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

26/03/2014
EDIT: JUDGMENT FROM SUPREME COURT NOW ADDED TO THREAD AND DISCUSSION THEREAFTER FROM Post #298 http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...551#post420551 Onwards.




OK

Please correct me if i err

The case began when Mr D went into PC world to by a computer, in particular he wanted one with a built in modem.
The shop found him a model but they were not sure if it had the required modem built in or not.
Mr D agreed to purchase the item and take it home on the grounds that if it did not have the required modem he could return it the next day and take advantage of their " no quibble return policy". He paid a £50 deposit and signed a crediit agreement with HFC.

It didn't have the modem built in, so he took it back, the shop refused to accept the item reneging on their promise.

He left the item with them.

Unfortunately the credit agreement continued to run, with the effect that a default marker was eventually placed on his credit file. Mr D had in progress some large purchases for which he needed an A1 credit score, these fell through due to the adverse marker.

Mr D sued both parties the shop for not keeping to their bargain and the credit company for placing the marker on his file, claiming substantial damages from the second party for his losses in his aborted purchases.

He won on all counts and received the awards, unfortunately the action he took to rescind the credit agreement was overturned on appeal, so the creditor was vindicated in placing the marker on his file.

The technical point in question was, could section 75 of the act be used to rescind a contract under these circumstance.

I was aware of this case purely because i had used the precedent created in the awarding of costs issue. Which i may say has been a great help to many.
I couldn't believe the circumstance that caused the problem, i assumed that a credit agreement would automatically be cancelled on the return of an item in this way.
I was a little surprised when i read the transcript of the hearing to be honest, in that that the agreement was said to have been rescinded, due to section 75.
I didn't think that 75 worked that way, my immediate reaction was that the agreement would have been cancelled under the provisions in section 55-56 of the act in that no agreement was" made", as prof. Goode puts it.

I considered section 75 to be a device where, if you paid money to a supplier and lost it through their breach, you could sue the creditor in their place. This mechanics are simpler to understand on a running credit account, on a fixed term agreement the creditor i thought would simply repay the loan account( which i suppose is a kind of rescission). It is a subtle distinction and i suppose one that only emerges in the situation that came up here.

It is a serious gap in the consumer protection measures available under the act, lets hope the SC has the skill and the will to plug it.

D

[Celestine]

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

Oh hell, that is a crazy and unfair outcome Richard, I am so gutted for you. Do you have any case against your lawyer for closing the case with so little notice?? After all 28th December is right in the middle of the Xmas break? Most firms close between Xmas and first working day of New Year? XX

[Rico]

Re: Still seeking redress following Supreme Court cock-up.

Hi Folks,

This month, I've ended up with a mortgage-sized legal debt. (£300K+).

I managed to recover only £3K after my own lawyer closed the case on 28th December 2016, before I had a chance to lodge a motion for interest on outlays after taxation (£200K down the tubes in one fell swoop). I only had 2 days and I was out of the country.

He had advised me that I needed to lodge the motion but gave me no opportunity to do so.

Just to add further injury he gave me a final bill of £15K and the judges also ordered me to pay PC World and HSBC £12K.

This case was far from won and I continue to struggle to find justice through the maze of dodgy judges, politicians and lawyers!

Rico

[Rico]

Still seeking redress following Supreme Court cock-up.

Hi Folks,

HSBC still unwilling to pay appropriate redress.

I've started a seperate thread in my preparations for phase 2:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...487#post539487

If the politicians won't fix the judiciary, it'll end up even more of a bloody mess.

Let's see what the new lot do in May. If Labour or Tories get back in it's unlikely we'll see any convicted bankers.

Cheers,

Rico.

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

Yes sparkie but again if you study your case the reason the judge dismissed the section 90 claim was because there was a verbal order , as per your first post.
There is no requirement for a written order in relation to an order issued for repossession in the cca (the van was on credit covered by the CCA) there is a statutory requirement for a written warrant of repossession in the case of a house .

[Sparkie1723]

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

[QUOTE=andy58;524108]Hmm unfortunately there is no requirement for the order to be in writing in the CCA as there is in the case of a re-possession, it is a matter of interpretation.[/Q UOTE]

HUllo andy.but if you study our judgement the judges refer to other verbal orders being actionable upon....not just possession orders and do not mention the CCA...furthermore .what they did not consider is M's Caravan had been repossesed by the Carvan Site owners some 2 months before even the oral order had been give...and they were " allegedly" agents of B/H. So they argued in Court when challenged about the £5,500 secret commission .
However this should be on the Caravan thread not Ricos.
This is about wrongful incorrect Defaults which M's Default entry on her credit file is still incorrect and inaccurate because their systems cannot record it caccurately....and our ruling says that if an accurate registration cannot be achieved .....it should not be recorded.
Sparkie

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

Even in our case the Appeal Court went to the ends of the earth to try an rule against us on every single point.
I still agree with pt and Tom's argument about the oral possession order not being lawful in that can be acted on immediately it is spoken, as it means that a bailiff can evict you from your home or repossess anything without a written Court Order just tell the owners the Court has said so.........and if you ask to see the Court Order tell you ..........we don't need a written order......Give us the keys to your house or car or what ever............and the lender can then apply record of the judgement and default your credit file.
This is the Fair Unbiased English Justice System so admired and renowned through out the world.
This justice system not only pulls the wool over our eyes but the rest of the world as well.

Sparkie's weekly or daily rant over

Hmm unfortunately there is no requirement for the order to be in writing in the CCA as there is in the case of a re-possession, it is a matter of interpretation.

[Sparkie1723]

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

Even in our case the Appeal Court went to the ends of the earth to try an rule against us on every single point.
I still agree with pt and Tom's argument about the oral possession order not being lawful in that can be acted on immediately it is spoken, as it means that a bailiff can evict you from your home or repossess anything without a written Court Order just tell the owners the Court has said so.........and if you ask to see the Court Order tell you ..........we don't need a written order......Give us the keys to your house or car or what ever............and the lender can then apply record of the judgement and default your credit file.
This is the Fair Unbiased English Justice System so admired and renowned through out the world.
This justice system not only pulls the wool over our eyes but the rest of the world as well.

Sparkie's weekly or daily rant over

[meellis]

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

After reading all the latest and what has happened elsewhere I can understand why the banking/finance industry behaves as it does, it realises it is un-touchable. When we these people truly pay the price for the things they have done?

[Amethyst]

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

Just the legal fees.

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

Puts you off standing up for yourself and seeking justice somewhat doesn't it.

Costs in Roberts v Bos were bonkers too, not quite £100k bonkers - about £35k as I recall - even though she won as well


EDIT: just checked was £20k see attached ( mights as well been £100k though)

Ooer - so the Court of Appeal dismissed BoS's appeal, awarded £7,500 to Roberts, and she still got a costs bill of £20K!?

Does this include the original £10K or so that she owed the bank? With interest (contractual?) on top? Or is it purely legal fees?

Seems a bit harsh

[Amethyst]

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

Depends on what basis they were made I'd guess. It's horrid but you'll just have to wait for the costs guys to sort through everything. Did you have insurance or anything ?


Your damages should be just under £18k with the stat interest from Aug 99. Doesn't help much if you're facing £100k costs.

[Rico]

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

did they counter offer anything?

It wouldn't have cost them anything to remove the default as requested. They didn't even offer that!

All offers after failing to remove the default were derisory and in any case, came far too late.

[Amethyst]

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

did they counter offer anything?

[Rico]

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

David Jones @ PI costing is a good costs draftsman in my opinion.

Thanks PT. We're screwed anyway. The "supreme" court has ensured that. It seems I'll need to apply for legal aid just to sort expenses!