General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

[Rico]

Hi Folks,

A friend on CAG - Noddy - has been the first this century to attempt to claim the maximum £5K in the Nottingham Small Claims Court for damage to his creditworthiness.

He used my case (Durkin v DSG & HFC) stating that it wasn't necessary to prove specific losses as HSBC had agreed that a default shouldn't be on his credit file.

In my case, HFC, a subsidiary of HSBC, conceded in the Court of Session (influential in the UK) that folk that have been wrongfully defaulted are reasonably entitled to £8K in general damages, not requiring proof of specific loss.

Indefensible right?

Well....the Judge ruled that Noddy needed to prove a specific loss and was therefore entitled to nothing!

He is considering appealing (HSBC had previously tried to pay him off with £2500).

Could someone confirm that the judge was wrong (or right!). Case law, including Kpohraror, which Noddy also used, seems to indicate that she (the judge) got it wrong.

Maliciously perhaps, she then went on to say Noddy "can't appeal". So, Noddy's next step will first of all have to appeal the fact that he can't appeal when in reality, in my opinion, his case against HSBC was indefensible!

He's currently considering this.

For those of you not already aware of his case, the link to his thread is

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...15#post4157915

I hope someone can advise. Bullying banks need bringing to justice and Noddy with his solid evidence and case law seems just the chap to break the mould.

All for now,

Rico.

[leclerc]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Rico, I won't go on CAG or view the link to the forum so if you could summarise it on here then that might be useful. I do think though that he should have proven loss, ie had he applied for credit during that period and been turned down then that might have proven loss. I am making a generalised viewpoint since I do not know the case over there but ask his permission prior to posting on here.....

[Guest]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Court of Session (influential in the UK)

'Influential' is not 'binding'.

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

It seems , as Durkin says that the judge was of the opinion that the plaintiff would have to demonstrate actual damage, I notice that the Halliday case was thrown into the arena to illustrate that losses have to be demonstrated in a DPA claim.
Kpohraror and the precedent that damages can be"awarded for damage not specifically proved" seems to have been ignored.
I wonder if the mention of this in Halliday was relevant in that it says(as I read it) that whilst the damages do not have to be a major factor they do have to have been incurred in some form.
I would like to see the transcript when it is written.

Lets hope noddy gets the appeal

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

'Influential' is not 'binding'.

Supreme Court ruling next year is unlikely to downgrade the concession from the bank that £8K is payable to victims of a wrongful default. So, it will soon be binding. The judge shouldn't have ignored it. That and Kpohraror.

Other cases Noddy used she said, "were too old"!

Any excuse to deny justice it seems!

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

whilst the damages do not have to be a major factor they do have to have been incurred in some form.

Annihilated credit rating preventing a mortgage must be seen as damage. Surely?

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Certainly i your case, I don't know the details of Nodds case though, was the issue as clear cut as yours ? I got the impression (probably wrong) from the little I read that he was depending on the argument that the damages could be justified purely on the loss of reputation issues.

I would like to see the full details of his case.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Sadly Noddy has been frightened off by legal advice. He's not going to bother appealing. It makes me very angry that the judges are getting away with this.

Yes, he was concentrating on general loss because he was in the small claims court. The maximum £5K was easily covered by the £8K that HFC have already conceded is payable for general damages.

He had been denied a mortgage until his wrongful default was removed.

It seems we'll all have to suffer until next year before the judges are "bound" to rule in favour of the consumer.

A travesty they're unable to spot right from wrong already. Shocking.

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Sadly Noddy has been frightened off by legal advice. He's not going to bother appealing. It makes me very angry that the judges are getting away with this.

Yes, he was concentrating on general loss because he was in the small claims court. The maximum £5K was easily covered by the £8K that HFC have already conceded is payable for general damages.

He had been denied a mortgage until his wrongful default was removed.

It seems we'll all have to suffer until next year before the judges are "bound" to rule in favour of the consumer.

A travesty they're unable to spot right from wrong already. Shocking.

Very depressing news

[pt2537]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/108.html

[pt2537]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

A very important point is that the case is pleaded properly, which as i understand it, wasnt in this case.

Appealing a case you didnt have is not going to get off the ground. You cant say i would have said that if i had known sadly as Appeal courts take a very dim view.

A claim of this nature does not start its life in the CCBC either, it is pleaded clearly concisely and issued via the correct channels.

Food for thought !!

[pt2537]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Another interesting point.

Why didnt the person pursue a Claim under s140A CCA 1974, the burden is on the Defendant, the Courts discretion is wide on what remedy to give, and there is sufficient case law to support such an action

[Sparkie1723]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

THe Privy Council ruled in 1920 I think it was that CRA's are not exempt from a claim of Libel .......also King V British Linen damage was awarded even though it was not claimed.
Kohpraror was awarded damages for damage to credit status that " May" have occurred in Nigeria....did NOT have to prove it.

Re the Judge saying other case cited as too old is a load of rubbish IMO..........in a Bankruptcy hearing in the High Court in N.Ireland last year the Judge assisted the LIP's by digging up a case law going back to the 1600's I think it was. .................................I'm asking for permission to Appeal a ruling similar.........but in my case the lender refused to remove it then when forced to .....entered it again under their changed name before they had obtained a DPA licence to process data .....naughty.
Sparkie

I have no legal training and what I post is my personal view which most folks take with a pinch of salt.....make your own mind up ............

[alham]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Supreme Court ruling next year is unlikely to downgrade the concession from the bank that £8K is payable to victims of a wrongful default. So, it will soon be binding. The judge shouldn't have ignored it. That and Kpohraror.

Other cases Noddy used she said, "were too old"!

Any excuse to deny justice it seems!

Not familiar with specifics of the case however, not every case, even if it gets to Supreme Court, creates a precedent.

[CleverClogs]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

A claim of this nature does not start its life in the CCBC either, it is pleaded clearly concisely and issued via the correct channels.

Food for thought !!

Indeed it is, as is the perverse opinion that stare decisis is "too old".

I'd not trust that "judge" to decide the winner of a vegetable marrow contest.