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

[supasta1]

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

Blimey. Well until now I've unconsciously taken the view that no-one would launch a claim unless some kind of damage had been suffered, even if it couldn't be quantified. Otherwise what's the point, unless it's to profit from the legislation?

Noddy997's claim doesn't look particularly good though - I myself wouldn't sue a bank for a 6-month period of default reporting, especially after being offered £2,500, but there you go.

Anyway, thank you Andy, you've proved your point.

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!!!

[Bankers Reform]

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

Hi Andy,
I am probably coming at this argument from my point of view rather than looking at the whole picture.

In my case defaults were added unknown to me in 2012 initially, then in 2013 court papers arrive. I successfully defended the claim and was able to prove no debt was ever outstanding from a credit card.
All through the court claim my credit file was being updated with incorrect information and even after the conclusion it is still being updated.
In my opinion the DCA have failed in there duty of care to me for continuing to update a default when it was initially disputed and also since it has been proven in my favour.
They have also failed in that they took the word of a credit card company when applying the default without first checking with me.

There have been some interesting arguments put forward on here and all have been helpful in one way or another.

[supasta1]

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

The award for £8000 in Durkins case was for 'general damage to his creditworthiness' and the judge clearly states that he would have no hesitation in making this award even if there had been 'no actual loss'.

Has the SC not agreed with this way of thinking in upholding this payment to Durkin?

It states quite clearly that the award of £8000 is for simple injury to credit and that their is no need to prove actual loss?

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.Has the the SC not verified the above in its decision to uphold the £8000??

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

DCA's and other firms before applying a default send out a notice, in that notice it states that a default will have a detrimental effect on your credit worthiness or words to that effect.
So they are fully aware of the damage a default can cause, therefore proving damage for a wrongful default is not difficult.
I'm sure that was mentioned in the Durkin ruling too.

More difficult than you would think sadly.

For instance, if there are other contrary markers on your file, or the data controller was not give chance to remedy.
There is no sanction in the DPA for blackening sometimes name, I suppose that would be a libel action.

It is important to be able to show Actual consequential loss.

[Bankers Reform]

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.

DCA's and other firms before applying a default send out a notice, in that notice it states that a default will have a detrimental effect on your credit worthiness or words to that effect.
So they are fully aware of the damage a default can cause, therefore proving damage for a wrongful default is not difficult.
I'm sure that was mentioned in the Durkin ruling too.

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

The whole case appears to be rather flimsy overall, no wonder the judge was a little miffed and threw it out.
Maybe they should have taken the £2500 out of court offer.

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

[Lord_Alcohol]

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.

There could be a lot of ways to show loss, with a bit of imagination...

Like, you couldn't remortgage. You couldn't arrange business credit. You couldn't lease a car so had to hire one. Your credit card interest rate went up. And then you could say that you had an application for credit refused (you might actually have needed to do this though!), which led to distress (s.13(2)).

Or you might have wanted to set up as a business but couldn't open a bank account (this has happened to me), thereby losing trade.

I think the point is that it doesn't need to be precisely quantified, and don't forget the distress angle in Halliday (which I'm now thinking could be quite useful generally).

:tinysmile_twink_t2:

[Sparkie1723]

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

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.The above is what Lord Nichols of Birkenhead said in Wilson v First Counties Trust (2002) and refers to Credit Reference Agencies holding detrimental damaging information.

Kohpraror had nothing to do with CRA entries and he was awarded an extra £1000 damages to his credit status that " MAY" have occurred in Nigeria.......He was only stated to have been damaged for 1 Day.........Lord Nichols in Wilson was very assertive about "damage" and is caused by incorrect default info on a persons credit file...in my own old fashioned way of thing I only belived that Principle 4 of the DPA was the poor mans Defamation Act.
When I watched & listened to the Hand down of the Durkin Judgement ....I was certain I heard First Counties Trust being mentioned ........and not the name it says in the Transcript of ........United Trust

But I ramble most of the time.

Sparkie

[Bankers Reform]

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

The whole case appears to be rather flimsy overall, no wonder the judge was a little miffed and threw it out.
Maybe they should have taken the £2500 out of court offer.

[ncf355]

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.

[ncf355]

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

Though that is prior to the SC ruling for Durkin

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

Salutary tale here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ighlight=noddy

Post 513 says it all really

Blimey. Well until now I've unconsciously taken the view that no-one would launch a claim unless some kind of damage had been suffered, even if it couldn't be quantified. Otherwise what's the point, unless it's to profit from the legislation?

Noddy997's claim doesn't look particularly good though - I myself wouldn't sue a bank for a 6-month period of default reporting, especially after being offered £2,500, but there you go.

Anyway, thank you Andy, you've proved your point.

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

Salutary tale here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ighlight=noddy

Post 513 says it all really

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

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".

Thank goodness - we agree (I think !!)

I wonder if part of the confusion is the term "injury to credit" - to me, it now sounds more like "distress" than "damage"...

[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???