General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

The reason is in my last post Rico, the damages may not have to be itemized but they must be real, and they must be brought to the attention of the court through the pleadings.
It is not enough just to say that the default was recorded in error.

Thanks GT,

The case law says otherwise and is easier to quote than statutory stuff (I tried both).

HSBC conceded that they had annihilated Noddy's credit rating and HFC conceded, in my case, that £8K is payable.

The judge ignored this. Noddys rejection for a mortgage, for example, was real and incorporated into his witness statement.

Cheers,

Rico.

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Thanks GT,

The case law says otherwise and is easier to quote than statutory stuff (I tried both).

HSBC conceded that they had annihilated Noddy's credit rating and HFC conceded, in my case, that £8K is payable.

The judge ignored this. Noddys rejection for a mortgage, for example, was real and incorporated into his witness statement.

Cheers,

Rico.

I don't think it does, if you look at the recent stuff, Smeaton etc, really all I am saying is what any first year law student would tell you.

You can claim damage to reputation and ask for the court to asses this as damages of course, but I don't think this was pleaded, and again you would have to demonstrate how this manifested itself.

Just saying," I have an incorrectly placed notice", is not enough, plainly

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Thanks GT,

The case law says otherwise and is easier to quote than statutory stuff (I tried both).

HSBC conceded that they had annihilated Noddy's credit rating and HFC conceded, in my case, that £8K is payable.

The judge ignored this. Noddys rejection for a mortgage, for example, was real and incorporated into his witness statement.

.

Wasn't thee 8k the result of your pleaded losses ? and I think Noddy got his mortgage, the creditor removed the marker when advised.

Don't get me wrong I wish this was so simple, I have a possible case coming up myself.

Success depends on proving
A cause of action Statutory or common law breach.
B Proof of actual damages, (general or specific)

IMO

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Wasn't thee 8k the result of your pleaded losses ?

We pleaded for general damages to creditworthiness that didn't require proof of specific loss as per Kpohraror et al. It was awarded! We didn't have to prove anything. Why should we? Case law exists so that we don't need to "re-invent the wheel" every time the same thing happens. Why complicate things?

and I think Noddy got his mortgage, the creditor removed the marker when advised.

Noddy got his mortgage after having an application rejected by the admitted annihilation of his creditworthiness. In the same way that Kpohraror probably went and bought stuff from someone else after having their creditworthiness annihilated etc..

It's very simple stuff (I like simple) and it will soon be binding. The banks will need to find other ways to shaft us.

Something dodgy went down in Nottingham. HSBC know that I'm right. Why offer £2500 to silence Noddy?

Don't get me wrong I wish this was so simple, I have a possible case coming up myself.

Success depends on proving
A cause of action Statutory or common law breach.
B Proof of actual damages, (general or specific)

IMO

Good luck with that.

Sounds a bit complicated but as far as general damages for damage to creditworthiness goes, you don't need to prove anything except that creditworthiness is damaged. i.e you don't need to prove specific loss.

Creditworthiness doesn't have a value but it has been accepted by HFC that it's around the £8K mark. By the time this is ratified in the Supreme Court, the figure will be likely to be closer to £10K!

Enjoy.

Rico.

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Thanks for the good wishes Rico, I will be going into any action with my eyes wide open.

Interested to hear about the universal £8k award for loss of "creditworthiness", I must admit I have not come across this concept perhaps you could link me to the relevant authority.

Regarding the distinction between the requirements of statute and those of common law when the two do not agree, statute always wins of course and the DPA was made in 1998.( not that i think the two do disagree in this case).

In fact i think the judge mentioned something about the relationship in Smeaton.

"The question of whether the order can have generated a duty of care is comparable with the question of whether a statutory duty can generate a common law duty of care. The answer is that it cannot: see Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 1 WLR 1057. The statute either creates a statutory duty or it does not (that is not to say, as I have already mentioned, that conduct undertaken pursuant to a statutory duty cannot generate a duty of care in the same was as the same conduct undertaken voluntarily). But you cannot derive a common law duty of care directly from a statutory duty."

"I also consider that the judge was in error in concluding that a CRA assumes a responsibility to every member of the public simply by choosing to operate this type of business. As Lord Mance put it in the Barclayscase at 217, such an approach "is to assign to the concept of voluntary assumption of responsibility so wide a meaning as to deprive it of effective utility". Thus the judge was in my view wrong to identify a duty of care in tort co-extensive with that which he had found to be imposed by the statute."

and then of course there was this :

"In my clear view the evidence, taken with the statutory schemes, could not justify a conclusion that Equifax breached its obligations under the DPA. It discharged any burden on it to show that it had taken reasonable steps. There is also in this regard simply no room for – as well as no need for – the construct of some concurrent duty in tort. The statute itself exhaustively provides for the applicable obligations and remedies in a case such as this.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Interested to hear about the universal £8k award for loss of "creditworthiness", I must admit I have not come across this concept perhaps you could link me to the relevant authority.

It's not £8K exactly but is "of that order". Post 55 covers it:

"£100 awarded by the sheriff and left standing by the Inner House in King v British Linen translates, according to the Office of National Statistics Publication "Focus on consumer price indices" 2008, table 5/3, to £9,975 in the year 2008.The figure of £5,500 awarded to an individual in Kpohraror v WoolwichBuilding Society 1996 4All ER 119 was not interfered with by the Court of Appeal in 1996 and, in today's figures, would be worth £8,215"

I'm not too keen on delving into Smeaton. No need for these purposes. It's way too complicated and goes against the CRA rather than the perpetrator. Durkin however, will soon be binding in equivalent actions against the perpetrators.

Cheers,

Rico.

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

It's not £8K exactly but is "of that order". Post 55 covers it:

"£100 awarded by the sheriff and left standing by the Inner House in King v British Linen translates, according to the Office of National Statistics Publication "Focus on consumer price indices" 2008, table 5/3, to £9,975 in the year 2008.The figure of £5,500 awarded to an individual in Kpohraror v WoolwichBuilding Society 1996 4All ER 119 was not interfered with by the Court of Appeal in 1996 and, in today's figures, would be worth £8,215"

I'm not too keen on delving into Smeaton. No need for these purposes. It's way too complicated and goes against the CRA rather than the perpetrator. Durkin however, will soon be binding in equivalent actions against the perpetrators.

Cheers,

Rico.

HI Rico I don't want to be seen as rubbishing anyone's case here , but we get nowhere if everyone just says the same thing and then we are all found to be wrong. We all agree that banks who record incorrect defaults deserve a swift kick up the rump as do CRA's. It is just about finding the best way within the law to accomplish this.

I think it is not wise to say that you do not want to delve into relevant cases , because you can bet your life the other side will have no such compunction.

There seem s to be an idea that at some point, there will be(or is) a rule that a wrongfully recorded defaults will incur a pre determined penalty, this will not happen, it cannot, our law will not allow set damages in an action for tort(even statutory ones).

You may say that, as a guideline this sum was awarded in this case for a similar action, but it will be up to the court to decide what to award and this will always be on a case by case basis.

Regarding why Noddy was offered £2.5k, well I am guessing, but it was small claim they must have known they would not get costs, so it was a choice of throwing £3k at their legal team or £2.5k at Noddy, I guess.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

it will be up to the court to decide what to award and this will always be on a case by case basis.

Agreed. However, you can see, clearly, that a judge is likely to award £8Kish once my case is binding. As I mentioned previously, if Noddy had asked the judge to assess the damages, she'd have put it into a higher court, beyond his means.

A judge with scruples may have recognised that.

Folk should be OK though, after 1st April as long as they find a judge with integrity, that can see where the puck is going.

Sorry about not delving into Smeaton but I have been exposed to dozens of irrelevant cases by lawyers with absolutely no compunction, wasting weeks of court time!

Simplicity needed to maintain the rule of law.

It would be handy, of course, if the bankers showed an iota of integrity to avoid all this in the first place.

Cheers,

Rico

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Agreed. However, you can see, clearly, that a judge is likely to award £8Kish once my case is binding. As I mentioned previously, if Noddy had asked the judge to assess the damages, she'd have put it into a higher court, beyond his means.

A judge with scruples may have recognised that.

Folk should be OK though, after 1st April as long as they find a judge with integrity, that can see where the puck is going.

Sorry about not delving into Smeaton but I have been exposed to dozens of irrelevant cases by lawyers with absolutely no compunction, wasting weeks of court time!

Simplicity needed to maintain the rule of law.

It would be handy, of course, if the bankers showed an iota of integrity to avoid all this in the first place.

Cheers,

Rico

With respect i don't think that Smeaton is irrelevant, as I see it you are hoping for a precedent based on the idea that the damage to someones credit rating can give rise not only to an actionable tort but also form the substance of a damage claim.

This relies as far as i can see on the old case law you have presented, if as stated in Smeaton no common law tort can be actioned along side the breach of statute, then such and action cannot be made.

Any action regarding the incorrect recording of data has to be made against the data controller, and thus it has to be under the DPA section 13, you cannot according to Smeaton use this as a common law COA, all you can do is use the statute and the remedies prescribed within it.

This is what happened in Major, the cause of action was dealt with and then even though it failed, the quantum of damages was assessed as a separate item, at no point was there discussion about damage to reputation being a COA for damages.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

no common law tort can be actioned along side the breach of statute

Hi GT,

I'm afraid this is becoming far too complicated. I don't think we needed to get involved in the statute side of things? Otherwise, it seems Smeaton's judge was just spouting rubbish!

Our cases didn't involve the incorrect recording of data. They involved malicious reporting. In my case, following on from fraud, extortion and blackmail!

As my case seems to be succeeding where others have failed, perhaps folk should follow my lead?

Noddy gave it a go. It wasn't his fault that he came up against a judge without a sense of justice. I have also encountered such people at an even higher level.

The theory is that the Supreme Court is incorruptible. Time will tell. HSBC, I'm sure, will be giving it a go!

Cheers,

Rico.

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Hi GT,

I'm afraid this is becoming far too complicated. I don't think we needed to get involved in the statute side of things? Otherwise, it seems Smeaton's judge was just spouting rubbish!

Our cases didn't involve the incorrect recording of data. They involved malicious reporting. In my case, following on from fraud, extortion and blackmail!

As my case seems to be succeeding where others have failed, perhaps folk should follow my lead?

Noddy gave it a go. It wasn't his fault that he came up against a judge without a sense of justice. I have also encountered such people at an even higher level.

The theory is that the Supreme Court is incorruptible. Time will tell. HSBC, I'm sure, will be giving it a go!

Cheers,

Rico.

I think that if it is the case that your action was restricted to a specific cause, it would be as well that people understood what that is, could this be why Noddys case fell down, perhaps his case didn't fit the criteria for "malicious recording of data".

Usually such actions taken for breach of duty of care, either implied under common law or as in the DPA via the provisions of statute.

[MrN]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Nice to see some fans. I wont be prolonging another thread....

Just to clear the £8k benchmark.

King v British Linen 1899 £100 awarded, in todays money = £10,115
Kpoahoar v Woolwhich 1999 £5500 awarded, in todays moeny = £8305
Durkin v DSG and HFC 2008 £8000, in todays money = £8600
Wilson v United 1919 £7500, in todays money (get ready its the big one) £335,000!!

All figures calculted by using http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/b...nged-1900.html

The above inflation calculator may not be 100% correct but it is roughly correct as the figures used in Durkin's case are similar in 2008.


To clear the coast DJ said "Mr N has suffered general damage to creditworthiness however there is no specific loss. Previous cases suffered general loss and specific loss hence were awarded. Due to this I will not award anything".

Fair enough, no specific loss. Lets split it 50/50, all above cases suffered specific and general, for the sake of argument. I should have been awarded £4000 then - £8k = for specific + general.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Hi GT,

That's great. We can stick to common law.

Yes, any wrongful default is a "malicious recording of data". The judge got it wrong.

Cheers,

Rico.

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Nice to see some fans. I wont be prolonging another thread....

Just to clear the £8k benchmark.

King v British Linen 1899 £100 awarded, in todays money = £10,115
Kpoahoar v Woolwhich 1999 £5500 awarded, in todays moeny = £8305
Durkin v DSG and HFC 2008 £8000, in todays money = £8600
Wilson v United 1919 £7500, in todays money (get ready its the big one) £335,000!!

All figures calculted by using http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/b...nged-1900.html

The above inflation calculator may not be 100% correct but it is roughly correct as the figures used in Durkin's case are similar in 2008.


To clear the coast DJ said "Mr N has suffered general damage to creditworthiness however there is no specific loss. Previous cases suffered general loss and specific loss hence were awarded. Due to this I will not award anything".

Fair enough, no specific loss. Lets split it 50/50, all above cases suffered specific and general, for the sake of argument. I should have been awarded £4000 then - £8k = for specific + general.

Yes specific loss, exactly right. No specific loss in your case unfortunately.

I must disagree Rico I think on these pleadings the judge was spot on.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Case law dictates, clearly, that one does not need to prove specific loss in order to claim general damages. QC for HFC conceded this! Noddy's judge got it very, very wrong.

In any case (excuse the pun), there's always a specific loss in all cases of wrongful defaults (eg Noddy would have spent at least 10p in phoning HSBC). BUT, there's no need to have the burden of proof in this claim.

Trust me, burden of proof, particularly when you know that the bank knows that everything you're claiming is true, is a huge ball ache.

As case law dictates that you don't need to prove any specific loss, why bother? Really, you don't have to. It's written. Someone who wrote the law a long time ago was thinking! Noddy's judge clearly wasn't!

Cheers,

Rico.