General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

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

Rico

This is not the way the law works Rico, you can only claim damages in a civil suit. As you said earlier general damages still have to exist.

[MrN]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

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

The barrister even got awya with questionning about when I wrote to HSBC asking them to settle before issue of proceedings. However, when I bought up the past it was considered as "irrelevant" she hardly referred to the particulars.

This is why I say LiPs should get a legal rep or get ripped off.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

The barrister even got awya with questionning about when I wrote to HSBC asking them to settle before issue of proceedings. However, when I bought up the past it was considered as "irrelevant" she hardly referred to the particulars.

This is why I say LiPs should get a legal rep or get ripped off.

I had a legal rep, 2 in fact, in Edinburgh. If the judge doesn't care, the judge doesn't care. Sadly, your judge didn't care. It's not you. It's her.

Good particulars may have sealed the deal but I've a notion that, with that judge, you were always doomed. Not just you but society as a whole. She's done plenty of damage.

Fortunately, for those following, there's hope in the Supreme Court. I'd be quite keen to see what happens to her if she ignores them next year. Judges without a sense of justice - a court isn't the right place for them - perhaps some appropriate community service would help bring them back to their senses.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Noddies was just breach of duty of care. So we are talking about damages, or lack of.

Noddy used my case. In using my case, it follows that he was applying for general damages for damage to creditworthiness due to a negligent misrepresentation.

The general damages are the damage to his creditworthiness which, as Sheriff Tierney has mentioned, having considered the case law, does not require proof of specific loss. This was ratified in Scotland's highest court and will be ratified in the Supreme Court in due course.

Further, HFC agreed that damages of this order were due simply for the mere injury to credit.

Now, all I'm proposing is that folk with wrongful defaults that want to help prevent the banks defaulting others (because they know first hand what damage it can do) simply fire in a simple small claim, based just on my case (It'll be the first of it's kind in the Supreme Court next January)

It's easy to follow and it's not necessary to get bogged down with all the statute law.

Just refer to the default as a negligent misrepresentation and claim general damages for damage to creditworthiness, to be assessed by the court in a similar manner to Durkin v DSG & HFC.

If you're in Nottingham or Edinburgh, it might be best to wait until the New Year (It's still better than 6! - closer to 7 actually if one considers the preliminary markers)

I'm unsure that there's much more I can add but I'm keen to see justice served.

Good luck to you all. May the odds be in your favour.

Rico

[MrN]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Rico regardless of the particulars, the Judge acknowlegded the issues and said she wont award due to no specific loss - specific loss is impossible as the bank admits the fault, so it admits it means it's pardoned? Maybe we should commit some crime and expect to be pardoned but hey that's different.

Next time if there is a case I shall relocate so I can be allocated to a consumer favourable court

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

she wont award due to no specific loss - specific loss is impossible as the bank admits the fault, so it admits it means it's pardoned? Maybe we should commit some crime and expect to be pardoned but hey that's different.

Next time if there is a case I shall relocate so I can be allocated to a consumer favourable court

She shouldn't be judging. You weren't claiming a specific loss and better judges than her, including those at the Supreme Court will and have already confirmed that you don't need to. Further HSBC's subsidiary QC accepted it at my appeal.

There's probably a better judge at Nottingham, including the top judge there. While she's there though and there's the possibility of drawing her, it's best for folk in Nottingham to wait until next year when even "her ladyship" shall be bound. Apparently she likes to be bound, seemingly unable to think for herself what is right and wrong. Shocking. A let down to society.

Meanwhile you may as well go and join the merry men.

Cheers,

Rico.

[gravytrain]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Finally got around to reading your case Rico, very interesting, here is hoping the appeal goes your way regarding the joint liability issue.
Regarding the default issue, it seems pretty sure that there was negligence and, as the judge said, they were aware of the dispute and failed to investigate it when they placed the marker, somewhat different than a creditor placing a DN in error sadly.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Cheers GT,

I'm disappointed there's so much to read. Lawyers making a simple thing complicated in the interests of themselves. Sickening.

Yes, my case as a whole is very different from a wrongful default in "error" (no such thing, all are malicious) hence the necessity for the claim in specific damages.

Cheers again,

Rico.

[efpom]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

I am currently "appealing" a decision made by Ofgen viz:

I have one further short submission.It is this:
The decision maker misdirected himself on the law when he stated:
You have not indicated to us the credit file has affected your financial position
such as credit being refused, or prevented you from contracting with
organisations in your legal/working capacity.
A person is entitled to recover substantial, rather than nominal, damages for loss of
reputation without proof of actual damage.The authority for that proposition of law
is:
Kpohraror v WoolwichBuilding Society[1996] 4 AER 119,wherethe Court of
Appeal said the following in relation to general damages:
“The credit rating of individuals is as important for their personal transactions,
including mortgages and hire-purchase as well as banking facilities, as it is for
those who are engaged in trade, and it is notorious that central registers are
now kept. I would have no hesitation in holding that what is in effect a
presumption of some damage arises in every case, in so far as this is a
presumption of fact." Per Evans LJ.
That case was cited, with approval, by the Supreme Court in Durkin (Appellant) v
DSG Retail Limited and another (Respondents) (Scotland)[2014] UKSC 21, where
inter alia Supreme Court refused to overturn a general damages awardof £8,000 made
by the first instance Court in March 2008.
Paragraph 115 of thefirst instance Court’s judgment states:-The case of King v British Linen & Co dealt with the situation where there
had been no specific damage. The only loss which the pursuer had occurred
sustained was the loss to his credit standing. That was valued by the sheriff at
£100 in 1897, a figure which was not interfered with in the Inner House. It is
clear that the reason that the Inner House did not consider it appropriate to
interfere with it was because they were dealing with a case where, in the
words of Lord Kinnear, "No exact measure" of damages could be fixed. The
case is clear authority to the effect that award of damages can be made for
simple injury to credit although noactual loss is sustained.
Paragraph 117 of the judgment states:-Had there been no finding of specific loss in this case, I would have had no
hesitation in finding that an award of damages for the mere injury to credit
was appropriate. In modern societycredit plays a very big part in the conduct
of the daily lives of a significant portion of the population. The financial
services industry is constantly advertising loans, credit cards, store cards,
mortgages, consolidation accounts etc. To have one's credit worthiness
impugned so that one is at risk of being unable to obtain credit on the grounds
that he is not credit worthy is, if anything, a more significant matter for the
individual than it would have been at the time of King, over a hundred years
ago.Mr Beynon has submitted that a figure of £10,000 would be appropriate.
The figure of £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 Woolwich Building 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.
See: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/A187_04.html.
In arriving at a recommended settlement figure, the decision maker has simply
adopted the settlement figure proposed by British Gas Trading Limited, and in
consequence, has abrogated his duty to independently determine a proper settlement
figure, in accordance with the law. That abrogation is an error of law.
The settlement figure if calculated, in accordance with the more conservative of the
two formulae describedby the Court, in the last sentence of 117, would, if my
arithmetic is correct, be £9,251.42, and I submit that to be the starting point for any
recommend settlement figure, with an uplift to compensateme for my time spent in
attempting to resolve the matter, and for distress.
I therefore invite the Ombudsman to make a recommended award at the statutory cap
of £10,000.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Good Luck.

[ncf355]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Further piece here on the impact of Rico's case:

HERE

[ironman]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Just butting in, i thought that there is no longer an offence as to Duty of care

It is now negligence, lord Denning

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html

[ncf355]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Well,

Denning as you say stated that in 1932, whereas the Supreme court stated duty of care for Rico's case in the last para (40) of the judgment and that was only this year?

[stockport6]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

I need Help. I have a wrongful default on my files. The DCA have told me and the FOS in writing on numerous occasions that the debt is not mine yet when the CRA contacts them to remove it the say they cannot and to leave it on. how is this legal.

the DCA have offered me £250 for years of harassment. in Jan 2014 they said it was not mine and that all records will be updated but the default stayed on. in June 2015 they sent me a CCJ from the courts for the same thing they had admitted was not mine in Jan 14. I reported it to FOS who at first said they could not look into it as it was after 6 months since the first admission. Well unless I had a crystal ball how was I supposed to know they would not honour their word,

The FOS have finally taken it on but seemed to side with DCA even with all the evidence I provided. I have given FOS until 10th nov to settle this but I am not holding my breathe. I need to look at court action now and need some guidance on what to do and how much it is going to cost me.

just to add Lowell have confirmed the following to FOS
“Lowell has also confirmed that they have no debts that they are holdingyou responsible for"
“Lowell acceptsthat they may have caused you distress and inconvenience when contacting you.”
“Lowell has confirmed that they accept that the account thatthey were contacting you about, is not yours.”

this is from the CRA
*Lowell Portfolio ILtd (Account Started 22/09/2008)

They have provided following details,

"Our Complaints team are investigating this account and are incommunication with the Financial Ombudsman. The case summary was forwarded toto the, on the 12/08/15 and we are awaiting their response. Once an outcome isknown, if an amendment is needed we will action this in due course."

They've confirmed that this information is accurate, so I'm afraid I can't makeany changes to it.

[Rico]

Re: General damages for damage to creditworthiness.

Hi,

I'm up to my eyes just now fighting for justice in a related claim.

You should be able to claim general damages in a small claim based on Durkin v DSG & HFC.

I think a small claim costs £100 but exemptions can be applied for if you're on low income or benefits.

I'm in the process of suing for defamation instead.

If you keep things in the Small Claims court your expenses will be limited. If £10k or less is enough that's what to do.

Avoid accepting an FOS settlement if you want more than they offer.

Cheers,

Rico