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

[Guest]

Re: Case law regarding general daamges for wrongful defaults.

See Lord Nicholls in

Wilson v First Counties Trust

Sparkie

Seen it Spaikie makes absolutely no difference sadly, I will no say nothing whilst people risk there time and money on lost causes.

[Guest]

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

Wilson has been mentioned before in this context( I am unsure why), don't usually use Wikipedia but there is a goad synopsis of the cases here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_...ust_Ltd_(No_2)

As can be seen the judgement concerned prescribed terms issues on an agreement. The judge my have mentioned credit worthiness in the many pages of judgement, he may have said he liked apples, sadly neither comment can form any precedent in future decisions whether it be in court or at Tesco

Much more recent(relevant and binding) hearings clarify the matter, as indeed does the DPA.

[Rico]

Re: Case law regarding general damages for wrongful defaults.

there has never been any award for mere "injury to credit".

Mine. (Although dwarfed by expenses)

[MissFM]

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

Rico

I hope you don't mind me asking but is there anything you would do differently should you have the (spooky) chance to go back in time?

Like everyone else, I rejoiced in your high court victory but then felt crestfallen that past errors weren't corrected - and clearly there weren't mechanisms in law for those errors to be corrected. It seems that the middle appeal is sealed in blood and even the high court can't give redress however much they would like to do that.

[Rico]

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

Is there anything you would do differently should you have the (spooky) chance to go back in time?

Without resorting to violence, I suppose I could have sought charitable help sooner.

there weren't mechanisms in law for those errors to be corrected. It seems that the middle appeal is sealed in blood and even the high court can't give redress however much they would like to do that.

Sadly, it seems I have to live with that statement but I know it's untrue.

Appellate courts aren't entitled to interfere with the trial judges conclusion on primary facts or indeed to delete and alter facts without good reason. This was re-established only several months ago in the exact same Supreme Court. Indeed, as Celestine witnessed, it was discussed in my case and Lord Wilson at least, was troubled.

So, although Scotland's highest court continued their fantastic role of screwing the little guy, it was indeed the Supreme Court that buried me and the rest of us that have had our aspirations thwarted by criminal bankers.

Friends come before the law!

Rico.

[pt2537]

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

Richard, were the particulars of your claim published anywhere? i was just asking as sometimes it makes it easier for people to understand the case and what was claimed, if they are able to read the pleadings

[Rico]

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

is there anything you would do differently should you have the (spooky) chance to go back in time?

I should add that I wish I had insisted that my legal team had kept things much, much simpler.

I did try and indeed I even represented myself in the early stages, when they refused.

This should have been a no-brainer as indeed it turns out that it was.

Lawyers tend to make things much more complicated. I assume they're paid more for doing so and protecting their image.

I hope my case can be used very simply now to help others get wrongful defaults removed pronto.

Personally, I'll try and keep future claims in the small claims court (as I tried to do in this), keeping things simple. Sometimes it's too difficult... because of the law!

Cheers,

Rico.

[mystery1]

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

Richard, were the particulars of your claim published anywhere? i was just asking as sometimes it makes it easier for people to understand the case and what was claimed, if they are able to read the pleadings

THIRD AMENDED CLOSED RECORD.doc

M1

[Guest]

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

I should add that I wish I had insisted that my legal team had kept things much, much simpler.

I did try and indeed I even represented myself in the early stages, when they refused.

This should have been a no-brainer as indeed it turns out that it was.

Lawyers tend to make things much more complicated. I assume they're paid more for doing so and protecting their image.

I hope my case can be used very simply now to help others get wrongful defaults removed pronto.

Personally, I'll try and keep future claims in the small claims court (as I tried to do in this), keeping things simple. Sometimes it's too difficult... because of the law!

Cheers,

Rico.

I think you right Rico, it seems to me that it was your tenacity hat got the eventful decision, that and the fact that the common sense outcome could only be that the credit agreement could not exist without the sale.

The technical argument regarding section 75 failed, fortunately the SC found a way to use the implied term represented within the act to make sense of the situation, I think that had you got this far on your own you would have got a similar result.

Regarding the claim, the issue of general losses for an incorrect marker still remains unresolved unfortunately, there was no award here IMO ,at least not one that would be recognized as creating a precedent.
I wonder if it would have been better if you had received a more minimal award for a "general" (unsubstantiated loss) in the first place and then perhaps the specific losses would have been more realistically assess, I suppose it is all hindsight now.

[Sparkie1723]

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

Hi Richard
JUst me poking my nose in again ...you ( and others) might find this read helpful.....but as I have been told I know nothing.....Take this with a pinch of salt.
Sparkie
Guardian Unlimited Money | Credit and debt |

When they libel our rating Page 2 of 3
Equally worrying is the willingness of Experian and its main competitor, Equifax, to publish adverse information about credit histories where there is a disputed debt.
Jobs & Money featured the way mobile phone operators insist customers pay for calls after phones are stolen. Credit reference agencies were a recurring theme in readers' responses. Rather than justify their claims to a court, the operators were able to intimidate many into paying specious debts by threatening to report them to such agencies.




Such a report would be libellous both when made to the agency and when passed on by the agency to any other prospective creditor.


In 1908 the judges of the Privy Council ruled, in a decision that still seems to be the law today, the fact that the agency passing on the information believes it to be true is not a defence.
Ms Viner spent "hours and hours" dealing with low-level employees. A better tactic might have been to insist on talking to chief executive, John Saunders, or even John Peace the chief executive of GUS, which owns Experian.
Once she had made clear that the time of such "important" people was going to be spent sorting things out, matters would inevitably have been dealt with more efficiently.


These episodes show how unfortunate it is that last month an attempt by a Wakefield man, Brian Robertson, to have the sale of electoral registers to credit reference agencies ruled unlawful, failed in the High Court.


In 2001 the court decided that selling the register to direct marketing organisations was an interference with an individual's privacy and hence his human rights. This resulted in Regulations enabling people to have their names removed from the version of the register which was sold to junk mailers.
However, a full version can still be bought by credit reference agencies. Mr Robertson claimed that the Regulations were inconsistent with the previous decision and still breached his human rights.


Unfortunately, he did not turn up for the hearing in July. Perhaps not surprisingly, lawyers representing Experian and Equifax as well as the government, all of whom had an interest in the sales continuing, found it easy to persuade Mr Justice Kay that the public interest in preventing fraud and bad debt outweighed the invasion of privacy.


The judge's conclusion seemed to be based on the agencies doing no more than providing accurate, factual information which may be no more than a minimal interference with anybody's rights.


Had his attention been drawn to the agency's attitude to identity theft cases, and the way they can be used to bludgeon people into paying disputed debts, the outcome might have been different.
http://money.guardian.co.uk/creditan...031890,00.html 10/01/2004

[Guest]

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

Interesting Sparkie, and who would say that?
I've always found you to be a veritable font of useful information
Ignore them

[MissFM]

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

Without resorting to violence, I suppose I could have sought charitable help sooner.



Sadly, it seems I have to live with that statement but I know it's untrue.

Appellate courts aren't entitled to interfere with the trial judges conclusion on primary facts or indeed to delete and alter facts without good reason. This was re-established only several months ago in the exact same Supreme Court. Indeed, as Celestine witnessed, it was discussed in my case and Lord Wilson at least, was troubled.

So, although Scotland's highest court continued their fantastic role of screwing the little guy, it was indeed the Supreme Court that buried me and the rest of us that have had our aspirations thwarted by criminal bankers.

Friends come before the law!

Rico.

Very many thanks for your reply, Rico. It was my impression also that the Lords (some of them) were deeply troubled by the net injustice perpetrated upon you. Oddly (for the highest court in the land) they appear to have been unable to put things right.

I suppose I'm fishing around for how this could have been prevented and how it could (possibly) be circumvented for future claimants.

You were not, for example, allowed to bring in issues that your legal team didn't put forward in that previous appeal - do you think (with hindsight! sorry) that your then legal team were aiming at the wrong target? And that hence you were not able to revisit contentious points that they didn't (and maybe should have) argue(d) at that stage?

Sorry about the clumsy questions, just trying hard to understand what seems to me to be a gross injustice.

x

[Rico]

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

operators were able to intimidate many into paying specious debts by threatening to report them

Extortion.

I've a letter ready for our Lord Advocate to encourage the start of prosecutions for this. It should be sent early next month at the next port call.

Cheers,

Rico.

[Rico]

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

Oddly (for the highest court in the land) they appear to have been unable to put things right.

The public appear to have been successfully deceived. They were able. They demonstrated the ability last July.

I suppose I'm fishing around for how this could have been prevented and how it could (possibly) be circumvented for future claimants.

Future claimants will have defaults removed very quickly now, I'd have thought.

The main issue remaining is for those that have been wrongly defaulted for many years and are now in a situation where they're unable to set up a family home or are expected to pay much more than they would otherwise have done having already been subjected to a diminished lifestyle.

You were not, for example, allowed to bring in issues that your legal team didn't put forward in that previous appeal - do you think (with hindsight! sorry) that your then legal team were aiming at the wrong target? And that hence you were not able to revisit contentious points that they didn't (and maybe should have) argue(d) at that stage?

My legal team DID argue the issues that in any case are written in the record. The judges in Edinburgh however didn't mention it; in the same way that the justices in London didn't mention the fact that the judges in Edinburgh had no reason in law to delete and edit facts.

In Edinburgh, my legal team were only asked to point out that 600-300 ≠ 116. It took 15 minutes and promptly ignored.! It took 6 days for the rest of the waffle.

The banks clearly have control over the judiciary. I hope the monarchy can address this issue before the revolution becomes uncontrollable.

Cheers,

Rico.

[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?