Hey Martin

hicskis

I will be watching with interest - when and where is it taking place, and would you be willing to send me a copy of the Judgment when it's out?

Best wishes....s..xx

Rico6.9

Appeal judgement is expected to be around the end of March and there'll certainly be a link to it. I imagine there'll also be some kind of media frenzy relating to it as this'll be the first authority of it's kind in the UK.
Sheriff Tierney's main judgement took him 9 months. If the Edinburgh judges take this long the appeal judgement may not be out until November!
Good luck with the fight. Sadly my MP is pretty useless so I'll be using my vote to try and get rid of him and look forward to a brighter future (Not necessarily orange).

never-in-doubt

esmerellda wrote: »

There was a guy who sue'd a lender for inaccurate data on credit files and got a payout because he could prove he had lost that level of investmnet because of it. Something about buying a house - section 13 DPA compensation etc... am looking it up for you.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/A187_04.html Scottish Courts - RICHARD DURKIN v DSG RETAIL LIMITED and HFC BANK PLC

also http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=451688&in_page_id=2

Both cases are other way around - ie. claim for damages for things being reported that werent true and stopped further credit being obtained.

You really want case law where things havent been reported and irresponsible lending has arisen. I dont know of any.

Durkin is a regular on CAG - see his post there for full details of his case.... interesting read!

natweststaffmember

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Durkin is a regular on CAG - see his post there for full details of his case.... interesting read!

Esmerrelda and myself are not active members of CAG anymore so a link for guest view might be helpful, thanks

hicskis

A link would be useful - yes - as not all people use the same Usernames

Rico6.9

Here's the judgement.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010CSIH49.html

A bit of a sickener for me but it confirms the £8K is up for grabs if you word your writ appropriately.

Good luck. I've got a bit of a job now to find a big hitter to help me finish this pro bono.

MarkyMarkD

What's all this cobblers in the judgement about "Northern Rock Building Society" in 2003? Er, plc I think.

leclerc

No idea but that Durkin Judgement is very interesting but unrelated to bank charges but where a default is put onto someone's credit record in error. Nice.

hicskis

I don't understand - the courts decided that you had not terminated the contract with the bank, even though you had successfully rescinded the contract with the supplier - PC World. In fact there were two contracts in place. The first was the contract of sale, and the second was the finance agreement with the bank.

As you had not rescinded the contract with the bank they were not liable for any losses, because at all times you had been given adequate warnings that the contract was in place and that if you did not keep up repayments the bank would record detrimental data with the CRA's. The bank indeed did so and recorded a default against you even though you had advised them the contract of sale with PC World had been rescinded.

As a consequence you are not able to claim any loss because the bank was correct in recording that data as the contract remained in force because you had failed to cancel it.

However the courts have indicated, and you seem to believe this yourself - that you are entitled back the extra interest you incurred, about 8000, that you had to pay over and above as a consequence of that default registered against you i.e the difference in interest cost of 0% finance that you enjoyed before the data was recorded with the CRA'S, and what it cost you in interest afterwards - 8000 pounds.

I don't understand - how can that event (the Default) be right and wrong at the same time - can you enlighten me??

hicskis

I'll enlighten myself .

Judgment:

Para 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.

This sucks i have to say - talk about a legal technicality.

The bank stated that if they were to be found liable (which they were not) - then the maximum that they would have to pay in damages was 8000 pounds (which they must not).

The appeal was dismissed so no monies are payable or further claimable. Instead Mr Durkin ends up with substantial legal costs for something that really should never have happened.

When Mr Durkin cancelled the sales agreement with PC World - then PC World one would have thought - should have terminated or at least informed the supplier of credit - HFC Bank - that the sales contract had terminated so thereby cancelling the credit agreement. However Pc World was not legally obliged to do so - it was upto Mr Durkin to cancel the credit agreement with the bank and he did not.

This is a classic case of how the Law is an !!!.

Always bring yourself back on the right side of any agreement in dispute. First pay the monies that are demanded, or do what is demanded - even if incorrect - and then fight for justice.

That is an important lesson to anyone out there.