Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

[Rico]

Hi Folks,

While preparing a complaint against appeal judges for deleting facts, I've noticed that even the supreme court seem to have been colluding with the banks in what seems now to be pretty blatant.

As folk are possibly aware, I've been trying unsuccessfully to sue for redress for a wrongful default for 11 years now.

Put simply, a wrongful default, besides annihilating creditworthiness,can prevent families from buying a family home. In our case, we were trying back in 2003.

Prices for family homes where we were trying to buy doubled within 3 years and haven't come back down amid the continuing banking scandals. We have new defaults now on the credit needed to bring the case. Lawyers insisted on exhausting the "buffer" needed to maintain a 0% credit regime.

Following a maths error in the lower court and an incompetent ruling in the appeal court, the supreme court couldn't bring itself to rule that reparation is due, despite acknowledging that the bank has behaved unlawfully.

The supreme court ruled that the altering of a "crucial" fact in Scotland broke a causal link. They failed to recognise that the causal link was already established much more simply in the evidence.

Findings of fact, that weren't interfered with by the Scottish appeal court were:

30) But for the adverse entry on the UK credit agencies….he would have been able to afford such a mortgage.

and

32) But for this inability to borrow sufficient money he would have purchased the property.

HFC Bank sent this attached letter threatening me with a default and outlining the consequences that included an inability to obtain a mortgage. Besides extortion (currently being invesigated by CID) it is also the causal link!

The default prevented us buying a family home.

The supreme court also denies that deleting facts evidenced in paragraph 55 of the original ruling is a legal error!

It's not true. Yet their ruling was unanimous!

Neither the government or the shadow government or even the Scottish government will admit to there being a problem.

Besides avoiding the Tories, Labour & the SNP what else can I try?

Cheers,

Rico.

[nemesis45]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

Good morning Rico,
Did you intend to leave you name and address on the letter?

nem

[nemesis45]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

Next step may have to be Europe???

nem

[Rico]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

It's common knowledge we're unhappy at our current address.

I'm hoping that the UK can sort itself out, without Europe interfering.

I was thinking more along the lines of an alternative, simpler (as I'd originally intended) action.

A defamation case as proposed by Lord Hodge for example, one would've thought would yield the 6 figure sum we seek. There are folk that think Ł8K will already have been seen to compensate us though. Particularly, HSBC customer services, despite HFC being happy to pay Ł116K back in 2009.

HFC know what they've done. If I could just get them to apologise and pay appropriate redress, the UK would be slightly better for it.

Rico.

[nemesis45]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

Hi Rico,

Having followed you previous fight closely when involved with another website, your conviction and determination will get the result I'm sure/

nem

[Rico]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

Hi Folks,

I'm preparing a fresh claim against HSBC since they're still unwilling to pay redress, claiming that the court has sorted it.

The court has ordered me to pay Ł100k+ in costs to the bank. It's pretty sickening that the bank has the nerve to even claim that, given that it has illegally annihilated our aspirations of a family home.

Lord Hodge said that he'd have filed for defamation. My old legal team said that would be bound to fail as Ł8K would be seen to have already compensated us. Is that right?

At the moment, it seems I'm at least Ł300K down from where I was at in 2003. House prices are still over Ł300K more expensive for where we'd been hoping to buy.

I'm looking to sue then for at least Ł600K in a further bid to force the bank to pay redress.

17 years of distress alone is worthy of this figure. The Ł8K award was based on folk that were diddled for a few days, not decades.

Any thoughts?

I'm still trying to get charitable help while the politicians try and come up with an explanation for this injustice and how it can be put right.

A local journalist is working on a story that will include the criminal aspect of this fiasco.

Cheers,

Rico.

[Rico]

Durkin v HSBC - Second phase.

Seems like I'll have to go it alone.

Here's what I have in mind.

Any suggestions? Does it avoid res judicata?

Cheers,

Rico.

[nemesis45]

Re: Durkin v HSBC - Second phase.

When I try to open the attachment I get " Blank Page".

I think you will have to be extremely careful to avoid RJ Rico.

nem

[MIKE770]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

Open Office opens it!

[Kati]

Re: Durkin v HSBC - Second phase.

When I try to open the attachment I get " Blank Page".

.....

SHERIFFDOM OF GRAMPIAN HIGHLANDS & ISLANDS AT ABERDEEN


INITIAL WRIT

in causa

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

PURSUER

against

HSBC Bank, 8 Canada Square, London, having a place of business at 95-99 Union Street, Aberdeen.

DEFENDERS

The pursuer craves the court:

1) To grant decree against the defenders for payment of the sum of SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS sterling as provisional damages and an additional TWELVE THOUSAND POUNDS sterling for each month from the date of citation until payment.


2) To find the defenders liable in the expenses of this action.


Condescendence


1) In August 1999, the defenders illegally placed a default on the pursuers credit file, rendering him unable to obtain a mortgage. The illegality of the default was affirmed by the Supreme Court on 26^th March 2014. The court was unable to award specific damages as it didn’t have jurisdiction. This action is accordingly necessary.

2) In October 2003, when the Pursuer was ready to buy a family home, the defenders refused to remove the default that prevented him from doing so.

3) In January 2004 the Pursuer initiated legal action in an attempt to force the defenders to remove the default. The defenders, knowing the default to be illegal, defended the action causing huge distress to the pursuer and his family.

4) Following the Supreme court ruling in 2014, instead of apologising and providing appropriate redress, the defenders continue to cause distress to the Pursuer and what remains of his family. The defenders prefer to rely on legal technicalities and judicial misconduct that serve only to pervert justice.

5) In March 2015, the Supreme Court awarded considerable expenses against the Pursuer estimated to be in the order of Ł100 000 +. It failed to acknowledge that no expenses would have been incurred had the defenders not acted illegally in the first place. With all available credit tied up in the expenses of the previous case, the Pursuer remains unable to buy a family home.

6) House prices in the area that the Pursuer is hoping to settle are now more than double what they were back in 2003.

7) This court found in 2008 that but for the default the pursuer would have been able to buy a home in 2003. This was based on evidence that the defenders sent to the pursuer in the form a letter in 1999 threatening him with that exact scenario if he didn’t pay what they knew he didn’t owe.


8) The Pursuer doesn’t seek to make unreasonable demands on the Defender. The defenders have been called upon to make reparation to the pursuer to help him buy a family home of a similar type that they have so far prevented him from doing along with redress for the original defamation and continuing distress. The defenders continue to refuse and this action is accordingly necessary.


PLEAS IN LAW

1) To reaffirm that the pursuer, having suffered loss and damage as a result of the fault and breach of duty of the defender, is entitled to reparation.


IN RESPECT WHEREOF




XXXXXXXXXXX
PURSUER

[nemesis45]

Re: Durkin v HSBC - Second phase.

(Thank you Kati!!)

To my mind it avoids RJ as there as been no judgement at any level regarding any aspect of specific damages .
Do you still have a legal team behind you?

nem

[pt2537]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

Henderson v Henderson 1848 stuffs you imho

[nemesis45]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

Possibly, would not the previous court declining reparation due to " jurisdiction" overcome RJ?

nem

[pt2537]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

Trouble is, if its something which could and more importantly should have been brought in the previous proceedings then it becomes an abuse of the process to attempt to have a second bite of the cherry

[nemesis45]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

Trouble is, if its something which could and more importantly should have been brought in the previous proceedings then it becomes an abuse of the process to attempt to have a second bite of the cherry

I see your point PT, Rico says that the court was not unable to "award specific damages as it did not have jurisdiction" and relies on this to justify this action.
I see the point in this as well, but would the court?

nem