Account Started 22/09/2008)

    They have provided following details,

    "Our Complaints team are investigating this account and are incommunication with the Financial Ombudsman. The case summary was forwarded toto the, on the 12/08/15 and we are awaiting their response. Once an outcome isknown, if an amendment is needed we will action this in due course."

    They've confirmed that this information is accurate, so I'm afraid I can't makeany changes to it.



  20. #120
    Rico's Avatar

    Member



    Joined
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    214
    Mentions
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Hi,

    I'm up to my eyes just now fighting for justice in a related claim.

    You should be able to claim general damages in a small claim based on Durkin v DSG & HFC.

    I think a small claim costs £100 but exemptions can be applied for if you're on low income or benefits.

    I'm in the process of suing for defamation instead.

    If you keep things in the Small Claims court your expenses will be limited. If £10k or less is enough that's what to do.

    Avoid accepting an FOS settlement if you want more than they offer.

    Cheers,

    Rico

  21. #121
    R0b's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    4,063
    Mentions
    661 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Hi Rico,

    Have you also considered negligence, breach of contract and malicious falsehood as part of your claim? Or are you just going on the basis of defamation?

  22. #122
    pt2537's Avatar

    LB Team Member



    Joined
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4,028
    Mentions
    299 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Im kinda concerned that Henderson v Henderson may catch you here as you have already litigated these issues or at least similar issues to this and therefore you should have brought the other claims at the same time

  23. #123
    Rico's Avatar

    Member



    Joined
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    214
    Mentions
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Hi Rob,

    I''ve based the new claim on fraud. The bank created an account in my name knowing that nothing was being bought. No breach of contract as there shouldn't have been one. Malicious falsehood is now the primary claim for damages following the conspiracy to defraud by unlawful means, the fraudulent misrepresentation and ongoing intentional harm.

    Fraud then rather than mere negligence.

    Cheers,

    Rico.

  24. #124
    Rico's Avatar

    Member



    Joined
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    214
    Mentions
    1 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Quote Originally Posted by pt2537 View Post
    Im kinda concerned that Henderson v Henderson may catch you here as you have already litigated these issues or at least similar issues to this and therefore you should have brought the other claims at the same time
    Thanks PT,

    Concerns noted. Fraud shouldn't be considered "similar" to negligence. If we had litigated all the different ways I've been shafted by the bank we'd never have finished.

    The bank knows well that it's shafted us and continues to do so. Expecting to get away with it on the basis that it was with a lead piping rather than a candlestick with the help of a bent judiciary isn't how things should be.

    Res judicata wasn't introduced to defeat justice but many perpetrators are being allowed to use it as a defence. It's time for the abuse to end. The problem is possibly that the judiciary has become too rotten and untouchable.

    Henderson wasn't actually quoted. A whole heap of other meaningless twaddle has been though.

    Cheers,

    Rico

  25. #125
    rodejayi172's Avatar

    Junior Member



    Joined
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    3
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

    Last April(19) I won a case brought against me by Lowells on an unadmitted debt passed on to them by EE.Started in 2010 .I represented myself.Judge struck out the case that there was no visible agreement, claimants couldn't prove claim with documents and that the claim lacked merit.For upwards of 7 years my credit worthiness was under rabid attack from EE and Lowells.Plus a carefully prepared cocktail of threats, harrassment by letters, nuisance phone calls.Was refused credit on many occasions.The default notice was wrongfully issued on a phantom debt......the main reason case was thrown out. Do I have any grounds for claiming damages for damaging my credit worthiness from either Lowells or EE?

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Similar Threads

  1. The damage this freeman garbage is doing
    By miliitant in forum Debt Collection Agencies
    Replies: 42
    : 18th February 2013, 12:37:PM
  2. Damages
    By schwartzie in forum General Legal Issues
    Replies: 1
    : 14th September 2011, 16:31:PM
  3. Damage to Sofa and Chair
    By yellowplum in forum Consumer and Civil Rights
    Replies: 0
    : 20th January 2011, 11:46:AM
  4. Vauxhall Signum, engine damage?
    By Padmiester in forum Vehicle Finance and Issues
    Replies: 6
    : 21st July 2010, 20:23:PM
  5. Claiming from council for damage to car
    By macca in forum Consumer and Civil Rights
    Replies: 2
    : 6th October 2009, 14:04:PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Contact Us



© Celame (UK) Ltd 2016
Hosted by Lodge Information Services Ltd
LegalBeagles® are DPA Registered No. ZA158014
LegalBeagles® is the trading name of CELAME (UK) LIMITED ( 09220332 )
Registered Address: 25 Moorgate, London, England, EC2R 6AY
VAT registration number 206 9740 02
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.3 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Celame (UK) Ltd Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

To find out more about managing your money and getting free advice, visit the Money Advice Service,an independent service set up to help people manage their money.

TOP