General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

A very important point is that the case is pleaded properly

Thanks PT. Agreed. I've learned the hard way.

Noddy claimed £5K for general damages to creditworthiness, as was conceded by counsel for HFC (HSBC subsidiary), in my case, as "appropriate" (In actual fact they said £8K but £5K is the limit for small claims). HSBC, the bank that wrongly defaulted him, admitted that they had damaged his creditworthiness.

That's it.

The judge should have awarded £5K right?

It should have been impossible for the QC for HSBC to say anything relevant to the judge, right?

Seems simpler to us mortals than s140A etc.. Just case law and evidence to match.

How do you think the judge performed, based on that? We had thought it was indefensible and only foul play would prevent justice.

This seemed like a simple and effective backlash against the bullying banks. How might you have tweaked it? Or perhaps you agree that the judge is a wrong'un?

Once my case is ratified next year, we're looking for simple strategies to prevent wrongful defaults until the government strengthens the law.

Cheers,

Rico.

[pt2537]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Thanks PT. Agreed. I've learned the hard way.

Noddy claimed £5K for general damages to creditworthiness, as was conceded by counsel for HFC (HSBC subsidiary), in my case, as "appropriate" (In actual fact they said £8K but £5K is the limit for small claims). HSBC, the bank that wrongly defaulted him, admitted that they had damaged his creditworthiness.

That's it.

The judge should have awarded £5K right?

It should have been impossible for the QC for HSBC to say anything relevant to the judge, right?

Seems simpler to us mortals than s140A etc.. Just case law and evidence to match.

How do you think the judge performed, based on that? We had thought it was indefensible and only foul play would prevent justice.

This seemed like a simple and effective backlash against the bullying banks. How might you have tweaked it? Or perhaps you agree that the judge is a wrong'un?

Once my case is ratified next year, we're looking for simple strategies to prevent wrongful defaults until the government strengthens the law.

Cheers,

Rico.

I would have firstly got the house in order, argued the harrassment constituted an unfair relationship as we know such is capeable of unfairness (see Harrison v Link)

I have seen the pleadings and frankly they have "Strike me out" written all over them, sorry but thats the fact.

It needs pleading properly not on a bulk Centre Claim form.

I also think he was wrong to set his own damages, he could not show loss of £5K, he should have pleaded "Damages to be assessed" IMHO.

[PlanB]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

I also think he was wrong to set his own damages, he could not show loss of £5K, he should have pleaded "Damages to be assessed" IMHO.

Was the specific amount of £5k for damages pleaded to keep the case in the Small Claims Track?

[Sparkie1723]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

This is what I was given by Judge Halbert.......this is what The Courts have access to


What it says here Under Held is that there is SUBSTANTIAL damages award available for injury to credit status...not just nominal damges.
It matters not that it ws due to a wrong full dishonour of a cheque....claimed as breach of contract wherein damagescan be claimed under that head......this is injury to credit in any way.

The damage was put right by the Woolwich in one day .......but injury to credit status was there.

Sparkie

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Was the specific amount of £5k for damages pleaded to keep the case in the Small Claims Track?

Most definitely.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

I would have firstly got the house in order, argued the harrassment constituted an unfair relationship as we know such is capeable of unfairness (see Harrison v Link)

I have seen the pleadings and frankly they have "Strike me out" written all over them, sorry but thats the fact.

It needs pleading properly not on a bulk Centre Claim form.

I also think he was wrong to set his own damages, he could not show loss of £5K, he should have pleaded "Damages to be assessed" IMHO.

Hi PT,

Thanks again for very valuable feedback.

Noddy was advised by the court that he MUST submit his claim through the bulk centre. This shocked me at the time but apparently that's how things are in England these days? Harsh.

If the judge should strike it out, surely she must give a reason for doing so? It seemed obvious to us mortals what Noddy was asking (pleading) for. Why not the judge? In any case, Noddy told her, to her face. Wasn't she listening?

Noddy did not set his own damages. HFC did that for him - £8K they said! However, I think you might be saying that he could have "worded" it differently, affording the Judge an opportunity to award an "appropriate" sum?

Eg, "I claim for general damages for damage to creditworthiness as per Durkin v DSG & HFC where Counsel conceded that £8K was reasonable, no proof of specific loss required"

The problem with this is that someone, I can't remember who, did exactly that. The judge straight away consigned the case for Ordinary cause, where the victim could not afford to continue! Noddy delberately limited his claim to £5K to prevent that.

We can drop the harrassment point for the purposes of this post. Noddy was unable to get more than the £5K he was claiming. This was wasting air and helping to cloud the issue of general damages.

The main purpose of the action was to encourage banks not to wrongly default folk willy-nilly, with a swiftish £5K hit. This is what we'll be aiming to achieve next year when the judges can't dismiss my case as "Scottish" and "not binding".

What do you think? Was Noddy unlucky? Or are there "darker forces" at work here?

Cheers,

Richard.

[Nibbler]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ox/8098674.stm

Interesting, but never made it to court. Aktiv bailed before I think?

[pt2537]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Hi PT,

Thanks again for very valuable feedback.

Noddy was advised by the court that he MUST submit his claim through the bulk centre. This shocked me at the time but apparently that's how things are in England these days? Harsh. No that is total boll0cks mate, total, you can file a claim in your local county court or in the alternative, if you use the bulk centre you simply put "Particulars of claim to follow" and then serve the full particulars on each party and file a cert of service.

If the judge should strike it out, surely she must give a reason for doing so? It seemed obvious to us mortals what Noddy was asking (pleading) for. Why not the judge? In any case, Noddy told her, to her face. Wasn't she listening? When i said strike out written all over it, it was because the pleadings were dreadful, the claim in harrison ran to 9 pages of particulars of claim, with all the detail pleaded along with a prayer setting out what we want. This guy could not set his damages, these damages are to be assessed by the Court, so why would he elect for a specific amount? its bonkers.

Noddy did not set his own damages. HFC did that for him - £8K they said! However, I think you might be saying that he could have "worded" it differently, affording the Judge an opportunity to award an "appropriate" sum? no no he had asked for a set sum, he did set his own damages level by doing that. he should have pleaded for damages to be assessed.

Eg, "I claim for general damages for damage to creditworthiness as per Durkin v DSG & HFC where Counsel conceded that £8K was reasonable, no proof of specific loss required" Ahh yes where there is a case of damage to credit reputation. The Woolwich case wasnt about a default on a credit file. it was a bank which dishonoured a cheque leading to traders taking the view he was a risk to trade with. I think that case is distinguishable on the facts from Noddys case. I also think Durkin is distinguishable on the facts too

The problem with this is that someone, I can't remember who, did exactly that. The judge straight away consigned the case for Ordinary cause, where the victim could not afford to continue! Noddy delberately limited his claim to £5K to prevent that.

We can drop the harrassment point for the purposes of this post. Noddy was unable to get more than the £5K he was claiming. This was wasting air and helping to cloud the issue of general damages.

The main purpose of the action was to encourage banks not to wrongly default folk willy-nilly, with a swiftish £5K hit. This is what we'll be aiming to achieve next year when the judges can't dismiss my case as "Scottish" and "not binding".

What do you think? Was Noddy unlucky? Or are there "darker forces" at work here?

Cheers,

Richard.

I think you need to reflect on the facts of Noddys case, and then consider them against Smeaton v Equifax and also Major v Lloyds.

The Default was removed within a short period of time when Noddy drew it to the banks attention, they didnt refuse to remove it and conceded it was in error.This is very relevant in my view, as if they had left it there knowing it was wrong then they would have been shafted. They also offered a reasonable sum of damages to settle the case but it was refused.

I think from what i have seen about the case, Noddy was poorly prepared, had a poorly pleaded claim, and lost because he was up against a barrister (Not a QC either, she was a junior) who had a well prepared brief and was able to present argument to the Judge which the Judge preferred.

Do i think Noddy had a winnable case? yes

Do i think Noddys case as it stood was winnable ? Not in a million years

Hope that helps

[PlanB]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

It would be nice if lawyers would act on a Pay As You Go basis so we could get the POC right even if we can't afford to instruct a solicitor to handle the whole case. That way at least things would get off to a good start and give us a better chance in court

It's going to get worse from next month (April 1st) when the Small Claims court limit rises to £10k and there'll be even less chance to get a CFA to defend a case

[pt2537]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

It would be nice if lawyers would act on a Pay As You Go basis so we could get the POC right even if we can't afford to instruct a solicitor to handle the whole case. That way at least things would get off to a good start and give us a better chance in court

It's going to get worse from next month (April 1st) when the Small Claims court limit rises to £10k and there'll be even less chance to get a CFA to defend a case

We do already

I did a small claims matter on exactly that basis and won the case for the client!!!!

Ive just got another small claims job where the client is running the case and we are drafting his docs

That works very well.

[pt2537]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

I think the point to note on CFAs is that the Successfee is no longer recoverable from the other side, the idea the morons in parliament had was that the damages would be used to pay the succ fee, but wait, when youre sued by the bank and you win in these CCA cases you dont get damages so who pays the succ fee???? the consumer

That is an ill thought out system.

[PlanB]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

We do already

I did a small claims matter on exactly that basis and won the case for the client!!!!

Ive just got another small claims job where the client is running the case and we are drafting his docs

That works very well.

A prime example of this is the case you handled recently where the Defendant lost in court entirely due to badly presented legal arguments and the Claimant got a CCJ which would have resulted in a CO on the poor person's home. However the story has a happy ending :whoo:

http://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordp...-to-the-judge/

[pt2537]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

A prime example of this is the case you handled recently where the Defendant lost in court entirely due to badly presented legal arguments and the Claimant got a CCJ which would have resulted in a CO on the poor person's home. However the story has a happy ending :whoo:

http://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordp...-to-the-judge/

Indeed, and that customer left feedback on my handling of his matter on a public website http://www.solicitor.info/solicitors/watsons/1698/1 here

Unfortunatley while i would love to be able to say the system is set up so you dont need a lawyer, it isnt and sadly injustice is going to get worst with these reforms in the LAPSO

[PlanB]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

I should post my Santander vs Mayhew success story on that site, but if I mention Watsons solicitors too often people will think I'm your pimp msl:

[pt2537]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

I should post my Santander vs Mayhew success story on that site, but if I mention Watsons solicitors too often people will think I'm your pimp msl:

But i didnt do your case, hahaha, Gwyn did