Settled.... O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

[Guest]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

This was the specific damages that were rejected because the Supreme Court refused to reverse, or even comment on, the Edinburgh judges lawlessness. Itself a matter of law! SCOTISH AWARD

Were the supreme court asked to amend the general damages ?
These were uncontested as mentioned, more recent cases since in English courts which create binding precedent which directly contradicts(smeaton haliday), lower court cases where this judgment was discarded as "irrelevant".

Then we have the law, which says.......

Anyway lets hope the creditors settle in the OPs case or he has a change of heart and decides to plead some actual losses.
TBH I cannot see why he does not, nothing to lose and possibly may swing everything his way.

One thing for sure if he maintains that he is only suing for the misplacement of a Default without suffering any losses he will most certainly loose.

[bigbigproblems]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

Were the supreme court asked to amend the general damages ?
These were uncontested as mentioned, more recent cases since in English courts which create binding precedent which directly contradicts(smeaton haliday), lower court cases where this judgment was discarded as "irrelevant".

Then we have the law, which says.......

Anyway lets hope the creditors settle in the OPs case or he has a change of heart and decides to plead some actual losses.
TBH I cannot see why he does not, nothing to lose and possibly may swing everything his way.

One thing for sure if he maintains that he is only suing for the misplacement of a Default without suffering any losses he will most certainly loose.

Err - I've not said I won't be claiming loss. My loss is damage to credit worthiness. I can show they damaged my credit rating. I can show that they did this with the intention of damaging my creditworthiness. I can show this has a material affect of stopping me gaining credit.

I also point out - look at the recent parking eye case. Each judge will look at the whole picture in a different way. What I do know is that I'm not onto a guaranteed loser. If it was a simple easy case, they would not have instructed a barrister to write the first letter!!!

My view on this is even more simple - by taking this action I am costing them money. I am making them have to act. Even if I "lose" I feel like I win. If everyone who had this happened to them took the same action and lost, then the system would be changed rapidly.

One guy costing £3k (my guess) is nothing to them, 100 people is £300,000, 1000 is £3million, 10,000 is £30million.

My point is when people start acting they will change, whilst people allow this to happen the system will not change. There are two ways for the system the change, wait for the law to change it (might never happen), or make them change... I honestly believe that the people have the power to sort this themselves.

[Guest]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

no such thing as "damage to creditworthiness in a civil claim" as said . If you are going into this to loose, I will leave you to it, I don't do loose.

just thought this is what Rico was saying to noddy at this stage.

Counsel, in my experience, wouldn't usually get out of bed for much less than £1000 per hour.

I doubt they'd tarnish their reputation trying to defend the indefensible. One of DGs lot will have to carry the can for them, I'd have thought. Whoever pulls the short straw for them though should be getting their balls blackened.

Yes £100 may seem pricey but they are cheap in comparison to proper lawyers. I'm certain their hours will have been adjusted to suit.

Many lawyers don't even break down their expenses. It's a bit of a [problem] really and has been accepted for far too long.

Don't worry about their expenses though. That's their business. It's clear that they'll have been better off paying you, as their representitive in my case said they should.

The main problem, as they see it, will be that it'll open the flood gates to end their reign of terror.

It's only a matter of time though. Good always triumphs over evil in the end.

This time next week then, history will have been made (unless they bottle it last minute). Win win for you though. Sweet.

Richard.

[Guest]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

Luck

[bigbigproblems]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

no such thing as "damage to creditworthiness in a civil claim" as said . If you are going into this to loose, I will leave you to it, I don't do loose.

just thought this is what Rico was saying to noddy at this stage.

Counsel, in my experience, wouldn't usually get out of bed for much less than £1000 per hour.

I doubt they'd tarnish their reputation trying to defend the indefensible. One of DGs lot will have to carry the can for them, I'd have thought. Whoever pulls the short straw for them though should be getting their balls blackened.

Yes £100 may seem pricey but they are cheap in comparison to proper lawyers. I'm certain their hours will have been adjusted to suit.

Many lawyers don't even break down their expenses. It's a bit of a [problem] really and has been accepted for far too long.

Don't worry about their expenses though. That's their business. It's clear that they'll have been better off paying you, as their representitive in my case said they should.

The main problem, as they see it, will be that it'll open the flood gates to end their reign of terror.

It's only a matter of time though. Good always triumphs over evil in the end.

This time next week then, history will have been made (unless they bottle it last minute). Win win for you though. Sweet.

Richard.

I'm not setting out to lose anything - I'm simply looking at the worst case scenario.

Who's DG? And what is £100? I'm confused. And I'm not saying that anything will change in a week - but just look at PPI...

How can you "prove loss"? I couldn't get credit because of what they did to me. I can prove that. Isn't that enough?

[Guest]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

How can you "prove loss"? I couldn't get credit because of what they did to me. I can prove that. Isn't that enough?

You can show the judge that you applied for credit and that this credit was refused, you can show that the only entry on your file was the default marker, you can show that the only credit you could get would be a pay day loan and it would cost you xx you therefore would have a to lose sum b - sum a. This is called demonstrating an the possibility of an actual loss.(example only)

Saying you had a default marker on your file for a month but it did you no harm because you never applied for credit anyway is not demonstrating a loss it is demonstrating nothing, no loss no damage no award.

Civil law is not like criminal law, it does not punish, it only pays damages for losses as a result of the tort, but you have to show that you have incurred them, or at least that they are inevitable because of the action of the tortfeasor .

[bigbigproblems]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

You can show the judge that you applied for credit and that this credit was refused, you can show that the only entry on your file was the default marker, you can show that the only credit you could get would be a pay day loan and it would cost you xx you therefore would have a to lose sum b - sum a. This is called demonstrating an the possibility of an actual loss.(example only)

Saying you had a default marker on your file for a month but it did you no harm because you never applied for credit anyway is not demonstrating a loss it is demonstrating nothing, no loss no damage no award.

Civil law is not like criminal law, it does not punish, it only pays damages for losses as a result of the tort, but you have to show that you have incurred them, or at least that they are inevitable because of the action of the tortfeasor .

Right - then we are on the same page.

I only found out when I was refused a mortgage.

I was before this refused a higher credit limit. Now they have quadrupled the limit on my credit card. I can also show santander refused me a 123 credit card - I appealed after the defaults were removed and guess what, they have given me one. I now get 3% back on my fuel and other stuff.

I have copies of my credit file before and after... Before 3 defaults all related to this - now no defaults.

Also note - that O2 have not removed the defaults the DCA's did. They did nothing to remedy it for me.

[Guest]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

Right - then we are on the same page.

I only found out when I was refused a mortgage.

I was before this refused a higher credit limit. Now they have quadrupled the limit on my credit card. I can also show santander refused me a 123 credit card - I appealed after the defaults were removed and guess what, they have given me one. I now get 3% back on my fuel and other stuff.

I have copies of my credit file before and after... Before 3 defaults all related to this - now no defaults.

Also note - that O2 have not removed the defaults the DCA's did. They did nothing to remedy it for me.

Now we are cooking with gas

[Rico]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

Were the supreme court asked to amend the general damages ?

No. I did ask the reps in Edinburgh to suggest that general damages be increased, relative to time. They refused, preferring to obsess themselves with Section 75.

Thus it seems cast in stone. General damages will be set at the judges discretion based roughly on what £8K is worth today. This is close to the £10K small claim limit and adequate for most folk like the OP.

This is possibly not a bad thing as it is best to keep things in the small claims court.

Specific damages above the general damages may well take the claim above £10K which would force the claim right where the criminals lawyers want it. (Unsustainable for most mortals without charitable help)

The Supreme Court didn't need to amend general damages. It was asked to reinstate Specific Damages as the Edinburgh judges had acted unlawfully, tinkering with facts. I had hoped too that in reinstating Specific Damages it would also be minded to correct the maths, towards true reparation. (I had been told that the court prides itself on delivering justice!)

Specific Damages were well evidenced in Aberdeen. It took almost 2 weeks in Aberdeen to go through all the evidence, mostly because of lengthy periods on the stand for all the witnesses and experts.

The more that's put into a claim, the more ammo the other side has to pull the wool over the judges eyes.

more recent cases since in English courts which create binding precedent which directly contradicts(smeaton haliday), lower court cases where this judgment was discarded as "irrelevant".

Smeaton and Haliday are NOT more recent than March 2014 and in any case, the Supreme Court ruling is binding.

My case was probably discarded as irrelevant (as it was in Noddy's) for being Scottish.

The judges were unable to see the common sense aspect that the Supreme Court (to a certain extent) was able to do.

The judiciary is a shambles and I strongly recommend keeping things very simple. Noddy had the right idea and the courage to stick with it. The judges cannot use "It's Scottish" any longer as an excuse to deny justice.

Specific damages may seem simple for the Pursuer. They have lived and suffered. I can assure folk that a good (bad morals) lawyer will make it seem like it's the most complicated thing ever.

It's not worth the stress. Stick to £8Kish for general damages, no proof required beyond showing that the default is/was unlawful.

Rico.

[Guest]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

Sorry RIco the SC made no award re general damages. Nothing is "cast in stone" unfortunately, in fact it is not cast at all. If it were there would be a lot more media coverage on the fact than there is, we would all know about it.

They were unable to interfere with the Scottish court in this either it was a head of loss in the same way as specific damages..

There is not precedent which will bind a UK court and in any case the presence of actual losses when the Scottish decision was made would distinguish it form unsubstantiated damages.

[Guest]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

As an aside. Can you imagine the CMC activity that there would be if this were the case. "Had a wrong default placed ? We can guarantee a payout of 8K".

The papers would be full of em, make PPI look like chicken feed.

[Rico]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

They were unable to interfere with the Scottish court

On matters of law they were able to interfere but chose not to.

The fact that even the criminal judges in Edinburgh didn't interfere with it speaks volumes.

The sheriff's ruling has been ratified by 8 senior judges including 5 at the top, unanimously. Any judge that fails to award general damages for a negligent misrepresentation, from now on, is unlikely to remain a judge.

There is not precedent which will bind a UK court and in any case the presence of actual losses when the Scottish decision was made would distinguish it form unsubstantiated damages.

Supreme Court rulings are binding. Except, as shown in my case, the Supreme Court itself can completely ignore it's previous rulings!

The Abedeen sheriff was quite clear that he'd have awarded general damages even if there had not been any proof of specific loss (Or words to that effect)

Rico.

[Rico]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

As an aside. Can you imagine the CMC activity that there would be if this were the case. "Had a wrong default placed ? We can guarantee a payout of 8K".

The papers would be full of em, make PPI look like chicken feed.

Watch this space!

[teaboy2]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

Rico, perhaps, its best the discussion between you and andy58 about what damages can be awarded and which court can do what, should be held in its own separate thread so not as to confuse the OP of this thread.

Also don't forget that the OP of this thread, could claim damages for libel as a result of false information being given and shared to credit reference agency who then shared with other creditors resulting in refusal for credit. It's not just damages for refusal of credit and loss suffered as a result that the OP can claim for!

[Guest]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

I think the discussion has a direct relevance to the OPs situation and chosen course of action.