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

[Guest]

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


Here is a relevant section of he halidy case and as you see it distiguishes Kpohraro

Section 23 when mentioning Kpohraro, states that although no damages were calculated, damages must be shown. It distinguished the situation where a check is returned, and the possible effect on trade of a reputation for bouncing checks, to the situation where a credit marker once removed would give no indication to future lenders of any earlier problem, and therefor the earlier error would have little or no ongoing effect on the subjects creditably.

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

Looks like we're all buggered then, and Rico was lucky to get his £8K.

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

Although ... s.4(4) DPA refers to a data controller's duty to observe the principles of the Act, and s.13(1) DPA says that an individual is entitled to compensation for a data controller's failure to observe those principles.

The Act does not say that an individual who has suffered financial loss is entitled to compensation; it refers to damage instead. Kpohraror was a successful claim for general damage due to loss of reputation and an unsuccessful claim for special damages which couldn't be proved (being too remote).

The upshot seems to be, therefore, that the data controller is in fact under a duty, and general damages can be awarded where that duty is breached, as s.13(1) makes clear. I assume that if actual damages are claimed in addition, then that has to be shown.

Absolute tosh probably but that's what I think (at the moment) (although I'm confused by Smeaton).

[Bankers Reform]

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

It's like a game of top trumps.
Whether Smeaton or Kpohraror matters not, the UK Supreme Court trumps all before it in my view and precedent has been set at £8k as injury to credit for failure in a duty of care to a consumer.

But then again I could be wrong, anyway I will find out sooner rather than later as I'm about to test this very point.

[Guest]

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

Looks like we're all buggered then, and Rico was lucky to get his £8K.

No I think that In Ricos case he would have got an award, their may have been a little haggling as to the amount. In fact it could be argued that it was a mistake to accept the general losses, as I suspect that the court knew that their was a monstrous, breach of the DPA and would have had to issue an a ward.
Perhaps if the only way they could,would be by calculating actual loss, they may have done this instead, just a thought.

The danger is that some will take this case as a license to take creditors to court for £8 if they misplace a DN, it isn't.

[Guest]

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

It's like a game of top trumps.
Whether Smeaton or Kpohraror matters not, the UK Supreme Court trumps all before it in my view and precedent has been set at £8k as injury to credit for failure in a duty of care to a consumer.

But then again I could be wrong, anyway I will find out sooner rather than later as I'm about to test this very point.

I am afraid you are wrong there was no precedent set regarding general damages.

[leclerc]

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

Apologies for the late late late congratulations to "Rico" aka Richard Durkhin. Orfoster reminded me on social media that we had followed your case for the last 8 years. It's a pity that the £116000 was not allowed but will be interesting to see when the starting point of interest is on the amount awarded.

[Guest]

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

Although ... s.4(4) DPA refers to a data controller's duty to observe the principles of the Act, and s.13(1) DPA says that an individual is entitled to compensation for a data controller's failure to observe those principles.

The Act does not say that an individual who has suffered financial loss is entitled to compensation; it refers to damage instead. Kpohraror was a successful claim for general damage due to loss of reputation and an unsuccessful claim for special damages which couldn't be proved (being too remote).

The upshot seems to be, therefore, that the data controller is in fact under a duty, and general damages can be awarded where that duty is breached, as s.13(1) makes clear. I assume that if actual damages are claimed in addition, then that has to be shown.

Absolute tosh probably but that's what I think (at the moment) (although I'm confused by Smeaton).

See section 8
“Damages under section 13(1) are only recoverable where there as some evidence of financial loss”

[Bankers Reform]

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

I am afraid you are wrong there was no precedent set regarding general damages.

I am not talking about general damages, the Supreme court clearly says "Damages resulting
from HFC’s breach of its duty of care are confined to injury to Mr Durkin’s
credit in the sum of £8,000. "
It's down to HFC breach in it's duty of care to Mr Durkin, therefore a company reporting data must be sure that data is both accurate and fair and if it is not and reporting goes ahead then the consumer is entitled to damages to injury to credit in the sum of £8k, I really don't know how that can be taken any other way.

Of course extra damages would have to proved on a case by case basis and thus far nobody has been able to get this.

[Guest]

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

Sorry read sectin 23 of the avove also LA which should dispel your misunderstanding about Kh(can never spell that either)

[Guest]

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

I am not talking about general damages, the Supreme court clearly says "Damages resulting
from HFC’s breach of its duty of care are confined to injury to Mr Durkin’s
credit in the sum of £8,000. "
It's down to HFC breach in it's duty of care to Mr Durkin, therefore a company reporting data must be sure that data is both accurate and fair and if it is not and reporting goes ahead then the consumer is entitled to damages to injury to credit in the sum of £8k, I really don't know how that can be taken any other way.

Of course extra damages would have to proved on a case by case basis and thus far nobody has been able to get this.

Yes they were stating the a cause of action and the amount agreed to by the other side, not the judgment, or an amount awarded by the court. Big difference.

[ncf355]

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.
...............

Rico

I believe the claims allocation limits are based on the pure damages amount as well, so you could conceivably receive £9,999.99 + Interest without it taking it out of the SCT?

[ncf355]

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

Here is a relevant section of he halidy case and as you see it distiguishes Kpohraro

Section 23 when mentioning Kpohraro, states that although no damages were calculated, damages must be shown. It distinguished the situation where a check is returned, and the possible effect on trade of a reputation for bouncing checks, to the situation where a credit marker once removed would give no indication to future lenders of any earlier problem, and therefor the earlier error would have little or no ongoing effect on the subjects creditably.

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

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

Sorry read sectin 23 of the avove also LA which should dispel your misunderstanding about Kh(can never spell that either)

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.

[Guest]

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.