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

[Amethyst]

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

Was it because the appeal to the SCJ was bought on the points of law rather than on the damages amount?

[Rico]

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

Appeals like the present may only be made on matters of law, meaning the Supreme Court cannot go behind the First Division’s findings of fact on these alleged heads of loss [36-39].

Still reeling from this absurdity.

It seems to suggest that it's perfectly fine for the "First Division" to alter facts, yet the "Supreme" justices cannot!

I understand that there's case law to suggest that facts found at first instance shouldn't be tinkered with unless there's an irregularity. That surely would count as a "matter of law"?

The irregularity that I appealed was that 600-300 ≠ 116 (less expenses).

Heads of loss were well proven in the lower court.

Indeed, the claim arose because of said facts.

Our judicial system stinks. Crime will rise because of that. Reported or not.

Rico.

[Secretjay]

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

Hi,
The bank had been recording the wrong default date on my Credit File and wouldn't change it.

I involved the ICO and the bank then agreed to amend the date, at this point the bank apologised and sent me a cheque for £250 for distress and inconvenience. (But it took a full year before the date was actually amended)

I never asked for compensation at any time as I was just wanting the default sorted.

This was the only black mark on my file.

Thanks

[ncf355]

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

On the face of it, they should pay compensation

Have you tried writing and asking for compensation from them?

Was it the only black mark on your files?

[Secretjay]

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

Another one is that if they keep the default there for longer than 6 years (as MANY do) that should be enough for a valid claim?

My default should have came off my Credit File in 2012. The bank agreed with this and assured me several times the update had been done but it still took another year for the account to disappear from my file. Do I have a valid claim?

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

Slightly off topic but relevant I think.
I had a letter from Severn Trent threatening to mark a default on my credit file . I emailed the ICO to ask if they could and it was quite a lengthy response basically saying yes they could do it without my permission if it was in either their interest, my interest or an unspecified 3rd parties interest.

Here is a copy of what they said, [ATTACH=CONFIG]11189[/ATTACH]

I had a similar letter from the ICO about a default recorded by British Gas - but then it turned out that BG had failed to notify me that it was data controller, so all data had to be removed including the default (I had no idea that they were processing and sharing data until years after the event, and BG couldn't prove that they had sent a fair processing notice).

But in your case you received warning of an intent to file a default. Andy may be right in that it is not a statutory requirement, but the lending code (and the ICO guidance for lenders) make it clear that such a notice is necessary before the default is reported.

If you read the interpretation of principle 1, you'll see that it says that the data subject is to receive;

any further information which is necessary, having regard to the specific circumstances in which the data are or are to be processed, to enable processing in respect of the data subject to be fair.

Now, this may or may not be covered by the data protection notice/fair processing policy in a credit agreement but I assume that this is the reason why the ICO stipulates a 28-day notice period for the registration of defaults; it ensures the data controller complies with all of Schedule 1.

This might be ballcocks but close reading of the interpretation of Schedule 1 seems, to me, to suggest that a failure to notify the data subject that a default is about to be slapped on his credit file may fall foul of the first principle and therefore of s.4(4).

A plain English interpretation of the interpretation might be a big help - can anyone oblige?

[mystery1]

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

I paid it as soon as I was aware of it. I did not take this catalogue out, she was allowed to take it out without me knowing but in my name!!

They had no proof that I took it out and she did not have to sign anything to take it out so I was just royally screwed by both!!

This is why in my eyes, if they could not be bothered to do their job properly and ensure that a credit agreement was signed (which should have been done as it was around 2005 that it was apparently taken out) then this company should not have been able to Default me or demand full payment from me. I have not been protected by anyone and I am not going to make a claim against my ex wife as she is still the mother of my Children and I would not want this effecting them.

I hope you see my point

Dare i say it but your mistake was 2 fold. 1 if you had reported the fraud they'd have had to remove the default. Your ex would've been in the whatsit and that may have been a problem or something to cheer you up but it would have solved the default issue in theory. 2. You also could have said i'll pay if you remove it at which point their greed would probably have taken over.

M1

[jon1965]

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

Slightly off topic but relevant I think.
I had a letter from Severn Trent threatening to mark a default on my credit file . I emailed the ICO to ask if they could and it was quite a lengthy response basically saying yes they could do it without my permission if it was in either their interest, my interest or an unspecified 3rd parties interest.

Here is a copy of what they said, ICO.doc

[supasta1]

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

I shall just keep my fingers crossed that they carry on having the same disregard for my situation once I inform them (if it goes over 6 years) as they have had for the last 6 years lol

[ncf355]

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

The warning I'd put on that is you have4 to at least give them chance to act and remove it at the 6 year point

In my own case, I've had a DCA that agreed to remove and then put it back and removed it a further 2 times!

[supasta1]

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

Another one is that if they keep the default there for longer than 6 years (as MANY do) that should be enough for a valid claim?

A great point

This is what I am now going to wait for in my situation and I hope they carry on posting it after the 6 years as a lot do so I can have some form of revenge on them lol

[supasta1]

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

If you just didn't pay a debt then it is correct that a marker should have been on your file for 6 years. As you say you only have a couple months till its cleared off

I paid it as soon as I was aware of it. I did not take this catalogue out, she was allowed to take it out without me knowing but in my name!!

They had no proof that I took it out and she did not have to sign anything to take it out so I was just royally screwed by both!!

This is why in my eyes, if they could not be bothered to do their job properly and ensure that a credit agreement was signed (which should have been done as it was around 2005 that it was apparently taken out) then this company should not have been able to Default me or demand full payment from me. I have not been protected by anyone and I am not going to make a claim against my ex wife as she is still the mother of my Children and I would not want this effecting them.

I hope you see my point

[ncf355]

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

Another one is that if they keep the default there for longer than 6 years (as MANY do) that should be enough for a valid claim?

[Amethyst]

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

Yes indeed.

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

If there is a default on your file THAT SHOULD NOT EXIST then there is action available and a possibility of compensation.

)
More importantly IMO. If you return goods under a credit agreement, the agreement is cancelled also(without using any cancellation regulation)