Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

I think the UK does not want to sort itself out

To much vested interests me thinks

I agree. S.13 DPA provides for compensation in these situations, pecuniary loss is no longer a prerequisite (Google v Vidal-Hall).

If this is successive government's approach to reducing personal debt it is the wrong way to go about it, being unjust and in conflict with DPA.

It seems to me that the ICO is not fit for purpose, being the regulator of the DPA and turning a blind eye to these matters. And failing, in fact, to advertise the effective removal of s.13(2) DPA as being incompatible with Article 23 of the EU Directive and Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the ICO continues to claim that pecuniary loss must be demonstrated).

In general, I would say that banks will not remove adverse data without a court order due to the bilateral commercial agreements they have with the CRAs. That is, the provisions of the DPA are routinely overridden by commercial considerations.

The damage and distress caused by malicious data processing can be calamitous, as we see in Rico's nightmare dispute. While the ICO blandly asserts that "no-one has the right to credit", the DPA requires that everyone has the right to be considered for credit on the basis of accurate and lawfully-processed personal data.

Rant over. Good luck Rico.

[Dkg]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

The UK must sort it's own mess out.

Hi Rico,

Read your story with interest

One point I'm confused over;

When you won in 2008, why did the case not end there ?

Who appealed the decision?

Thanks

[pt2537]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

The UK must sort it's own mess out.

Sorry to say this but their Res Judicata defence seems pretty solid. I cant see how we depart from the UKSC ruling and therefore their arguments in my view will leave you in difficulty, sorry dont mean to be defeatist but i dont see there is a prospect of success. The case law is in their favour on this.

[Rico]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

Thanks PT,

Yes, that's their next move. They are seeking to avoid paying redress by arguing Res Judicata. I shall try and persuade the Sheriff that this is a fresh case based on malicious falsehood rather than negligent misstatement.

In any case, it will be in the interests of justice that the case is heard and proper reparation affirmed.

The bank is currently seeking to have the case dismissed based on "no prospect of success".

As far as I'm aware there isn't any case law that fits this scenario. No one in the UK has successfully sued a bank for the difference in house prices while they've been maliciously blacklisted.

Just in case I survive the motion for dismissal, I've lodged these answers attached.

Cheers,

Rico

[Rico]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

When you won in 2008, why did the case not end there ?

Who appealed the decision?

Thanks

We both appealed. The Sheriff messed up with the amount he awarded (~£100K short).

The bank appealed because it could. It is determined to cause maximum pain by using every quirk in the system to avoid paying redress and even influence the judiciary as required.

Remember, all I wanted from the beginning was not to be blacklisted in the first place.

Once the damage is done, redress must be paid. The quicker, the better.

Cheers,

Rico.

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

What worries me about this is that the judge might say that you need to provide evidence that you would have bought a house. Otherwise, the cynical thinking goes, a claimant might exploit s.13 DPA and claim that he would have bought a house had it not been for the adverse data when he had no intention of buying a house at all.

I'm in a similar situation and am looking at exactly this argument but am put off, especially by the judgement in Foster-Burnell;

http://www.legalbeagles.info/judgments/OliverFosterBurnellandLloydsTSBBankPlcAugust2014.p df

At para 84 the judge says he sees no evidence of any attempt to buy a house and so limited damages for distress to £1,000.

The only evidence I can think of is a failed mortgage application which to me seems senseless as we all know that mortgages are not given to defaulters. So to obtain the evidence you would have to apply for a mortgage and see your credit score reduce in consequence of the failed application. Or maybe an affidavit from a mortgage broker, but how many would be willing to do that? Even then, this is not "proof" that you would have bought a house.

I don't know what the solution to this is, other than making a claim for "distress" which is entirely free from any pecuniary element. But how is distress measured? I did think of using Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance (£750 for, say, a month of adverse data) and pro-rataing it to cover the 5 years of my default, but that isn't anything like enough.

There are the Vento bands (employment tribunals) but the maximum is £30,000.

I wish I knew the answer to this. It's really doing my head in.

[Rico]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

a failed mortgage application

That'll work.

2nd adjustment attached. I've had some cracking tips over on the other site.

Ruinous oppression. That's exactly it!

Rico

[Rico]

Durkin v HSBC (Phase 2) - Provisional record.

Hi Folks,

I've updated the provisional record (in red) attached here.

Be sure to help me overcome res judicata and prescription issues if you can. Round 2 begins next Thursday.

I've added 11 violations of human rights in case it comes to that.

Cheers,

Rico.

[Rico]

Delaying payment of costs that wouldn't have been awarded but for foul play.

Hi Folks,

It'll be about 4 weeks before the Sheriff will decide if it's possible to overcome res judicata and prescription issues.

Meanwhile the bank are insisting on me paying at least £80K of their costs from the earlier litigation, apparently awarded because "supreme" justices were unable to reinstate facts based on evidence that the Inner House claimed did not exist.

There ought to be a way for me to delay payment of this pending my fresh action that proves the Inner House were telling porkies on behalf of their criminal banker chums.

Any ideas?

Cheers.

Rico.

[Rico]

Res Judicata

Hi Folks,

I've managed to delay coughing up another £80K while I'm trying to get a fresh claim for defamation based on fraud lodged.

The sherriff's initial reaction is that matters are "res judicata", as attached. I intend to appeal as attached.

Any tips welcome.

Cheers,

Rico

[Rico]

HSBC Submissions

Hi Folks,

Here's the latest waffle from HSBC while they continue to deny us redress. Just in time for tomorrow's appeal.

Unbelievable what they get away with.

Let's hope the Sheriff Principal is bothered about justice. It's not so much of a lottery at this stage. They are (we survive) or they aren't (we're destroyed).

Cheers,

Rico.

[pt2537]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

Hi Richard

I really do appreciate the crap you've had to go through here mate, but I am struggling to see how you are going to overcome the res judicata angle. Have you bounced this off Andrew Smith QC? and if so what did he say?

[Rico]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

Hi PT,

I didn't ask Andrew specifically. He's convinced too that we're screwed and that's the way it is. He's helping the police with the criminal aspect though.

The government keeps telling me this is a matter for the courts. I'm telling them the courts are corrupt. Meanwhile my family continues to struggle on.

Fraud, sustained defamation and intentional harm by unlawful means clearly aren't res judicata but I'll be relying on the Sheriff Principal to exercise his discretion in favour of justice.

Cheers,

Rico.

[Rico]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

I wonder if this will help?

Issue	Litigation Prior -> Current
1	Right to rescind credit agreement	Fraud. There shouldn't be a credit agreement.
2	Liability for breach of duty	Damages for sustained defamation and intentional harm.
3	Quantum. (Dealt with by Inner House)	Quantum. (Not dealt with properly by the Inner House)
4		Causing loss by unlawful means
5		Fraudulent misrepresentation.
6		Conspiracy to defraud.

It's not really the same, is it?

Cheers,

Rico

[Rico]

Re: Wrongful default ratified - Redress still denied.

Hi Folks,

The Sheriff Principal in Aberdeen refused to allow me a hearing today not because of Res Judicata or Limitation but because of "Incoherent pleadings" and averments "lacking in specification".

Worryingly, he was unclear as to which of the new principles I was introducing included malice. He hadn't bothered to ask but it should be clear that malice persists in everything that the bank has exposed us too.

The sheriff seemed a tad peeved that I "accused" the higher judiiciary of dishonesty despite him having the evidence in front of him of excactly that!

It seems I'll need to start again with "coherent" pleadings and "specific averments".

I've attached a new claim. Please help with pleadings and suggest what might be unspecific in the averments.

Cheers,

Rico