General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

[PlanB]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

:focus:

When you get refused credit you normally get a template letter from the creditor saying they don't have to tell you why they've turned you down, but at the same time the letter usually refers to the importance of credit scoring and says "check your Equifax and Experian file" with the contact details of both CRAs. Would that letter be enough evidence to support a claim that a wrongly placed Default had a negative effect on your creditworthiness if everything else on the file is squeaky clean and the dates matched?

[pt2537]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

:focus:

When you get refused credit you normally get a template letter from the creditor saying they don't have to tell you why they've turned you down, but at the same time the letter usually refers to the importance of credit scoring and says "check your Equifax and Experian file" with the contact details of both CRAs. Would that letter be enough evidence to support a claim that a wrongly placed Default had a negative effect on your creditworthiness if everything else on the file is squeaky clean and the dates matched?

The Court of Appeal in Smeaton referred to protecitons for the Consumer

1. The Guide provides a number of protections for applicants for credit, including the following:
   (1) When a credit grantor tells an applicant that his credit application has been declined, the grantor is obliged to provide a clear explanation of the principal reason why the applicant has not met the lending criteria (for example, a decline based on adverse credit reference agency data) (paragraph 6.4);
   
   (2) A credit applicant has a right of appeal where his credit application is declined (paragraphs 5.11 & 7.7);
   (3) Where a credit applicant appeals a declined credit application, the credit grantor is required to give the applicant the opportunity to provide additional relevant information and to consider that additional information when reviewing the application (paragraph 7.12); where appropriate the review must be carried out by a different lending officer from the one originally handling the application; and
   (4) Where a credit grantor is aware that a Notice of Correction and/or Dispute has been filed with a credit reference agency by or in relation to an applicant, it is required to review any declined application manually (paragraph 9).
   
   
   

So the problem seems to me to be that in this case the bank had entered a default and the minute the debtor became aware via the above protections, he contacted the bank and they removed the entry.

So i think a distinction needs drawing from situations where the banks knowingly places a default where it is wrong and then refuses to remove it, and cases like the present where the bank placed a default via (as i understand it) automatic means and then removed it almost immediately when it was brought to their attention

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

So what if someone goes for a mortgage and the deal he is offered and accepts is weighted by a percentage due to adverse markers, he may not be aware of the fact and may just accept the deal he is offered.

Some years down the line he discovers that he has been paying thousands of pounds over and above what he would have if he would have secured the loan at base rate.

The incorrectly placed default would have a direct and provable causality, would he be able to claim redress for his losses ?

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

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.


Hope that helps

Hi PT,

Good stuff. I'd like to keep things much simpler though. I hope it's possible, sticking just to my case really and a wrongful default. Smeaton went against Equifax. I'm more interested in stopping the banks defaulting (or otherwise damaging creditworthiness) folk in the first place, just because they can.

So, it does seem that the victim must offer the judge an opportunity to "set" damages. Indeed, in my case, that's exactly what happened. The judge (sheriff) then asked how much does my advocate think is reasonable and my advocate based the amount on what has happened in the past (without considering the passage of time, as I had asked him to). So, the judge ended up with the £8K figure.

HFC conceded this amount was reasonable for general damages. You seem to be saying £2500 is reasonable. If HFC have conceded that £8K is reasonable, then surely, as Noddy was only asking for £5K that too is reasonable? More so, in fact?

Of course, next year, it will be easier. Claimants in the small claims court can simply ask for the general damages to be assessed based on Durkin's £8K, without fear of the judge sending it to a higher court and therefore out of reach to most mortals.

Defaults, in themselves, are damage to creditworthiness. Kpohraror's damage was resolved much quicker than Noddy's say, yet he was still awarded the equivalent of £8K in 2008.

The barristers argument was irrelevant, don't you think? Given that £8K has already been conceded as reasonable (albeit by a subsidiary banks QC) and HSBC admitted the damage!?

The judge "preferred" her version, surely, because she had ignored Noddy's case law and evidence! No?

Whatever way she managed to prefer it, it seems to stink.

Presentation, as you seem to be suggesting, especially irrelevant presentation, shouldn't win the day. Should it? Rather facts and evidence, I'd say.

In fact, irrelevant presentation should be frowned upon, shouldn't it? There was heaps and heaps of that in my case! It did get a momentary frown, but alas, only momentarily.

Thanks for your help. It's good to have opinion from the coal face.

Cheers,

Richard.

[pt2537]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Hi PT,

Good stuff. I'd like to keep things much simpler though. I hope it's possible, sticking just to my case really and a wrongful default. Smeaton went against Equifax. I'm more interested in stopping the banks defaulting (or otherwise damaging creditworthiness) folk in the first place, just because they can.

So, it does seem that the victim must offer the judge an opportunity to "set" damages. Indeed, in my case, that's exactly what happened. The judge (sheriff) then asked how much does my advocate think is reasonable and my advocate based the amount on what has happened in the past (without considering the passage of time, as I had asked him to). So, the judge ended up with the £8K figure.

HFC conceded this amount was reasonable for general damages. You seem to be saying £2500 is reasonable. If HFC have conceded that £8K is reasonable, then surely, as Noddy was only asking for £5K that too is reasonable? More so, in fact?

Of course, next year, it will be easier. Claimants in the small claims court can simply ask for the general damages to be assessed based on Durkin's £8K, without fear of the judge sending it to a higher court and therefore out of reach to most mortals.

Defaults, in themselves, are damage to creditworthiness. Kpohraror's damage was resolved much quicker than Noddy's say, yet he was still awarded the equivalent of £8K in 2008.

The barristers argument was irrelevant, don't you think? Given that £8K has already been conceded as reasonable (albeit by a subsidiary banks QC) and HSBC admitted the damage!?

The judge "preferred" her version, surely, because she had ignored Noddy's case law and evidence! No?

Whatever way she managed to prefer it, it seems to stink.

Presentation, as you seem to be suggesting, especially irrelevant presentation, shouldn't win the day. Should it? Rather facts and evidence, I'd say.

In fact, irrelevant presentation should be frowned upon, shouldn't it? There was heaps and heaps of that in my case! It did get a momentary frown, but alas, only momentarily.

Thanks for your help. It's good to have opinion from the coal face.

Cheers,

Richard.

Hi Richard,

I just want to say for the record, i think anyone who has a default registered against them wrongly then they ought to be compensated by the bank which placed the marker.

I hope you win your case, it seems the judiciary are against consumers at the present in these matters. You only need look at Major v Lloyds to see that.

Kpohrarors case is distinguishable though, dont forget, he tendered a cheque for payment, and his bank bounced it thus affecting his reputation with his suppliers. That is somewhat different to the facts of the current case. We need to keep that in the back of our minds.

I dont think that £2.5k is reasonable per se, i just say that they made an offer maybe it was the nuisance value we attach to a case in the legal profession, i dont know, but they did make an offer, it was an offer that certainly ought to be considered for sure, but was it reasonable? well thats a matter of opinion to each party, Noddy obviously thought not, maybe i would have taken the offer? i dont know.

Until a matter such as this gets before a binding and authoritative court, we wont know which view is correct, but sadly to get such as case there, it needs funding and people who have these issues cannot fund these cases.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

So i think a distinction needs drawing from situations where the banks knowingly places a default where it is wrong and then refuses to remove it, and cases like the present where the bank placed a default via (as i understand it) automatic means and then removed it almost immediately when it was brought to their attention

Agreed. However, banks should still be held responsible for their "automated" mistakes that annihilate creditworthiness - Kpohraror.

Rico.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Kpohrarors case is distinguishable though, dont forget, he tendered a cheque for payment, and his bank bounced it thus affecting his reputation with his suppliers. That is somewhat different to the facts of the current case. We need to keep that in the back of our minds.

Just to be clear. I don't think Kpohrarors creditworthiness was any different to Noddys. Both were annihilated by "automated" means. General damages should be the same for both. Indeed, if anything, Noddy should have been awarded more as his creditworthiness was annihilated for longer!

Much simpler though, for the purpose of prohibiting wrongful defaults, to treat each default (or other method of annihilation of creditworthiness) equally.

The simpler things are, the easier it is for the consumer and it should, in turn, be more difficult for judges simply to ignore facts and evidence and bend towards the prettiest presentation!

Cheers,

Rico.

[pt2537]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Just to be clear. I don't think Kpohrarors creditworthiness was any different to Noddys. Both were annihilated by "automated" means. General damages should be the same for both. Indeed, if anything, Noddy should have been awarded more as his creditworthiness was annihilated for longer!

Much simpler though, for the purpose of prohibiting wrongful defaults, to treat each default (or other method of annihilation of creditworthiness) equally.

The simpler things are, the easier it is for the consumer and it should, in turn, be more difficult for judges simply to ignore facts and evidence and bend towards the prettiest presentation!

Cheers,

Rico.

Thats where i disagree

The facts of the Woolwich case are a million miles from Noddys case.

Plus having seen the Claim it doesnt go far enough in establishing a claim for what he sought, it was destined to fail in my opinion because of that.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

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

Hi PT,

At least we agree that Noddy had a winnable case. That's where we should start, for the benefit of those to follow. We must learn from Noddy's "mistakes"

So, it seems that it's very much about the wording. Great. Let's decide on the right wording. The shorter the better, to save court time and maintain clarity.

If I was Noddy, I would have said this:

"I claim general damages for damage to creditworthiness caused by HSBC's admitted annihilation of my credit file that prevented me getting a mortgage. Case law says that I do not need to prove any specific loss to claim such damages. (See Durkin v HFC, Kpohraror v Woolwich etc..) In Durkin v HFC, the bank, a subsidiary of the defenders in this case, conceded that £8K was appropriate merely for the damage to creditworthiness. In the interest of swift justice, I'm happy to accept only £5K as it's the maximum payable in this court or any other award that the judge may see fit."

What do you think? I had thought that that was pretty much what he had said. Does it need much tweaking?

Another point about the sum sued for was that the box on the electronic form only allows for numerals!

Further, I'd have expected, in the interest of justice, that the judge would have assisted the victim rather than the perpetrator!

Cheers,

Rico.

[pt2537]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Hi PT,

At least we agree that Noddy had a winnable case. That's where we should start, for the benefit of those to follow. We must learn from Noddy's "mistakes"

So, it seems that it's very much about the wording. Great. Let's decide on the right wording. The shorter the better, to save court time and maintain clarity.

If I was Noddy, I would have said this:

"I claim general damages for damage to creditworthiness caused by HSBC's admitted annihilation of my credit file that prevented me getting a mortgage. Case law says that I do not need to prove any specific loss to claim such damages. (See Durkin v HFC, Kpohraror v Woolwich etc..) In Durkin v HFC, the bank, a subsidiary of the defenders in this case, conceded that £8K was appropriate merely for the damage to creditworthiness. In the interest of swift justice, I'm happy to accept only £5K as it's the maximum payable in this court or any other award that the judge may see fit."

What do you think? I had thought that that was pretty much what he had said. Does it need much tweaking?

Another point about the sum sued for was that the box on the electronic form only allows for numerals!

Further, I'd have expected, in the interest of justice, that the judge would have assisted the victim rather than the perpetrator!

Cheers,

Rico.

You DO NOT have to issue via the hideous bulk centre, the problem noddy had was he should have said "Damages to be assessed" and not set a figure.

It cannot be the case that we can no longer do that because all claims must go through the bulk centre, what happens to asbestos claim? Personal Injury? Unlawful detention by police to name a few examples.

He ought to have started at the beginning mate, serve the claim and attach stand alone particulars of claim setting out the facts right from the beginning, that he was a customer, that he had an overdraft, that he paid the overdraft on time each month, that he did not breach the terms of the overdraft and that when the bank called in the overdraft he paid without failure or question.

That is how i would have started off, setting out the background. You need to do this, or you look like a chancer just trying to have a punt imho

Ive seen his pleadings, as i said, if i had been on the other side, i would have applied to strike them out as they do not comply with CPR Rule 16.

[pt2537]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

So what if someone goes for a mortgage and the deal he is offered and accepts is weighted by a percentage due to adverse markers, he may not be aware of the fact and may just accept the deal he is offered.

Some years down the line he discovers that he has been paying thousands of pounds over and above what he would have if he would have secured the loan at base rate.

The incorrectly placed default would have a direct and provable causality, would he be able to claim redress for his losses ?

Sorry Gravy missed this post.

Tricky one that, i would on the face of it think that he could seek redress, but it would depend on the facts of the case

[pt2537]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Hi PT,

At least we agree that Noddy had a winnable case. That's where we should start, for the benefit of those to follow. We must learn from Noddy's "mistakes"

So, it seems that it's very much about the wording. Great. Let's decide on the right wording. The shorter the better, to save court time and maintain clarity.

If I was Noddy, I would have said this:

"I claim general damages for damage to creditworthiness caused by HSBC's admitted annihilation of my credit file that prevented me getting a mortgage. Case law says that I do not need to prove any specific loss to claim such damages. (See Durkin v HFC, Kpohraror v Woolwich etc..) In Durkin v HFC, the bank, a subsidiary of the defenders in this case, conceded that £8K was appropriate merely for the damage to creditworthiness. In the interest of swift justice, I'm happy to accept only £5K as it's the maximum payable in this court or any other award that the judge may see fit."

What do you think? I had thought that that was pretty much what he had said. Does it need much tweaking?

Another point about the sum sued for was that the box on the electronic form only allows for numerals!

Further, I'd have expected, in the interest of justice, that the judge would have assisted the victim rather than the perpetrator!

Cheers,

Rico.

3.2

Where the claimant does not include the particulars of claim in the claim form, particulars of claim may be served separately:
(1) either at the same time as the claim form, or

(2) within 14 days after service of the claim form¹ provided that the service of the particulars of claim is not later than 4 months from the date of issue of the claim form² (or 6 months where the claim form is to be served out of the jurisdiction³).

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

he could not show loss of £5K, he should have pleaded "Damages to be assessed" IMHO.

Hi PT, But the case law he quoted shows that he suffered £8K. Only asking for £5K should seem reasonable shouldn't it? The case law he quoted also says that he doesn't need to show any specific loss whatsoever, so exactly what is there to assess? General damages is compensation for the defamation aspect isn't it? HSBC admitted that. Cheers, Rico

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

He ought to have started at the beginning mate, serve the claim and attach stand alone particulars of claim setting out the facts right from the beginning, that he was a customer, that he had an overdraft, that he paid the overdraft on time each month, that he did not breach the terms of the overdraft and that when the bank called in the overdraft he paid without failure or question.

That is how i would have started off, setting out the background. You need to do this, or you look like a chancer just trying to have a punt imho

I understand that he had set out everything in a "witness statement" instead.

Still, he did refer to it, so the judge had all the necessary info she needed.

I still find it hard to believe she denied justice solely on "presentation". There must have been some element of evil or cowardice there. Ignoring the evidence and the law seems outrageous!

Ive seen his pleadings, as i said, if i had been on the other side, i would have applied to strike them out as they do not comply with CPR Rule 16.

I sense the force is strong in you PT. I hope you're not tempted over to the dark side!

[pt2537]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

I sense the force is strong in you PT. I hope you're not tempted over to the dark side!

If i wanted to, i could have, but when it was offered i told the parasitic *******s that they couldnt afford me