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

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

Yes it sounds like you would, then you would have to demonstrate financial losses. I realize of course that this should not be the case, and in an ideal world it would not be, but sadly this is the way the DPA and any relevant common law work in these cases.

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

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.

Ouch, bit prickly aren't we Andy? Almost as prickly as my old mate Peter Bard...

Actually, the issue I have is reconciling DPA s.13 with what you have told us, what has happened in Rico's case, and what Halliday and Smeaton say about damages. Is that really such a problem for you? Really sad if it is.

Yes, please post the "other pieces of case law" - I can assure you they will be read. I do not, as you claim, have any preconceived notions and you can see for yourself that there are others contemplating litigation purely based on Durkin. Would you not agree it is better to thrash out the arguments here rather than see hopeless claims made?

:tinysmile_hmm_t2:

[Rico]

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

HFC took the word of DSG as being correct.

Much more sinister actually. HFC's agent knowingly created a false account. They knew all along what they were up to.

[Guest]

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

Ouch, bit prickly aren't we Andy? Almost as prickly as my old mate Peter Bard...

Actually, the issue I have is reconciling DPA s.13 with what you have told us, what has happened in Rico's case, and what Halliday and Smeaton say about damages. Is that really such a problem for you? Really sad if it is.


:tinysmile_hmm_t2:

I would say that it would represent more of a problem for you. My concern is that other people are not misled so the issue becomes a problem for them.

[supasta1]

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

I made a claim against Natwest for 'General damage to my Creditworthiness' a year ago well before Durkin was heard in the SC and my claim was for the full £8000 as awarded to Durkin previously and they paid out well before the case got to court so things are obviously not as clear cut against us as Andy58 makes out.

Plus the position can only have been strengthened from the SC judgement so I would be pretty confident in making a claim based on this result, especially as you can do it all within the small claims track.

Nothing to lose, plenty to gain...

[Guest]

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

I made a claim against Natwest for 'General damage to my Creditworthiness' a year ago well before Durkin was heard in the SC and my claim was for the full £8000 as awarded to Durkin previously and they paid out well before the case got to court so things are obviously not as clear cut against us as Andy58 makes out.

Plus the position can only have been strengthened from the SC judgement so I would be pretty confident in making a claim based on this result, especially as you can do it all within the small claims track.

Nothing to lose, plenty to gain...

Interesting was this a court claim ?

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

I would say that it would represent more of a problem for you. My concern is that other people are not misled so the issue becomes a problem for them.

Had you not been so upset that I have been questioning your posts, you would have realised that my aim is the same as yours.

May I ask you to remember that this is a public forum and not your own personal lecture theatre?

[ncf355]

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

Well,

just had a further response (the last received prior to the judgment in Rico's case) from the DCA I am requesting compensation from.

Basically stating they stick to their last position that they are not required to pay compensation as the case law I refer to only affects the Scottish courts (despite my having made it perfectly clear this was a ruling in SC, London).

:tinysmile_aha_t:

[Guest]

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

Well,

just had a further response (the last received prior to the judgment in Rico's case) from the DCA I am requesting compensation from.

Basically stating they stick to their last position that they are not required to pay compensation as the case law I refer to only affects the Scottish courts (despite my having made it perfectly clear this was a ruling in SC, London).

:tinysmile_aha_t:

Yes it is sadly the case. However making a claim is not out of the question of course, you just have to be able to prove financial loiss.

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

Going back to Halliday, it seems he did not adequately plead under s.13(1) and so ended up with an award of £1.

However, having allowed £1, the court found that it could make an award for distress under s.13(2), and allowed £750.

Isn't the principle here that it has to be pleaded that loss was incurred - for example, by saying that you lost 3 years of equity accumulation on a property because you couldn't get a mortgage - so that a court can clearly see that there probably was some loss, even if it cannot be exactly quantified?

Once something is awarded under s.13(1), then this opens up a monetary claim for distress at s.13(2) - AFAICS.

I'm just thinking aloud and hoping for comments - I'm not doing anything other than that (honest!).

[Guest]

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

Had you not been so upset that I have been questioning your posts, you would have realised that my aim is the same as yours.

May I ask you to remember that this is a public forum and not your own personal lecture theatre?

Thanks for that, I had forgotten. As you know I am quite new to this.

[supasta1]

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

Yes, I made the claim using the online service and it was transferred to my local court.

They made me 3 seperate offers to settle out of court, the last one being a day before the case management conference was due to take place.

I accepted the offer so it went no further.

[Guest]

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

Going back to Halliday, it seems he did not adequately plead under s.13(1) and so ended up with an award of £1.

However, having allowed £1, the court found that it could make an award for distress under s.13(2), and allowed £750.

Isn't the principle here that it has to be pleaded that loss was incurred - for example, by saying that you lost 3 years of equity accumulation on a property because you couldn't get a mortgage - so that a court can clearly see that there probably was some loss, even if it cannot be exactly quantified?

Once something is awarded under s.13(1), then this opens up a monetary claim for distress at s.13(2) - AFAICS.

I'm just thinking aloud and hoping for comments - I'm not doing anything other than that (honest!).

Yes as said you have to show actual loss, a court will not allow an award for just loss of creditworthiness, you have to show that it had some direct monetary impact.
The generality of the claim can represent the fact that the loss cannot be quantifiable as per Kh but the losses must be "real".

[Guest]

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

Yes, I made the claim using the online service and it was transferred to my local court.

They made me 3 seperate offers to settle out of court, the last one being a day before the case management conference was due to take place.

I accepted the offer so it went no further.

Well done, It is always worth making claim if you have suffered actual damage, and the creditor may well make a payment to avoid a larger claim for specific damages. However no judgement was made in regards of general damages, nor would oit be in the context of a no losses claim.

[supasta1]

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

I kept my arguement plain and simple as recommended by Durkin, I did not want them to try and confuse things....

I used Durkins own original case even though I was not sure how much weight it would carry here in England but they were obviously concerned enough to pay me off. If the SC upheld the payment then they also would have to agree with the courts original findings/opinions for the award of £8000 surely:-
Looking at Durkin’s case and that of Kpohraror, King and Wilson on which the decision was based, I do not have to prove that I have suffered any actual loss (even though I have). I must simply prove that the Defaults were on my credit file when they should not have been. Once this is proved then compensation for ‘general damage to my creditworthiness’ is due.

Paragraph 115 of the Durkin case states:-

The case of King v British Linen & Co dealt with the situation where there had been no specific damage. The only loss which the pursuer had occurred sustained was the loss to his credit standing. That was valued by the sheriff at £100 in 1897, a figure which was not interfered with in the Inner House. It is clear that the reason that the Inner House did not consider it appropriate to interfere with it was because they were dealing with a case where, in the words of Lord Kinnear, "No exact measure" of damages could be fixed. The case is clear authority to the effect that award of damages can be made for simple injury to credit although no actual loss is sustained.

Paragraph 117 of the Durkin case states:-

Had there been no finding of specific loss in this case, I would have had no hesitation in finding that an award of damages for the mere injury to credit was appropriate. In modern society credit plays a very big part in the conduct of the daily lives of a significant portion of the population. The financial services industry is constantly advertising loans, credit cards, store cards, mortgages, consolidation accounts etc. To have one's credit worthiness impugned so that one is at risk of being unable to obtain credit on the grounds that he is not credit worthy is, if anything, a more significant matter for the individual than it would have been at the time of King, over a hundred years ago. Mr Beynon has submitted that a figure of £10,000 would be appropriate. The figure of £100 awarded by the sheriff and left standing by the Inner House in King v British Linen translates, according to the Office of National Statistics Publication "Focus on consumer price indices" 2008, table 5/3, to £9,975 in the year 2008. The figure of £5,500 awarded to an individual in Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society 1996 4All ER 119 was not interfered with by the Court of Appeal in 1996 and, in today's figures, would be worth £8,215.

Paragraph 118 of the Durkin case states:-

The credit rating of individuals is as important for their personal transactions, including mortgages and hire purchase as well as banking facilities, as it is for those who are engaged in trade, and it is notorious that central registers are now kept. I would have no hesitation in holding that what is in effect a presumption of some damage arises in every case in so far as this is a presumption of fact.

I just want to confirm what I stated on the phone to you, your second offer is rejected."


The above seemed to do the trick for me???