WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

Yes, I made the claim using the online service and it was transferred to my local court.

They made me 3 seperate offers to settle out of court, the last one being a day before the case management conference was due to take place.

I accepted the offer so it went no further.

Well done, It is always worth making claim if you have suffered actual damage, and the creditor may well make a payment to avoid a larger claim for specific damages. However no judgement was made in regards of general damages, nor would oit be in the context of a no losses claim.

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

Going back to Halliday, it seems he did not adequately plead under s.13(1) and so ended up with an award of £1.

However, having allowed £1, the court found that it could make an award for distress under s.13(2), and allowed £750.

Isn't the principle here that it has to be pleaded that loss was incurred - for example, by saying that you lost 3 years of equity accumulation on a property because you couldn't get a mortgage - so that a court can clearly see that there probably was some loss, even if it cannot be exactly quantified?

Once something is awarded under s.13(1), then this opens up a monetary claim for distress at s.13(2) - AFAICS.

I'm just thinking aloud and hoping for comments - I'm not doing anything other than that (honest!).

Yes as said you have to show actual loss, a court will not allow an award for just loss of creditworthiness, you have to show that it had some direct monetary impact.
The generality of the claim can represent the fact that the loss cannot be quantifiable as per Kh but the losses must be "real".

[supasta1]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

Yes, I made the claim using the online service and it was transferred to my local court.

They made me 3 seperate offers to settle out of court, the last one being a day before the case management conference was due to take place.

I accepted the offer so it went no further.

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

Had you not been so upset that I have been questioning your posts, you would have realised that my aim is the same as yours.

May I ask you to remember that this is a public forum and not your own personal lecture theatre?

Thanks for that, I had forgotten. As you know I am quite new to this.

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

Going back to Halliday, it seems he did not adequately plead under s.13(1) and so ended up with an award of £1.

However, having allowed £1, the court found that it could make an award for distress under s.13(2), and allowed £750.

Isn't the principle here that it has to be pleaded that loss was incurred - for example, by saying that you lost 3 years of equity accumulation on a property because you couldn't get a mortgage - so that a court can clearly see that there probably was some loss, even if it cannot be exactly quantified?

Once something is awarded under s.13(1), then this opens up a monetary claim for distress at s.13(2) - AFAICS.

I'm just thinking aloud and hoping for comments - I'm not doing anything other than that (honest!).

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

Well,

just had a further response (the last received prior to the judgment in Rico's case) from the DCA I am requesting compensation from.

Basically stating they stick to their last position that they are not required to pay compensation as the case law I refer to only affects the Scottish courts (despite my having made it perfectly clear this was a ruling in SC, London).

:tinysmile_aha_t:

Yes it is sadly the case. However making a claim is not out of the question of course, you just have to be able to prove financial loiss.

[ncf355]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

Well,

just had a further response (the last received prior to the judgment in Rico's case) from the DCA I am requesting compensation from.

Basically stating they stick to their last position that they are not required to pay compensation as the case law I refer to only affects the Scottish courts (despite my having made it perfectly clear this was a ruling in SC, London).

:tinysmile_aha_t:

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

I would say that it would represent more of a problem for you. My concern is that other people are not misled so the issue becomes a problem for them.

Had you not been so upset that I have been questioning your posts, you would have realised that my aim is the same as yours.

May I ask you to remember that this is a public forum and not your own personal lecture theatre?

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

I made a claim against Natwest for 'General damage to my Creditworthiness' a year ago well before Durkin was heard in the SC and my claim was for the full £8000 as awarded to Durkin previously and they paid out well before the case got to court so things are obviously not as clear cut against us as Andy58 makes out.

Plus the position can only have been strengthened from the SC judgement so I would be pretty confident in making a claim based on this result, especially as you can do it all within the small claims track.

Nothing to lose, plenty to gain...

Interesting was this a court claim ?

[supasta1]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

I made a claim against Natwest for 'General damage to my Creditworthiness' a year ago well before Durkin was heard in the SC and my claim was for the full £8000 as awarded to Durkin previously and they paid out well before the case got to court so things are obviously not as clear cut against us as Andy58 makes out.

Plus the position can only have been strengthened from the SC judgement so I would be pretty confident in making a claim based on this result, especially as you can do it all within the small claims track.

Nothing to lose, plenty to gain...

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

Ouch, bit prickly aren't we Andy? Almost as prickly as my old mate Peter Bard...

Actually, the issue I have is reconciling DPA s.13 with what you have told us, what has happened in Rico's case, and what Halliday and Smeaton say about damages. Is that really such a problem for you? Really sad if it is.


:tinysmile_hmm_t2:

I would say that it would represent more of a problem for you. My concern is that other people are not misled so the issue becomes a problem for them.

[Rico]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

HFC took the word of DSG as being correct.

Much more sinister actually. HFC's agent knowingly created a false account. They knew all along what they were up to.

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

You miss the point(not like you)

The judge and both parties agree that section 13(1) of the DPA only applies to proven financial loss contrary to what you said in several of your posts. There are several other pieces of case law which I could show you but I dare say that you would not read the bits that did not fit into your perceived views either so I will not bother.

Ouch, bit prickly aren't we Andy? Almost as prickly as my old mate Peter Bard...

Actually, the issue I have is reconciling DPA s.13 with what you have told us, what has happened in Rico's case, and what Halliday and Smeaton say about damages. Is that really such a problem for you? Really sad if it is.

Yes, please post the "other pieces of case law" - I can assure you they will be read. I do not, as you claim, have any preconceived notions and you can see for yourself that there are others contemplating litigation purely based on Durkin. Would you not agree it is better to thrash out the arguments here rather than see hopeless claims made?

:tinysmile_hmm_t2:

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

This works only where they act immediately on your claim that the Default is innacurate

In my case, a DCA acted promptly, but then proceeded to add the marker back a further two times (several months apart in each case)

I would imagine it to be quite easy to show clear negligence for this

Yes it sounds like you would, then you would have to demonstrate financial losses. I realize of course that this should not be the case, and in an ideal world it would not be, but sadly this is the way the DPA and any relevant common law work in these cases.

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

Halliday (to me) seems like a complete mess. The outcome of the appeal application is on Bailii;

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/333.html

It looks like Halliday failed to allege that Creative sought to extort money or wreck his credit status, so presumably his pleadings were cocked up. Full reading of this appeal reveals that Halliday was merely seeking money for the erroneous data processing, not specifically because he had been damaged in any way.

But where a data controller is seeking to wreck someone's credit by turning a blind eye to s.4(4), then I don't see how Halliday applies. It's a total red herring.

You miss the point(not like you)

The judge and both parties agree that section 13(1) of the DPA only applies to proven financial loss contrary to what you said in several of your posts. There are several other pieces of case law which I could show you but I dare say that you would not read the bits that did not fit into your perceived views either so I will not bother.