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

damage in this case was suffered, he had to go through an extra 6 months of a default being registered on his credit file. That is pretty big if you ask me, he has had to put his life on hold for an extra 6 months, couldnt get any credit, couldnt get a mortgage etc

That is a severe punishment to pay, especially after he has already served his 6 years!!!

To say that he is only trying to profit from the legislation is pretty rude and insulting to be honest, if banks break the rules/guidelines and make people suffer for longer than they have to then they should be held to account and made to pay.

6 months may be nothing to you but it is a very long time for most!!!

What the....????

Where did I say that? Where was I being rude?

Confused
:tinysmile_aha_t:

[supasta1]

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

Totally agree, the fruitcake even did it via MCOL !!

Your first post followed by this one seemed to give the impression to me that you were being rude??

You seemed to make out that he was not justified in taking his case to court and was just trying to profit from legislation.

Or that is how I read it?

[Rico]

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

no-one would launch a claim unless some kind of damage had been suffered,.

Noddy did suffer damage and would have won if my ruling had come earlier (I hope!). Or if he'd had a good judge.

Rico

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

I wonder if I could request that some here calm down a bit - I know it's an emotive issue, but squabbling and name-calling will not help. This isn't CAG.

The thread OTR is not a nice one - apart from the unwarranted misogyny, it features a poor MCOL claim and a poor judgement - the things we need to avoid.

Now, at face value I thought that Durkin meant that there is an "automatic" award simply for "injury to credit", but that may not be the case however much we want it to be, AFAICS. There is the issue of the award being made in Scotland, and the issue of the SC not interfering with that award - does it make it in some way binding in English and Welsh courts? I don't know, and that has been part of the discussion here. I now think that it probably won't be "binding", and that some loss will have to be demonstrated although not necessarily quantified (IMVHO). At least there is a figure (£8K) that can be claimed, as a quantified starting point albeit in a "foreign" court.

Say for example someone has a default on his or her file for a week - does that mean he or she can claim £8K? I doubt it, unless there is some specific loss that happened during that week as a result of the default. But a court still has to quantify/assess damage - otherwise it would award £1,000,000 whenever someone asked it. So a court has to know what level of damage has been caused in order to make an award, even if just a ballpark.

OK, that's my current thinking. I reserve the right to change it. And I apologise in advance for the offence, irritation and gnashing or teeth that it will undoubtedly cause some on this thread.

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

Your first post followed by this one seemed to give the impression to me that you were being rude??

You seemed to make out that he was not justified in taking his case to court and was just trying to profit from legislation.

Or that is how I read it?

No you misread it. I did not say that noddy suffered no loss. And IMO it is madness to use MCOL for a complex claim - just gives the other side too much ammo, as surely you can see?

Is calling someone a fruitcake being rude? Aren't there more important issues to be discussing than something as trivial as this?

[supasta1]

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

Aren't there more important issues to be discussing than something as trivial as this?

Agreed, unfortunately though most who make claims are not legal experts and often get ignored at claims hearings so to speak negatively of someone who was just trying to fight for some justice and for the greater benefit of others should be applauded not spoken negatively of

Now lets move on

[Guest]

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

There has been many case here and elsewhere where people have taken various creditors to court, convinced that they were owed recompense, and probably ly they were, certainly morally they were, unfortunately not in law.

The common law duty of care is usually not applied to these cases as all the required remedies are contained within the DPA, and to be honest even if they were they would come against the common law requirements regarding damages being proportional to losses.

If you examine Noddys thread you will see that his error was not how he took the claim but the fact that he relied on unsubstantiated general losses. Simple as that really.

[Sparkie1723]

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

Just to emphasise my view Kohpraror suffered NO loss whatsoever,,,,he was a small time importer exporter.his case was that he had ordered some goods from a business contact in Nigeria to be imported by him for sale in the UK or elsewhere....the cheque made out to pay for the goods was incorrectly unpaid by his Bank..he took the bank to Court for loss and damages..the loss he claimed was the profit he would have made on the goods he had paid for….the Bank paid the cheque a day later.. he still obtained the goods and consequently sold them …hence he suffered no loss…he was awarded £4,500 that included combined compensation for breach of contract by the bank…AND damages to his credit status in this country…..plus the £1000 for damage to his credit status that “may” have occurred in Nigeria…” Unquantified damages”.

Now I have just been through a claim against Black Horse for damages to my credit status for a wrongful Default which also affected my partners credit status.
At the case management hearing before the Final hearing hearing the Judge a Senior Civil Judge who hears all Applications for Appeal in our County Court. Had read my pleadings which included King v British Linen Wilson v First Counties Trust and the Durkin case using the Durkin vluation of £8,000

I had claimed £8000 a piece for me and my Partner ( £ 16,000)………he went into his chambers library and obtained the latest Government statistics of the value of £8,000 today and said as at 2011 it was worth £11,000.…he then went on to say…because I was getting a bit agitated with the way B/H solicitor was spouting his mouth off.He calmed me down.
Mr xxxxxxx you will more than likely than not succeed with your claim and said to the solicitor of Black Horse, Mr xxxxxx I would advise your clients that they will more likely than not lose this case and I suggest that a part 36 offer may be prudent at this stage. Solicitor was gobsmacked.

He then set the date for the trial on the day of the trial B/H engaged a Barrister from Gough Cambers….who leaded the Limitations Act that put a bog log not a stick in my wheels of motion….he adjourned the hearing to give me time to read up on the Limitations Act.

The Limitations Act did the trick for B/H and I lost the Damages Claim as the entry had been removed on 31^st Dec 2003, I made my claim on 13^th December 2009.

I am now at the main point of this post ...........in his judgement and I have the transcript the judge is recorded to have said that I probably did suffer THE DAMAGE …..I had claimed......... Note no loss.
He could see the factual difference between loss and damage

My Partner did without any doubt suffer damage which resulted in actual loss………BUT because of the late pleading of the Limitations Act both our claims must fail.

Even though we lost this judge is a very fair judge even though he was wrong at law. His judgement is now subject to the Appeal that will be heard in the Court of Appeal in June just a couple of months away….

I say all of this to show judges will consider the King v British Linen, ...Wilson .....Kophpraror and Durkin if it is pleaded well…..another point about King being labeled as being too old is rubbish…in a friends case the Judge in the High Court assisted him as an LIP and dug up a case from the 17^th Century.
Rambling ole Sparkie

[Guest]

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

Losses = damages Sparkie.

Kohpraror has been distinguished three times by various judges on this thread alone, I think loss of credit status in a business would probably trigger an award for damages, as it would provably effect the ability to trade.

The problem is proving such a direct causal link to the damages in a misplaced marker.

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

Blimey Sparkie, what an ordeal !! Do you have a thread for your appeal?

So there is a difference between damage and loss, and that it's the damage that causes the loss? So injury to credit is the damage, and the loss flows from that?

DPA clearly states "damage" (not loss) - what's your take on that? It's confused me no end the past couple of days ...

[Guest]

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

Blimey Sparkie, what an ordeal !! Do you have a thread for your appeal?

So there is a difference between damage and loss, and that it's the damage that causes the loss? So injury to credit is the damage, and the loss flows from that?

DPA clearly states "damage" (not loss) - what's your take on that? It's confused me no end the past couple of days ...

#In a civil action the wronged party can only claim damages equivalent to thier losses due to the tort or breach

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

Isn't there the concept of non-pecuniary damages in law? I seem to vaguely remember this, in which there is no actual financial loss (eg, someone wrongly imprisoned) but compensation nevertheless applies for the "damage" done to the individual.

Same with harassment - no loss but damages apply nevertheless.

Not quite sure where I'm going with this...

[ncf355]

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

Hmm

THIS has some interesting text from the House of Lords (as was) regards damages for POTENTIAL financial loss, which I would imagine a wrongful default could fall under?

[Sparkie1723]

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

I would encourage everyone to read and comprehend what Lord Nichols in the Appeal Court said...that a business damage sufferer and a consumer are no different.
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.

It is this put forward in my argument that swayed the Judge in our case.He is not just any Judge he is a High Court Judge and our case was the multi track over 3 days.

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

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

Isn't there the concept of non-pecuniary damages in law? I seem to vaguely remember this, in which there is no actual financial loss (eg, someone wrongly imprisoned) but compensation nevertheless applies for the "damage" done to the individual.

Same with harassment - no loss but damages apply nevertheless.

Not quite sure where I'm going with this...

HI L/A....... its as I have put forward before the DPA is the poor mans Defamation Act but instead of the 3 year time scale.under the Defamation Act ( 1 year for Libel)...the DPA extends that time to six years.

Sparkie