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

[Sparkie1723]

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

There has of course been Smeaton vs Equafax and Haliday which directly opposed general damage awards, and distinguished Khopraror as being not relevant.

I think that this case would have to introduce a new element, perhaps it does, I am just unsure of whether it would be considered persuasive with it being a Scottish uncontested claim.

However, Wilson v First Counties was ruled under English Law.

Sparkie

[Amethyst]

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

Sorry LA not sure how you mean, we'd be happy to pass on specific donations to Rico if that is what you mean ?

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

I think it would andy if argued properly Richards ruling fully supports Wilson and Khopraror rulings that the damge does not have to be proven as Lord Birkenhead said its immediate ....

Sparkie

There has of course been Smeaton vs Equafax and Haliday which directly opposed general damage awards, and distinguished Khopraror as being not relevant.

I think that this case would have to introduce a new element, perhaps it does, I am just unsure of whether it would be considered persuasive with it being a Scottish uncontested claim.

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

Hi Rico,

well done for all your efforts, I feel you really need the utmost congratulations for your determination in this

I for one would be more than happy to contribute to your costs from any wins I make from this supporting judgment

Me too.

Maybe the site team could think about this?

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

And do we think then that a contested claim for unspecified general damages of £8000 on the misplacement of a default marker would be successful here ?

The SC allowed £8K for injury to credit, surely the lower courts will allow the same?

[ncf355]

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

Hi Rico,

well done for all your efforts, I feel you really need the utmost congratulations for your determination in this

I for one would be more than happy to contribute to your costs from any wins I make from this supporting judgment

[Sparkie1723]

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

And do we think then that a contested claim for unspecified general damages of £8000 on the misplacement of a default marker would be successful here ?

I think it would andy if argued properly Richards ruling fully supports Wilson and Khopraror rulings that the damge does not have to be proven as Lord Birkenhead said its immediate ....

Sparkie

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

That's as good as it gets. Based on other folk being screwed for a few days as opposed to decades.

Thanks for all the support.

I hope I can get back most of my expenses.

It would be nice to be able to fire a defamation claim at HFC next.

Cheers for now.

Rico.

I must say Rico I do not know how you managed to deal with this for such an age - in my books you're a hero.

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

And do we think then that a contested claim for unspecified general damages of £8000 on the misplacement of a default marker would be successful here ?

[Sparkie1723]

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

That's as good as it gets. Based on other folk being screwed for a few days as opposed to decades.

Thanks for all the support.

I hope I can get back most of my expenses.

It would be nice to be able to fire a defamation claim at HFC next.

Cheers for now.

Rico.

Hi Rico, Not what I was hoping for you .but have a think about using Section 140 of the CCA.It gives the Court the powers to re-open a credit agreement...and if you say under section 140B (9)that you lost X amount of pounds...... it is up to the creditor to prove you didn't......section 140B (9) puts the boot on the other foot if you get my meaning.

Spar kie

[Sparkie1723]

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

I thought the judgment was pretty clear, to quote:

"Damages resulting from HFC’s breach of its duty of care are confined to injury to Mr Durkin’s credit in the sum of £8,000."

They expressly stated they could not consider the elements of actual loss that had been alleged, this means the SC awarded £8,000 + interest for the mere act of 'Injury to credit'

Again, comments above are not meant to be derogatary, just how I see the thing (albeit simplistic) and I guess the only way we'll really find out is when someone puts it all into practice!

I'm in absolute agrement with you there nfc.......what I see the judgement makes clear is that it backs and supports the Wilson V First Counties case.wherein Lord Birkenhead said that any Adverse /Detrimental information recorded on a persons credit file causes IMMEDIATE damage and the Judges in Durkin supported that view and ruling.......it is mentioned in the Judgement transcript........it has shown that ....in my opinion...... that the least amount of damage award for this type of damage is £8,000.
But any further loss must be pleaded and proven.


The other thing is even if a default is correctly entered because of the debtors fault......it is not meant ( as they say) to assist other potential lenders/creditors to assess an applicants credit status ....it is MEANT to damage a persons reputaion as we all agree entering a default is not enforcement of an agreement some creditors enter defaults for sums that would not be worth them taking the person to Court to recover monies owed....so they use the damage tactic ..which IMO is malicious.
A correctly entered default causes the same damage as an incorrect one

Sparkie

[Rico]

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

SC awarded £8,000 + interest for the mere act of 'Injury to credit'

That's as good as it gets. Based on other folk being screwed for a few days as opposed to decades.

Thanks for all the support.

I hope I can get back most of my expenses.

It would be nice to be able to fire a defamation claim at HFC next.

Cheers for now.

Rico.

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

I thought the judgment was pretty clear, to quote:

"Damages resulting from HFC’s breach of its duty of care are confined to injury to Mr Durkin’s credit in the sum of £8,000."

They expressly stated they could not consider the elements of actual loss that had been alleged, this means the SC awarded £8,000 + interest for the mere act of 'Injury to credit'

Again, comments above are not meant to be derogatary, just how I see the thing (albeit simplistic) and I guess the only way we'll really find out is when someone puts it all into practice!

Yes it was, but the £8000 was awarded in the Scottish Court not by the SC. It was also not contested.

In previous lower court cases here this figure and even the concept of general losses on an action of this nature have been disregarded.

[ncf355]

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

What effect do we think this judgment has on the issue of general damages, following a proven incorrectly placed notice.

Is there any more likelihood that an English court will accept an unspecified damages claim following the £8000 awarded here.

The SC seemed not to either approve or disprove the Scottish award, but there again they did not rule it out. Would this be persuasive in lower court claims. I am unsure.

I thought the judgment was pretty clear, to quote:

"Damages resulting from HFC’s breach of its duty of care are confined to injury to Mr Durkin’s credit in the sum of £8,000."

They expressly stated they could not consider the elements of actual loss that had been alleged, this means the SC awarded £8,000 + interest for the mere act of 'Injury to credit'

Again, comments above are not meant to be derogatary, just how I see the thing (albeit simplistic) and I guess the only way we'll really find out is when someone puts it all into practice!

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

I do not intend getting into a prolonged debate about this. However a creditor can enter a default marker after six missed payments and the account will be in default, however he may not chose to enforce until some months later at which time he will have to send a section 87 notice.

The notice is for information, as said it does not make the account in default it records and reports the condition to the debtor and warns that enforcement is imminent.

Now back on topic please

I don't think this is correct at all, and it remains topical because of the impact the Durkin judgement may have on wrongly-defaulted accounts.

A creditor cannot simply report a default on a debtor's credit file unless it has served a notice of intent to file one, giving the debtor at least 28 days to fix the problem. This is set out in the ICO's guidance as well as the Lending Code.

It seems to me extremely odd to consider a creditor serving a separate notice of intent and later followed by a default notice, as both notices would have to specify the same breach (or, rather, the same sum needed to remedy the breach). And once a default is reported on the debtor's credit file the agreement is marked as ended (according to the ICO), so service of a subsequent s.87 notice is pointless because the debtor would not be able to remedy his breach.

Further, doing as you suggest would be a breach of s.87(1), which is why (IMO) notices of intent are bundled within s.87 notices. It would be a breach of s.87(1) because, in marking an account in default, the creditor has effectively ended the agreement without serving a s.87 notice, and is effectively claiming the balance by showing the default balance as payable (the default balance being all sums owed, not just the arrears).

The reality is that a s.87 notice specifying incorrect arrears followed by registration of a default must mean that the data is incorrect, and IMO this remains an important issue following yesterday's judgement.

I'm sorry to bang on about this, but I suspect those of us with wrongly-recorded defaults on our credit files will be looking to Durkin for a solution.