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

[Sparkie1723]

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

I think we wanted it to contradict McGuffick didn't we ? Does it actually ?

Someone give the wonderful Andrew Smith a ring and ask him to come explain it to us lol.

The McGuffick case is challengable....... I think Pt will explain better than me. THat McGuffick said that a creditor could insert Correct information on a borrowers credit file even if the agreement was unenforceable .......but what it did not say was that they could enter INCORRECT information( wrongful default info) ........as that would be a breach of the Fourth Principle of the DPA.
Sparkie



Sparkie's rambling again .......sorry

[pt2537]

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

I think we wanted it to contradict McGuffick didn't we ? Does it actually ?

Someone give the wonderful Andrew Smith a ring and ask him to come explain it to us lol.

The use of the word enforceable is clear, it means if they were entitled to succeed on their claim then they were entitled to add a default , that's my reading of it anyway

[Guest]

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

The McGuffick case is challengable....... I think Pt will explain better than me. THat McGuffick said that a creditor could insert Correct information on a borrowers credit file even if the agreement was unenforceable .......but what it did not say was that they could enter INCORRECT information( wrongful deflat info) ........as that would be a breach of the Fourth Principle of the DPA.
Sparkie





Sparkie

I don't think that this would be challenging Mcguffic Sparike, that case said nothing about entering incorrect information.

[Amethyst]

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

33. ''HFC, ......, was under a duty .......... to satisfy itself that the credit agreement remained enforceable before reporting to the credit reference agencies that he was in default. ''

That hinges on the meaning given to 'enforceable'

[Sparkie1723]

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

I don't think that this would be challenging Mcguffic Sparike, that case said nothing about entering incorrect information.

I think you misunderstood me......I didn't actually say this ruling challenges McGuffick .......I said that McGuffick is challengeable for the reasons I gave........sorry for not being precise enough.

This ruling itself is a bit ambiguous to McGuffick IMO.....McGuffick said that even if the agreement was unenforceable defaults can be entered by a creditor........Richards ruling ....to me any way .....says that only if the agreement is enforceable can defaults be entered on a credit file....but I'm just senile ole sparkie

Sparkie

[Guest]

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

33. ''HFC, ......, was under a duty .......... to satisfy itself that the credit agreement remained enforceable before reporting to the credit reference agencies that he was in default. ''

That hinges on the meaning given to 'enforceable'

I think that many will try and argue that this applies to enforceability under section 127, but they will lose sadly because it has to be taken in context to the case, the issue was the rescission of the agreement not its compliance with section 65.

[Amethyst]

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-26731192

[Amethyst]

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

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

Sorry to be negative at a time of general rejoicing, but this isn't an especially good judgement for Richard or anyone else that has suffered substantial loss due to wrongfully recorded adverse data.

The First Division found no causative link between the data and Richard's losses, despite it being accepted earlier by the Sheriff and despite the evidence showing the probability of the loss. The fact remained that Richard was excluded from credit, and that exclusion led to the inability to realise investment sums that would otherwise have been available.

The old problem of having to prove loss appears to remain, although helped by the award made today for "injury to credit" at £8,000 plus interest.

So we have an "injury to credit" judgement, confirming what we all wanted re Kpohraror, while the difficulties of proving actual or potential loss remain, AFAICS.

IMVHO this is only a partial win.

[seduraed]

Re: Durkin v DSG Retail Ltd & Anor [2014] UKSC 21 (26 March 2014)

Well he won the crucial part about rejecting the goods although he has lost out on the rest of the claim so no big pay gda for him .

[Guest]

Re: Durkin v DSG Retail Ltd & Anor [2014] UKSC 21 (26 March 2014)

I think the most important and useful part, for consumers is the clarification of the situation regarding the credit agreement when a sale is returned.

This could be applied to any manner of situations which crop up on here, particularity HP agreements and items returned under sale of goods act requirements IMO

[EXC]

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

So does that say a consumer is entitled to rescind the credit agreement when he cancels supply agreement but not that it is automatically rescinded at the point the consumer cancels the supply agreement (ie returns the goods or pays by another method etc).... so the consumer must inform, by telephone or in writing the creditor that they rescind the credit agreement ??

The Supreme Court Blog piece seems to suggest it's automatic:

''The rescission of the supply agreement excuses the innocent party from further performance of any obligations he has under it. The debtor to a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement on rejecting the goods and thereby rescinding the supply agreement for breach of contract may also rescind the credit agreement by invoking a condition which the law implies a term into such an agreement: that it is conditional upon the survival of the supply agreement.''

http://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-dur...-2014-uksc-21/

[ncf355]

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

The old problem of having to prove loss appears to remain, although helped by the award made today for "injury to credit" at £8,000 plus interest.

So we have an "injury to credit" judgement, confirming what we all wanted re Kpohraror, while the difficulties of proving actual or potential loss remain, AFAICS.

IMVHO this is only a partial win.

Hi,

now, this is what I thought put PT appears to disagree above that it creates an absolute right for damage to credit

Let me be clear that I have and always have had absolute respect for PT, I'm just trying to get the arguments out on here rather than anyone rushing headlong into court action without having clear grounds for the same

It appears to me as though they awarded the £8k for the pure action of entering a wrongful default, without any reference to quantifiable loss (pluss interest of course - hopefully Richard will update us at a later date on where this stands).

But PT makes reference to this amount differing on a case by case basis if you were to have lost a home/business/etc?

Again, I'm merely trying to seek clarity...

:tinysmile_hmm_t2:

[Amethyst]

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

''The rescission of the supply agreement excuses the innocent party from further performance of any obligations he has under it.'' - makes perfect sense.

The debtor to a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement on rejecting the goods and thereby rescinding the supply agreement for breach of contract may also rescind the credit agreement by invoking a condition which the law implies a term into such an agreement: that it is conditional upon the survival of the supply agreement.''

It's the may also bit I'm struggling with EXC. Is it May as in - the debtor has the right at that point to cancel the credit agreement - or May as in - when the supply agreement is cancelled it has the affect of cancelling the credit agreement.

Probably way over complicating things, but that's the bit we need a definitive answer on.

[EXC]

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

''The rescission of the supply agreement excuses the innocent party from further performance of any obligations he has under it.'' - makes perfect sense.


It's the may also bit I'm struggling with EXC. Is it May as in - the debtor has the right at that point to cancel the credit agreement - or May as in - when the supply agreement is cancelled it has the affect of cancelling the credit agreement.

Probably way over complicating things, but that's the bit we need a definitive answer on.

For me it's the very last bit that sums it up ie ''that it is conditional upon the survival of the supply agreement'' so the 'may' isn't really a choice.