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

[FlamingParrot]

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

Supreme Court has decided to confirm that we must pay a massive chunk of expenses back to the perpetrators despite ruling that they did indeed screw us!

Sick.

We, the victims, will be doing extremely well to avoid bankruptcy, let alone trying to buy a family home.

Unf*ing believable!!!

[Nibbler]

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

http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...cost-me-dearly

And that is only £4,500

[MIKE770]

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

Seems the courts no longer dispense actual justice.

How true. time will come around when justice will prevail no doubt albeit in the far future & historians will point out the scam this age was and how the people were treated unfairly/abused on many fronts/

[Rico]

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

Seems the courts no longer dispense actual justice.

Bad shape indeed at the "supreme" court level. Nobody left to trust!

This is a huge win for the banks. Impossible now, I'd say, to claim difference in house price when illegally blacklisted.

That must save them a few billion quid.

We'll be at least £300K worse off now and will be doing well to avoid bankruptcy. Effectively, we'll have a mortgage on a legal debt, the same size as we should have had on the family home that we were trying to set up.

Still no answers on what I should have done nor any reasoning from justices on why the default doesn't prevent a mortgage. (It STILL does! They don't get it. Any of them. (Or they do!))

Certainly, I'd have been better off paying the original ransom but it's strange that UK policy is not to pay!

What next I wonder. Someone's bound to crack.

Rico

[Nibbler]

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

Seems the courts no longer dispense actual justice.

[Rico]

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

Hi Folks,

More bad news I'm afraid as the injustice deepens.

Supreme Court has decided to confirm that we must pay a massive chunk of expenses back to the perpetrators despite ruling that they did indeed screw us!

Sick.

We, the victims, will be doing extremely well to avoid bankruptcy, let alone trying to buy a family home.

Cheers,

Rico.

[Rico]

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

While I continue to scratch my wounds here's what I've come up with so far.

https://ukinjusticebydurkin.wordpress.com/

You can see that I'm running out of ideas...

Cheers,

Rico

[pt2537]

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

Update.

"supreme" court, after more than a year, has finally decided that we must pay at least some expenses to the perpetrators from the lower court.

They've essentially passed the buck back to Edinburgh, the very court that screwed us in the first place!

As far as expenses in the "supreme court" go, my solicitor's will need to negotiate with the perpetrators!

Still no news from either the government or the shadow government on what we're supposed to do when the banks continue to refuse to abide by the law. Verbally, they've said that all's good but refuse to commit that to writing.

Cheers,

Rico.

IF youve decent costs draftsmen on board then that should be straight forward.

[Nibbler]

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

Finish editing that post I think. :lol:

[pt2537]

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

yes , must what?

[Nibbler]

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

"supreme" court, after more than a year has finally decided that we must p

Must what?

[Rico]

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

Update.

"supreme" court, after more than a year, has finally decided that we must pay at least some expenses to the perpetrators from the lower court.

They've essentially passed the buck back to Edinburgh, the very court that screwed us in the first place!

As far as expenses in the "supreme court" go, my solicitor's will need to negotiate with the perpetrators!

Still no news from either the government or the shadow government on what we're supposed to do when the banks continue to refuse to abide by the law. Verbally, they've said that all's good but refuse to commit that to writing.

Cheers,

Rico.

[Rico]

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

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%.

Do you have a judgement we could refer to? (Yes, expenses are STILL being discussed and we remain screwed!)

Cheers,

Rico

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

Hi
well done on getting the award, I will bet they loved having to pay that out .

You are correct the facility to VT is contained within section 99 of the act section 100 sets out the liabilities due after termination.

If the gap insurance is a condition of the agreement(in other words you had to have it in order to get the car) then it must be included within the total charge for credit, that is not form part of the credit figure, if it did then the agreement would be improperly executed and may result in it being unenforceable dependent on other factors.

To find out where exactly the charge has been placed in the agreement we would have to see the figures, total credit installments and the APR for the total loan.

[Rickmaudib]

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

An update on my own case.The solicitors have come back to me, saying that the default on my file was correct. and my claim that I termintated my agreement under section 99 50% rule was incorrect and I terminated under section 100.unfortunatley I dont have the paperwork or email anymore from when I terminated, so I have accepted their offer of £4,500They have even suggested that notes from 3 weeks after, allude to me arguing over the amount I had to pay to terminate. this was incorrect and the notes relate to my arguing over the amount to pay for excess mileage and damage to the vehicle. I am waiting to get the payout, before i speak to them regarding whether the original contract was voidable and therefore I would be entitled to be reimbursed my paymenmts upto the voluntary termination, as the dealer fraudeulently added 495.00 gap insurance to the hire purchase agreement. (I won the gap insurance back re their ombudsman The dealer signed documents the day after the loan deal, while I was at work) does anyone have any knowlege of whether g.a.p insurance can be added to hire purchase agreements? but my argument will be that the figures and therefore repaymants and interest is incorrect due to the GAP insurance.Any ideas if this will float?