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

[Rico]

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

I think it was more of a win of common sense really

Common sense that at least 4 out of 6 Scottish judges missed and the possibility that the other 2 were shown the light!

[Bankers Reform]

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

Agreed. What can be done?

It seems, given that the judicial system is protecting them, we are just waiting for someone to take the law into their own hands..

I've been warning about this for years and I believe it may already be in motion.

We need justice before this gets too far out of control. My MP doesn't seem interested. I wonder who's is?

Rico.

Hi Rico,

I have a thread running on here regarding wrongful defaults and totally agree with you on all of this.
At one time a creditor would go to court and prove a debt lawfully before taking further action, it seems now that defaults are being thrown around like confetti to the detriment of consumers without any actual proof of debt in law.
Something needs to be done about this and soon.
My local MP is Mark Garnier (Conservative), he is on various banking committees in Parliament and I am hoping to get a meeting with him soon to discuss this situation.

I won't hold my breath though that anything will come of it, but it needs to be put out there to a wider audience because I'm sure that the majority of people in the UK today have had a default at one time or other and are not really aware the effect it has on there credit worthiness.
The winners in all this are the high rate payday loan sharks and the like who charge exorbitant rates.

Sorry to go on here but I'd like to ask your opinion on the damages/injury to credit in the Supreme Court judgement.
Do you or your legal team think that £8k is the established norm now for an incorrect default/processing of misleading data to CRA's?
If so then a flurry of claims against various companies are likely to follow, possibly in the same way the whole bank charges and then PPI scandals were.



Interested to know your thoughts on this.

[Rico]

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

Durkins contract was enforceable at inception, however the contract was then rescinded and therefore was devoid of legal effect.

The contract shouldn't have been processed. I don't see how a fraudulently processed agreement can be deemed enforceable.

Madness.

[Rico]

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

I am not sure what evidence Durkin had to show he suffered those losses because of this incident/case.

Almost everyone, including HFC, knew that house prices were rocketing. The sick thing was that I had to prove the glaringly obvious. Which I did.

[Rico]

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

I for one would be more than happy to contribute to your costs from any wins I make from this supporting judgment

Thanks. A common theme that I'm grateful for.

However, let's see if the HFC boss is sorry yet and if so, how he/she proposes to "apologise" on behalf of dodgy predecessors.

Rico

[Bankers Reform]

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

Not sure what rate of interest was being charged had the agreement gone through but in previous cases I have taken to court I have been able to claim interest from the defendant at the same rate as they charged me.
So on a credit card it could be anything from 15% - 40%.
Financial agreements from a store tend to be on the higher side so whatever they intended to charge I'm confident that Rico would be able to charge back.
On the £8000 injury to credit award dating back to 1998 this could add up to a tidy sum and if the interest rate is on the higher then this would easily exceed the original £116k from an earlier court judgement.

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

It's likely to be 8% isn't it?

A quick calc shows even at 40% Rico would only get £51,200, unless the interest is compounded.

[EXC]

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

Is there to be a costs hearing Rico?

[Rico]

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

Do you or your legal team think that £8k is the established norm now for an incorrect default/processing of misleading data to CRA's?
If so then a flurry of claims against various companies are likely to follow, possibly in the same way the whole bank charges and then PPI scandals were.

We're in agreement that this is indeed the case. Actually, it's already based on case law dating back over 100 years!

The trick is to keep everything in the Small Claims Court and try and do things yourselves to avoid losing out on expenses.

Many courts in recent times have tried to shirk away from awarding general damages without proof of specific loss.

They can no longer do so, as this is binding.

Enjoy!

Rico

[Rico]

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

Is there to be a costs hearing Rico?

Eventually...

[Bankers Reform]

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

8% is the standard rate awarded by the courts but like I said in my earlier post when I've asked the courts for interest I always ask the rate charged by the credit company.
I always compound the interest because there is an entitlement from day one of the infringement and that entitlement remains until the injustice is righted. This has never been challenged in my dealings.

[Bankers Reform]

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

We're in agreement that this is indeed the case. Actually, it's already based on case law dating back over 100 years!

The trick is to keep everything in the Small Claims Court and try and do things yourselves to avoid losing out on expenses.

Many courts in recent times have tried to shirk away from awarding general damages without proof of specific loss.

They can no longer do so, as this is binding.

Enjoy!

Rico

That's what I thought Rico. Thanks.
It may be worth looking at the compounded interest that could be available to you when you eventually get an agreement with HFC. It quickly adds up.

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

But wouldn't an English (or Welsh) county court say that the £8K was awarded in a Scots court, and that the UKSC simply held that it had no power to alter it?

Or is it the case that, because the UKSC did not interfere with that award, it becomes binding on all UK courts?

(Sorry to seem a bit thick)

[Bankers Reform]

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

But wouldn't an English (or Welsh) county court say that the £8K was awarded in a Scots court, and that the UKSC simply held that it had no power to alter it?

Or is it the case that, because the UKSC did not interfere with that award, it becomes binding on all UK courts?

(Sorry to seem a bit thick)

My understanding is that the supreme court upheld the Scottish award for £8k and that it is binding on ALL UK courts.
The £8k was never challenged by HFC and was accepted as remedy for injury to credit resulting from incorrect default, so long as Mr Durkin could prove the default was incorrect.
This has now been proven, therefore £8k is set in stone as the accepted remedy for injury to credit.
There has been previous case law to this effect in the past (Kpohraror v Woolwich)

[Guest]

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

My understanding is that the supreme court upheld the Scottish award for £8k and that it is binding on ALL UK courts.
The £8k was never challenged by HFC and was accepted as remedy for injury to credit resulting from incorrect default, so long as Mr Durkin could prove the default was incorrect.
This has now been proven, therefore £8k is set in stone as the accepted remedy for injury to credit.
There has been previous case law to this effect in the past (Kpohraror v Woolwich)

Problem this is that to my knowledge Kpohrah has never been held to support general losses where there has not been some proof of damages(although not quantified), in other words just having a misplaced marker is not enough, there has to be a likelihood that some loss has been is is likely to be incurred. there has been several case which have ateempted to rely on this and they have failed. (Haliday, Smeaton) and also many lower court cases.

Also as said earlier the award in this case was uncontested as well as being in a Scottish court, the principle has not been tested the bank merely allowed the claim. Any bank barrister worth his salt would say that this judgment was merely the option of the bank and on these particular facts, there was no point of law proven here.