General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Defaults made "in error", are, by their very nature, malicious. They say you owe money that you don't. They begin the regime of extortion (debt collectors). Just because it doesn't refer to a default, the case law as per Durkin (post DPA) confirms, clearly, that there is no need to prove specific loss in the pursuit of general damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Noddy didn't mention the DPA. He was not relying on it. (He was relying on the negligent misrepresentation, as the case law he quoted suggested) How dare she suggest that he was. Then to say that he can't appeal! She has let us all down. It will catch up with her one day if she continues in this vein.

The Judge in Halliday, when interpreting "Kpohraror" was wrong. No specific loss required. Durkin v HFC (2008). Negligent misrepresentation.

From the appeal in Durkin v HFC:

[77] Turning to the question of causation, there is little more we need add. It was a matter of concession on the part of the second respondents that in the event that the second respondents were liable to pay damages to the appellant an award of general damages for loss of credit was recoverable and that a figure of £8000 was reasonable.

Cheers,

Rico.

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Defaults made "in error", are, by their very nature, malicious. They say you owe money that you don't. They begin the regime of extortion (debt collectors). Just because it doesn't refer to a default, the case law as per Durkin (post DPA) confirms, clearly, that there is no need to prove specific loss in the pursuit of general damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Noddy didn't mention the DPA. He was not relying on it. (He was relying on the negligent misrepresentation, as the case law he quoted suggested) How dare she suggest that he was. Then to say that he can't appeal! She has let us all down. It will catch up with her one day if she continues in this vein.

The Judge in Halliday, when interpreting "Kpohraror" was wrong. No specific loss required. Durkin v HFC (2008). Negligent misrepresentation.

From the appeal in Durkin v HFC:

[77] Turning to the question of causation, there is little more we need add. It was a matter of concession on the part of the second respondents that in the event that the second respondents were liable to pay damages to the appellant an award of general damages for loss of credit was recoverable and that a figure of £8000 was reasonable.

Cheers,

Rico.

I think there is a very big difference between an action made in error and one made with malicious intent to defraud, more importantly the law recognizes the difference.

With respect it is no good just saying the various judges are wrong and picking out the odd bit of ancient case law the you think may support your argument, the court will not ignore other judges opinions nor indeed will it ignore the requirements laid in statute.

The section of the judgment quoted is interesting I have not seen the full judgment(do you have a link?), but it must be remembered that this sets no precedent in any case, as the other cases mentioned certainly do.

[MrN]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Perhaps so but no actionable losses sadly.

The only way "actionable" losses occur is through "what if's" as said before.

Mr Durkin's case is an actonable loss yet it is argued that "he is trying to 'bluff' he would have made profit from the property in Spain as prices shot up" - again a "what if, but" etc

So which pathway is correct?

Is Mr Durkin awarded the "potential" loss or is it just like my case were "potentials" are ruled out as it didnt happen - but then how could it with Durkin's inability to obtain credit?

This flaw is exploited to the skin of its teeth unfortunately.

On the other hand if you buy the property with no mortgage it will STILL be argued that you had no loss as you bought the property...


This is why I give up, a little dog can scream all he likes until the big doesn't listen the screaming is useless and literally powerless....

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Civil law does not allow for "potential loss", all that can be claimed are actual losses.

This is a basic precept of common civil law.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

The section of the judgment quoted is interesting I have not seen the full judgment(do you have a link?), but it must be remembered that this sets no precedent in any case, as the other cases mentioned certainly do.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010csih49.html

These gents were also wrong! (2 out of 3 of them, at least) They claimed the bank had done nothing wrong! I wonder why?

The concession from HFC though is unlikely to be downgraded as we're not appealing that particular point. It will soon become binding.

Rico

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

the odd bit of ancient case law the you think may support your argument, the court will not ignore other judges opinions nor indeed will it ignore the requirements laid in statute.
.

2010 is hardly ancient. We have seen in my case and Noddys that courts do ignore other judges.

For the purposes of claiming general damages for damage to creditworthiness we don't have to discuss statute. Do we?

Negligent misrepresentation comes under common law. Doesn't it?

Cheers,

Rico.

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

2010 is hardly ancient. We have seen in my case and Noddys that courts do ignore other judges.

For the purposes of claiming general damages for damage to creditworthiness we don't have to discuss statute. Do we?

Negligent misrepresentation comes under common law. Doesn't it?



Cheers,

Rico.

Unless provisions are made in statute, or the common law authority has been superseded, by a more recent or higher court ruling

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Is Mr Durkin awarded the "potential" loss or is it just like my case were "potentials" are ruled out as it didnt happen - but then how could it with Durkin's inability to obtain credit?

Just to clarify, I wasn't claiming a potential loss. I'm seeking reparation. It's a specific and very real loss. Until it's awarded, complete with expenses and interest, I remain unable to set up a family home. It's been 11 years so far.

In the process of claiming reparation, I was asked to prove that house prices had gone up. More difficult than it seems. Of course, everyone in the court room knew that house prices had gone up! A complete waste of time and irrecoverable (except, with luck, in the Supreme Court) expenses.

Reparation needed to be proven. It is a nightmare. It is a very specific loss. The loss grows every day that the case is undecided and even if we're awarded everything that we've claimed, we'll still not be in the position that we should be in. (Again, a discretionary ruling may go some way to resolving that too)

To be put back to the position that you would have been in, is something that the law should achieve. It very rarely happens. It would be much more preferable for the banks not to issue wrongful defaults in the first place.

This is what I was hoping that this thread might achieve. Action using my case shouldn't fail. The judge in Nottingham was incompetent at best.

General damages, as I've mentioned, don't need to be proven other than that it exists, which in Noddy's case was admitted. It is written.

Cheers,

Rico.

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Realistically the tort is breach of duty of care under statute.

Much of the earlier case law had no statutory authority to rely on, not so in Noddys case.

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

General damages, as I've mentioned, don't need to be proven other than that it exists,.

Cheers,

Rico.

This is what I have been saying Rico, you have to prove it exists, causality, I have to disagree there was no such proof in Noddys case.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

no such proof in Noddys case.

Just the bank admitting it and the judge acknowledging it!

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Just the bank admitting it and the judge acknowledging it!

They acknowledged misplacing the marker not the existence of any resultant damages.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Realistically the tort is breach of duty of care under statute.

Much of the earlier case law had no statutory authority to rely on, not so in Noddys case.

Hi GT,

Noddy was relying on negligent misrepresentation, as am I. It seems to be working for me.

Our only problem is the judges!

Are you suggesting the government has written a new law since 2008 that supercedes my case?

I've been asking for nearly a decade now. Each time I'm told that they "can't get involved"!

Halliday ruling was last November. Noddy submitted his claim before that. How can it be used against him?

Cheers,

Rico.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

They acknowledged misplacing the marker not the existence of any resultant damages.

In acknowledging misplacing the marker (damaging creditworthiness) general damages are due without proof of specific loss. It is written. Still!

Rico

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Hi GT,

Noddy was relying on negligent misrepresentation, as am I. It seems to be working for me.

Our only problem is the judges!

Are you suggesting the government has written a new law since 2008 that supercedes my case?

I've been asking for nearly a decade now. Each time I'm told that they "can't get involved"!

Halliday ruling was last November. Noddy submitted his claim before that. How can it be used against him?

Cheers,

Rico.

Your case may well have been negligent misrepresentation (haven't read it yet)but from the description, Noddies was just breach of duty of care. So we are talking about damages, or lack of.

The case law merely illustrates the way the law works, if Halliday didn't exist the principles would still apply.