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

[mystery1]

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

So,

in my case, where they have carried out damage, removed the offending item, replaced it, removed it again, replaced it for a third time and then removed it again (and apologised in writing), they are allowed to get off scot free due to lack of actual loss?

Don't think so

I can show some direct costs by way of subscription to the various credit reporting tools (required so I can keep a day by day assessment of what they are up to) and hope that this will strengthen the case for general damage.

The point is, being unable to gain credit would be hard to to prove as an actual loss, so if they continually process bad data and remove it, where is the penalty and what stops them doing this?

We would have to rely on a regulator that takes 4-6 months to enforce the change to your files without an award for the damge and generally accepts their word that the mistake is not a common one and not institutional.

Sounds like you might have a further case for harassment if you can prove they knew it was wrong and they were bound to know that it would harm you.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/882.htm

M1

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

PHA 1997 s.7(2);

"References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress."

Sounds like harassment to me...

[ncf355]

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

Hmm,

Interesting angle, thanks LA and M1!

Currently obtaining some information that I'm hoping will assist

[Sparkie1723]

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

This is exactly what has happened and IS still happening with the
cerdit file entry that Black Horse have on my partners credit file.
A notice of dispute was added to her credit files about this by Experian & Equifax because the information is incorrect.
The monthly payments of her related H.P. credit agreement were £427.05 per month .............the agreement was terminated by B/H in 2012.
However B/H have supplied the CRA's with info stating that the monthly payments were/are £ 487.00 per month.

The CRA's have been in touch with B/H saying she disputes the information. Black Horse reponded that the info was correct and not to ammend it suppress it in any way.

Emma Watts of Experian's compliance unit contacted B/H again..... and pointed out what my Partner had insisted on...... that it was incorrect.
Black Horse repeated and confirmed the entry particulars were correct and told her not to ammend it and to leave is as it stood.

Black Horse know without any doubt its incorrect and yet refuse to ammend it or allow Experian to ammend it......their error has been pointed out twice to them and still they say leave it on her file as it is. I believe this is with malicious intent........ to cause her as much damage as they can because she is appealing.
Sorry to put this on Rico's thread, but it's just to show as another example ( as with Rico) how lenders abuse their position in relation to data protection and info supplied tp the CRA's.
I was a bit scared of our Appeal, but now I feel as if it will have a big impact for others..I really do hope this is the case...

Sparkie

[Rico]

What's going on?

Hi Folks,

Here's a reasonable summary of why the judges in Edinburgh shouldn't have removed and edited facts in favour of HFC.

http://thinkandtalkwithtods.com/2013...ally-do-count/

So, what the hell happened?

Not even a mention of submissions. Plenty of discussion on the day but no discussion in the ruling?

Something fishy, it seems, at the Supreme Court level!

Rico.

[MIKE770]

Re: What's going on?

Hi Folks,

Here's a reasonable summary of why the judges in Edinburgh shouldn't have removed and edited facts in favour of HFC.

http://thinkandtalkwithtods.com/2013...ally-do-count/

So, what the hell happened?

Not even a mention of submissions. Plenty of discussion on the day but no discussion in the ruling?

Something fishy, it seems, at the Supreme Court level!

Rico.

Supremem - NON Supreme - cannot make decisions unless somebody else has, so what use are they.

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

So, if a credit agreement is unenforceable forever and ever, and the Court of Appeal and House of Lords say the debtor doesnt have to pay, and the debtor goes to Court and gets a declartion the agreement is unenforceable, should the creditor be able to place a default if the debtor succeeds in Court and gets an order that he doesnt have to pay?

Seems somewhat perverse if the bank after all that can still default the debtor

Having thought about this for a week, surely the data controller would be seeking to enforce the agreement even after a court had ruled it was unenforceable?

For the debtor to avoid adverse data, he has to make payments. In direct contradiction of the court order.

Also, if the agreement does not have to be performed in any way by the debtor, doesn't the lender lose entitlements under Schedule 2 DPA? The data subject could withdraw his consent for the processing, leaving no other conditions available to the data controller by which he can process data. This would require the lender to show that the debtor's option of performing the contract in no way affected its rights at Schedule 2(2)(a) - but that's way over my head!!

[Bankers Reform]

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

Surely if a debt is unproven in court or did not exist then any adverse data reported to the CRA's is incorrect and therefore unlawful.
This would then open up the data controller of the reporting company to a damages claim.

There is a danger of getting bogged down in the detail when thinking about this but, the bottom line is, if the information is wrong then it is wrong and there is nothing more to it than that.

[jon1965]

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

Maybe I am looking at this far too simply, but under English law a UE debt still exists just as a SB debt does. So unless there is either a change in the law, or someone takes this through the courts again (is that possible?) we are kind of stuck with it. Of course is anyone arguing that a UE debt doesn't exist and we have not had the money/goods/services.
Would any government be brave enough to rewrite the CCA to actually protect consumers as opposed to the slow erosion of our rights?

[Bankers Reform]

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

Yes but what about when a consumer proves that a debt does not exist and has been paid already, and adverse data is being reported to CRA's by a DCA.
That is wrong and the consumer should have a right of recourse for damages automatically.

[Amethyst]

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

Indeed. UE isn't saying that no debt exists, just that it isn't enforceable through the courts, it is also in the main part rectifiable.

I don't agree with using technicalities anyway except to correct an injustice and actual unfairness that can't be handled through other means so am maybe biased.

If there is NO DEBT and the default on the credit file actually should never have existed because the debt never existed (actually never existed, not technically never existed) then I fully support claims to correct the error and compensation for any damage caused.

Otherwise I think the debt should stay on the credit file for the correct period following default (and I do mean default added properly and fairly to the file, not 4 years later on a whim by a DCA).

[Bankers Reform]

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

Agree Amethyst

In my case the debt never existed but the credit card company sold an account that was clear although they said there was a debt.
I managed to prove that my credit card bill was paid up and no debt residue was leftover when the account was closed. The problem was payments had not been credited to my account.
Now a DCA has been reporting incorrect data for the last two years.
When the debt was disputed by me then the data reported should reflect that but they still applied a default marker month after month.
Even after, at considerable expense to my self, I did their job for them and proved I was correct and no debt existed defaults are still being reported to the CRA's.

It makes me mad that companies ride roughshod over people and keep getting away with it.
They need to know the damage a default can cause people and if they are wrong then they should pay for it.

[Rico]

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.

Good stuff.

Be sure to ask for general damages to be awarded by the court as per my case, rather than £8K exactly. (They'll probably award you more so be clear that you want to keep things in the Small Claims Court, unless you've a specific claim). Outside of small claims, fees become extortionate.

No such thing as a certainty I keep getting told (because of the justiciary) but your case must be as good as it gets following the Supreme Court ruling.

Good Luck.

Rico.

[ncf355]

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

Does anyone know of a court ruling regards the reasonable length of time for a Default to be in place?

[Bankers Reform]

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

Good stuff.

Be sure to ask for general damages to be awarded by the court as per my case, rather than £8K exactly. (They'll probably award you more so be clear that you want to keep things in the Small Claims Court, unless you've a specific claim). Outside of small claims, fees become extortionate.

No such thing as a certainty I keep getting told (because of the justiciary) but your case must be as good as it gets following the Supreme Court ruling.

Good Luck.

Rico.

Thanks for the advice Rico, much appreciated.
I have already written to the DCA requesting a proposal for settlement and asking for compensation without any reply.
I have now sent off a letter before action to the data controller giving them another 14 days to respond.
After that time it will be straight to court.