FSA regulated irresponsible lending & a ccj

Dave_Ham

UnionGirl wrote: »

I think that the poster might be a 'friend' of Conrad2 who was over on the Loans board (I think) a few weeks back.

Same style of argument, copying and pasting legislation, etc.

Apologies if you're not OP, and go visit Conrad2 - I'm sure he'll have lots of notes to exchange with you.

These Conrad's causing trouble....!

holly_hobby

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

That why one can claims Punitive Damages..... Thats where the ICO come in.

As AC correctly states .... NO that is not where the ICO come in - whom as you have been told only deal with breaches of the DPA and FOIA.

And just to be clear, punitive damages don't actually exist in the UK - its correctly termed as exemplary damages that you are attempting to seek - and such a case is very difficult to bring and obtain a succesful action ... but I would have expected the law firm in Manchester whom you have engaged, and who have apparently already happily told you that you "have a case" againast the lender, to have already informed you this ....

Anyway, no doubt you won't accept this, so I have dug this out for you ... enjoy ....(although apologies if you don't ...)

And I quote ....

"Exemplary damages

The greatest departure from the principle that damages are intended to compensate the plaintiff rather than punish the defendant is the award of exemplary, sometimes called punitive, damages.

At one time exemplary damages were awarded fairly frequently, but the civil courts now firmly take the view that punishment ought to be the concern only of the criminal courts, and that only in rare cases should exemplary damages be awarded.

The current law relating to exemplary damages is to be found in the judgments in Rookes v. Barnard (1964) as adopted and amplified in Cassel and Co. Ltd. V. Broome (1072). The rules may be summarised as follows:

-Exemplary damages can only be awarded in connection with certain torts, probably only trespass, defamation, and intimidation. They cannot be awarded in respect of breach of contract in any circumstances."

As I say way back, I don't believe there is any Legal Team whom have validated your claim, or indeed any IFAs, and if they have, the story you have told them isn't the one you've published here.

The ICO have absolutely no involvement in "fraud" - their role is as the regulator of the DPA and FOIA as discussed.

There is no action re the recording of a credit search (which you say was (then was not!) done so without authority - as one WAS NOT conducted, AND therefore one has one NOT BEEN RECORDED - and therefore there has been NO mis-representation to 3rd parties, as NO CRA SEARCH WAS EITHER CONDUCTED OR RECORDED as part of your application !!!

Now thats blown, if you then switch the argument to the fact that you claim the lender should have conducted a full CRA search, becuase you claim they told you they had, then again NO. They told you they had conducted an AIP - and as I have already explained, although an AIP IS a credit search, it is a public info search only, conducted via a PUBLIC DOMAIN search .... ie it is not A PAYMENT PROFILE SEARCH - as conducted with DIPs and apps going to full underwriting, and as such does not get recorded as a CRA credit search, as it wasn't and isn't .... crikey, please tell me you get it now !!

You say this ISN'T a witch hunt, you're NOT after money, and your actions and persitence in this matter, are solely for the good of mankind (other borrowers of the lender who needs to be punished ) - although you have also said its to feed your kids ..... all spoken like a true mad professor.

This really should be my last post .... but we'll see ....

H

potatoefeet66

The more the old women keep bleating on about me not having any claim for this or that the more you are confirming that i actually do.

I decided to post on here as its still a free country and all the documented evidence has been looked at by independent and professionals, so I'm am not just talking out of my hat, like most of you lot.

Yeah you lot have the attitude if its an uphill struggle even when your right give up give in ......Bloody good job we not depending on you lot to fight any battles.

holly_hobby

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

The more the old women keep bleating on about me not having any claim for this or that the more you are confirming that i actually do.

Ah .... the old double bluff .... I like it ....

H

Damn ... I definately intend this to be my last post ....

Thrugelmir

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

The more the old women keep bleating on about me not having any claim for this or that the more you are confirming that i actually do.

I decided to post on here as its still a free country and all the documented evidence has been looked at by independent and professionals, so I'm am not just talking out of my hat, like most of you lot.

Yeah you lot have the attitude if its an uphill struggle even when your right give up give in ......Bloody good job we not depending on you lot to fight any battles.

Heard similar tales before. If your professional advisors were doing such a great job. You wouldn't feel the need to post on here. Nor would you still be complaining about events that originated years ago.

Many of us post to assist people. As uncompromising as the poster maybe.

As for battles. Are you related to Lord Cardigan?

potatoefeet66

holly_hobby wrote: »

As AC correctly states .... NO that is not where the ICO come in - whom as you have been told only deal with breaches of the DPA and FOIA.

And just to be clear, punitive damages don't actually exist in the UK - its exlempary damages that you are attempting to seek - and such a case is very difficult to bring and obtain a succesful action ... but I would have expected the law firm in Manchester whom you have engaged, and who have apparently already happily told you that you "have a case" againast the lender, to have already informed you this ....

Anyway, no doubt you won't accept this, so I have dug this out for you ... enjoy ....(although I don't think you will somehow ..)

And I quote ....

"Exemplary damages

The greatest departure from the principle that damages are intended to compensate the plaintiff rather than punish the defendant is the award of exemplary, sometimes called punitive, damages.

At one time exemplary damages were awarded fairly frequently, but the civil courts now firmly take the view that punishment ought to be the concern only of the criminal courts, and that only in rare cases should exemplary damages be awarded.

The current law relating to exemplary damages is to be found in the judgments in Rookes v. Barnard (1964) as adopted and amplified in Cassel and Co. Ltd. V. Broome (1072). The rules may be summarised as follows:

-Exemplary damages can only be awarded in connection with certain torts, probably only trespass, defamation, and intimidation. They cannot be awarded in respect of breach of contract in any circumstances."

As I say way back, I don't believe there is any Legal Team whom have validated your claim, or indeed any IFAs, and if they have, the story you have told them isn't the one you've published here.

The ICO have absolutely no involvement in "fraud" - their role is as the regulator of the DPA and FOIA as discussed.

There is no action re the recording of a credit search (which you say was (then was not!) done so without authority - as one WAS NOT conducted, AND therefore one has one NOT BEEN RECORDED - and therefore there has been NO mis-representation to 3rd parties, as NO CRA SEARCH WAS EITHER CONDUCTED OR RECORDED as part of your application !!!

Now thats blown, if you then switch the argument to the fact that you claim the lender should have conducted a full CRA search, becuase you claim they told you they had, then again NO. They told you they had conducted an AIP - and as I have already explained, although an AIP IS a credit search, it is a public info search only, conducted via a PUBLIC DOMAIN search .... ie it is not A PAYMENT PROFILE SEARCH - as conducted with DIPs and apps going to full underwriting, and as such does not get recorded as a CRA credit search, as it wasn't and isn't .... crikey, please tell me you get it now !!

You say this ISN'T a witch hunt, you're NOT after money, and your actions and persitence in this matter, are solely for the good of mankind (other borrowers of the lender who needs to be punished ) - although you have also said its to feed your kids ..... all spoken like a true mad professor.

This really should be my last post .... but we'll see ....

H

you are all way off track with what went on and until as professionals you examine the documents you really cannot pass a judgements....

They data shows that the process was conducted out side of FSA rules and the lender made claims that are not correct and after its finding that they were wrong have failed to correct the information.

If someone posted there is nothing going on here then lender will have no objection to explaining to either FOS or ICO what I did wrong. I have never submitted any inaccurate income so as to secure a fast tract process I not stupid you know .....

potatoefeet66

hahahaha , all very funny look i can tell your all really upset and wound up so ill leave you all alone unless some one posts anything unprofessional x

UnionGirl

Lol OP. Some people might be getting wound up, however, like Conrad2, you have admitted you are on a 'crusade' to try and educate the lesser minions on these Boards.

Seriously, if you are not the same person (and not a WUM), PM Conrad2, the two of you will get along like a house on fire.

holly_hobby

Oh do jog on .... you're going round and round and round and round in ever decreasing circles ....

To top and tail it, thats right you're absolutely bob on with this, and everyone else here who dares to disagree is both a numbskull and are all part of and colluding in this obvious conspiracy with the lender ........


H

holly_hobby

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

I not stupid you know .....

Evidently ....

Although there is a saying "you can't reason with stupidity" .... just saying

H