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

Just another two penneth worth about “Damage”
In Section 4.5 of the Legal Guidance given by the ICO, that I have got It states this,
An individual who suffers damage, or damage and distress, as a result of any contravention of the Act by a data controller, is entitled to compensation where the data controller is unable to prove that he had taken such care as was reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the relevant requirement
“ Damage” includes financial loss.
Now this to me is saying that …you can suffer Damage without
suffering financial loss. and that “ Damage” is damage of
any description.

You can suffer damage on its own...but if you have suffered finacial loss you can claim damage for distress as well
But I live in the twighlight zone more often than not.
Sparkie

[Guest]

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

Unfortunately it is difficult to assign a figure to "injury to credit", this would differ according to circumstance , it would be good if there was a figure for such a thing, but if you think about it , it would be inequitable, there are to many variables, injury to credit for one person may prove very costly, to someone with poor credit anyway it would make no difference.

[Bankers Reform]

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

I think you may have to prove an actual loss but not necessarily quantify that loss.
So on that thread of thought, proving an actual loss without quantifying should be straight forward because in the case of default markers, those reporting state in their letter of intent to default state; the recording of a default will damage your ability to obtain credit. Or words similar.

So those reporting are aware that reporting a default will damage your credit, that is probably why that was uncontested.

[Guest]

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

Just another two penneth worth about “Damage”
In Section 4.5 of the Legal Guidance given by the ICO, that I have got It states this,
An individual who suffers damage, or damage and distress, as a result of any contravention of the Act by a data controller, is entitled to compensation where the data controller is unable to prove that he had taken such care as was reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the relevant requirement
“ Damage” includes financial loss.
Now this to me is saying that …you can suffer Damage without
suffering financial loss. and that “ Damage” is damage of
any description.

You can suffer damage on its own...but if you have suffered finacial loss you can claim damage for distress as well
But I live in the twighlight zone more often than not.
Sparkie

If not financial loss directly Sparkie, it would still have to be an actual loss which was quantifiable in financial terms, and in accordance with the principles of common law.

In other words , if you could show that looses where inevitable through the action, even though you could not exactly quantify them , then you would have a claim.

[Guest]

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

I think you may have to prove an actual loss but not necessarily quantify that loss.
So on that thread of thought, proving an actual loss without quantifying should be straight forward because in the case of default markers, those reporting state in their letter of intent to default state; the recording of a default will damage your ability to obtain credit. Or words similar.

So those reporting are aware that reporting a default will damage your credit, that is probably why that was uncontested.

In one of the cases mentioned earlier in this thread for instance the issue of assigning damages was dismissed because the debtor had other negative markers , which would have precluded them from obtaining credit anyway, so no actual loss.

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

In one of the cases mentioned earlier in this thread for instance the issue of assigning damages was dismissed because the debtor had other negative markers , which would have precluded them from obtaining credit anyway, so no actual loss.

I think that was Smeaton v Equifax, the guy had totally trashed his credit file (9 defaults I think).

I'm beginning to think it might be easier to use harassment under the 1997 Act, and use DP issues to support that - so making no monetary claim under DPA, just an order for data to be removed/amended.

[Sparkie1723]

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

Libel and defamation cause no financial loss......just injury to Character and crebility....and I have always said that the DPA is the poor mans defamation act.
Damage under the Libel and Defamation act are also unquantifiable and yet huge sums have been awarded ........whch have now been capped I believe...not arguing against people with more knowledge than me ......just putting my view...which is the view of a decrepit senile 77 year old, who should be put in a corner told to shut :tape:and no notice taken of:wacko:

[ncf355]

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

LOL@Sparks!

[Guest]

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

I think if you are looking for aan action for defamation . you have to pursue under the relevant law, horses for courses really.

I do not think that recovery of damages under the DPA is impossible, I just think that there is a danger of some starting expensive actions without thinking the matter through.

The courts as we see take a clinical view to damages on these claims, however hard done by (justifiably) we may feel , i fear that unless some real loss can be demonstrated the DPA is of little use.

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

I think it's the DPA that's causing the trouble - it's not mentioned in Rico's original claim in Aberdeen, it's mentioned once in the Edinburgh appeal but only in connection with s.159 CCA, and it makes no appearance in the UKSC ruling. Presumably it wasn't a part of Rico's claim at all?

I don't have the mental ability to understand how a data processing issue can be heard in 3 different courts without the DPA being mentioned, or a claim made and appealed without any similar reference.

So the question that's puzzling me now is, how can a successful "injury to credit" claim be made without reference to the DPA?

[Guest]

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

I think it's the DPA that's causing the trouble - it's not mentioned in Rico's original claim in Aberdeen, it's mentioned once in the Edinburgh appeal but only in connection with s.159 CCA, and it makes no appearance in the UKSC ruling. Presumably it wasn't a part of Rico's claim at all?

I don't have the mental ability to understand how a data processing issue can be heard in 3 different courts without the DPA being mentioned, or a claim made and appealed without any similar reference.

So the question that's puzzling me now is, how can a successful "injury to credit" claim be made without reference to the DPA?

You can start a claim under the common law tort of breach of duty of care and demand damages that result.

Unfortunately when defining what actually is expected under that duty of care, the court will inevitably refer back to the DPA.
Then as in Smeaton it may be decided that the matter would be best covered by the legislation.

[Rico]

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

Rico's take on where "injury to credit" fits within DPA.

Sorry, I don't have a clue, or even an interest! It's far too complicated. Designed for Lawyers.

As you can guess, I'm a trifle dis-enthused with "The Law" just now, having come across very dark forces that apparently "cannot be overcome".

God loves a trier they say. I'll keep trying.

What I think is that if you use my case for general damages, you'll win.

Andrew Smith QC has said the same.

Case law.

Good luck.

Cheers,

Rico

[Guest]

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

Sorry, I don't have a clue, or even an interest! It's far too complicated. Designed for Lawyers.

As you can guess, I'm a trifle dis-enthused with "The Law" just now, having come across very dark forces that apparently "cannot be overcome".

God loves a trier they say. I'll keep trying.

What I think is that if you use my case for general damages, you'll win.

Andrew Smith QC has said the same.

Case law.

Good luck.

Cheers,

Rico

Sorry to say that I dissagree, without further qualification and supporting evidence of actual loss.

[Rico]

Case law regarding general daamges for wrongful defaults.

As a consquence of negligent misrepresentation the pursuer sustained a general loss to his creditwothiness fairly stated at £8K - Durkin.

There was an injury to credit whether or not there was an actual inability to get credit (King - Clear Authority) Reasoning against this is far too pernickety - Benyon.

No claim "Wilson" had suffered any specific loss, yet damages awarded for serious injury to general credit standing.

An award of damages for mere injury to credit is appropriate (without any finding of specific loss) - Durkin. A more significant matter today than 100 years ago.

Kpohraror - A presumption of some damage arises in every case.

That's it. Case Law. All effectively ratified by the Supreme Court.

Keep it simple folks. I don't expect there'll be many judges left that'll want to disagree with the Supreme Court.

[Guest]

Re: Case law regarding general daamges for wrongful defaults.

As a consquence of negligent misrepresentation the pursuer sustained a general loss to his creditwothiness fairly stated at £8K - Durkin.

There was an injury to credit whether or not there was an actual inability to get credit (King - Clear Authority) Reasoning against this is far too pernickety - Benyon.

No claim "Wilson" had suffered any specific loss, yet damages awarded for serious injury to general credit standing.

An award of damages for mere injury to credit is appropriate (without any finding of specific loss) - Durkin. A more significant matter today than 100 years ago.

Kpohraror - A presumption of some damage arises in every case.

That's it. Case Law. All effectively ratified by the Supreme Court.

Keep it simple folks. I don't expect there'll be many judges left that'll want to disagree with the Supreme Court.

No I think you will find that it is misinterpretation, unfortunately the Supreme court made no such judgement.

Sorry to be so blunt, but I have seen far to many come a cropper following this flawed advice.