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

[ncf355]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Hmm

Not so sure, given that amount has previously been awarded for bouncing a cheque (Khop), an action that was corrected by the offending bank within 24 hours, I can't see that amount being a problem for someone to gain judgment on in a default case if this ruling goes "our" way

I see the point that it could start a run of claims, but then the banks might then be a bit more considerate about how they throw these defaults about?

There is also the consideration that if the court sticks with the automatic damages they may well increase the award due to the passage of time

[Guest]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Lol !!!

One thing that struck me was the court's apparent acceptance of the £8,000 award for damage to creditworthiness, a sum awarded presumably without the need to give evidence of loss. While a drop in the ocean capared to Richard's actual losses, it might offer some hope to other victims of the banks' misuse of credit reporting. I'm guessing that a district judge might be encouraged to award this sum if it's allowed by the SC?

Yes i was struck by this also. There has been recent case law in the high court which indicated that losses of this nature must be evidenced by actual loss or damges.

If this is agreed as part of this judgement will the idea of general loss to credit worthiness be available in English courts, even though this was initially settled in Scotland?

[ncf355]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Yes i was struck by this also. There has been recent case law in the high court which indicated that losses of this nature must be evidenced by actual loss or damges.

If this is agreed as part of this judgement will the idea of general loss to credit worthiness be available in English courts, even though this was initially settled in Scotland?

Andy,

This is exactly what I would expect, it would clear the way for one heck of a lot of people to claim under just that

I'm one of them

I do think it's right that you should receive damages if it can be shown that the default was incorrectly entered and you have received no joy when bringing this to the creditors attention

It's clear that it would be hard in the majority of cases to show actual loss, yet the fact that you are unable to access normal line of credit such as cards, loans, mortgages and even contract mobile phones should be enough to qualify for damages to my mind

[Amethyst]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

I'd see it as a starting point, but the damage and loss incurred would differ in every case. There is less damage potentially in an online credit card application turned down and discovered to be due to a wrongful default, than an in store credit purchase ... like a sofa/kitchen type purchase.... where embarrassment is caused and the consumer might miss out on a good price or deal due to the inability to get credit. But then there's also then possibility of abuse where a person may discover the wrongful default and thinks ahhh I can get more damages if I go and try to buy a sofa at dfs rather than check their credit file. Also sum of money wrongfully defaulted could be taken into account for applications like mortgages, as well as length of time a default has been on a file. Damages for loss of something like a mortgage because of a wrongful default where the credit file would otherwise have been clear should be higher. I sound a little cynical I think. I do agree it might concentrate thenlenders minds somewhat more than getting away with it Scott free but seems to dangerous to have an arbitrary figure.

If you discover a wrongful default, go through complaints and they remove the default at that point, what level of damages should the lender be expected to pay at that point ? Then rise if they force it to go to a complaint to fos or I c o ?

[Amethyst]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Yes i was struck by this also. There has been recent case law in the high court which indicated that losses of this nature must be evidenced by actual loss or damges.
?

Which is this?

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

For me the problem is "proving" the loss. For example, I have a default registered by Barclays that should not be there. Even the ICO said it should not be there. So while it remains I cannot apply for a mortgage (it would be declined and my credit score worsened due to the search), meaning I lose the theoretical benefits of a new home, including the accumulation of equity. But how can that be proved as a loss? It can't. Which is why "general damages" is so useful.

[Guest]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Which is this?

You know I knew you would ask this , I will have to go and look them up now

One of them was mentioned in the case, it was against the CRA, in it Kp. was mentioned in order to support general losses, the response was that although there was an award made in Kp the losses where real in that there was an appreciable and likely damage to the reputation and trade of the party in question.

I will find the judgments.

[Guest]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Here is one of the ones I was thinking of

(Halliday Vs creative consumer finance Ld.[2012] EWCA civ 254)

[Amethyst]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

For me the problem is "proving" the loss. For example, I have a default registered by Barclays that should not be there. Even the ICO said it should not be there. So while it remains I cannot apply for a mortgage (it would be declined and my credit score worsened due to the search), meaning I lose the theoretical benefits of a new home, including the accumulation of equity. But how can that be proved as a loss? It can't. Which is why "general damages" is so useful.

Yes that makes sense, I think I am just naturally dubious that a 'set rate', if that is what it ever ended up becoming, wouldn't be abused. I have a wrongful default from Barclays on my file at the minute ... put on well after six years from default and after they agreed it was stat barred and now it will be on there for another 4 years, it didn't really bother me enough to do anything as the rest of my file was shot to bits, though this is one of only two left on now, and I have no desire or intention to take any other credit, so honestly it has no effect on me. But when my other 'proper' default comes off ... in May this year .... it will be the only thing in an otherwise clear file I could complain and have it removed (I'd be happy at that) but if standard damages were available I could then also claim them for the period where my file would other wise have been clear.... by saying I had intended to obtain a mortgage etc??

[Amethyst]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Here is one of the ones I was thinking of

(Halliday Vs creative consumer finance Ld.[2012] EWCA civ 254)

Thank you

[enaid]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Here I go hope you understand what am on about, lol

Yesterday it was said about having lost the chance of a house in Spain and how the cost of the property had doubled while all this has gone on.
How would it work had it been the other way round and the property value had halved?

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

I know - what you say Ame is very true.

However, a "wrongful default" IMHO is defamatory - it is asserting to all other creditors that you have defaulted on a credit agreement. It's like a newspaper printing something about you that is false, although clearly with much less public exposure.

But if a bank is presented with considerable evidence that there is at least reasonable doubt about the default, but it still refuses to act, then I see no reason why a claim could not be made at this level and awarded if a court agrees with the claimant, whether it has caused actual loss or not.

[Rico]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

It's clear that it would be hard in the majority of cases to show actual loss, yet the fact that you are unable to access normal line of credit such as cards, loans, mortgages and even contract mobile phones should be enough to qualify for damages to my mind

Also in the mind of Sheriff Tierney and Andrew Smith QC!

[Amethyst]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Thank you ... just thinking out loud really while trying to sort out potential consequences of judgment either way in my head. Going to be a long wait isn't it .

[Rico]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

I could then also claim them for the period where my file would other wise have been clear.... by saying I had intended to obtain a mortgage etc??

You shouldn't need anything for a claim for general damages other than the wrongful default itself.