Wrongful default prevents house purchase? £8000 to £100000+ damages now available

new_home_owner_3

oh by the way heres my new house, i got it for 20,000 pound

dlk

mbga9pgf wrote: »

F*cking chancer.

My thoughts exactly

silvercar

Either:

a) you lose the court case, go bankrupt. Start your life again with a chip on your should having wasted 10 years.

b) you win, but not enough to do more than clear your legal costs. Your back to square one - small property here, nothing in Spain = nothing to show for it having wasted 10 years.

c) you win big. you buy your villa in Spain, sell your house in the UK and live happily in Spain telling everyone you meet how you beat the banks Turn into a bit of a bore, write a book, this is your life story. No bank will ever give a bad credit reference again, everyone can borrow, MEW, spend to their hearts content, the banking system fails....oops, they've done that last bit without your help.

silvercar

My bet is that, even if you win, you will get no more than direct compensation for the wrong credit reference and the fact the bank listened to it. Maybe a couple of grand.

The fact that only one bank was prepared to lend you enough to combine your debts onto your mortgage and that that bank was NR, says it all. It shouldn't have been possible, you didn't have enough money or equity to put a deposit down on a second home. You chose not to sell up to do so, so you need to take responsibility for the fact you couldn't buy abroad. end of story, the fact prices rose in the following years is irrelevant.

I really can't see anyone paying out for the difference in prices on a property you didn't buy.

Rico6.9

silvercar wrote: »

you didn't have enough money or equity to put a deposit down on a second home. You chose not to sell up to do so

No equity due to the wrongful default. Selling up wouldn't have given me enough. Removing the default would have.

silvercar wrote: »

I really can't see anyone paying out for the difference in prices on a property you didn't buy.

I didn't buy because I couldn't due to the default. If the bank pays the difference then I can buy.

Of course this doesn't take into account the fact that currently a victim cannot claim all their expenses back. This is already well over £200K. I've asked the new government to look into this.

As it stands the law recommends paying the banks "ransom" (pay us money or be black-listed). This clearly needs changing.

Check this out: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Laptop-buyer39s-116k-damages-win.6364126.jp#5315083

tomterm8

I'm sorry, I think you've lost your case. Might as well take it to the supreme court, though ... you've got nowt to lose by this stage.

think you would have been better off just forking out the money to buy an external modem, and then never going to the shop again.

silvercar

Rico6.9 wrote: »

No equity due to the wrongful default. Selling up wouldn't have given me enough. Removing the default would have.

I didn't buy because I couldn't due to the default. If the bank pays the difference then I can buy.

Is the default that gives you a black mark. The amount would be small in house deposit terms - £2-4k.

Check this out: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Laptop-buyer39s-116k-damages-win.6364126.jp#5315083

Better explained in that article:

"Laptop buyer's £116k damages win thrown out by appeal judges
Published Date: 16 June 2010
By JOHN ROBERTSON

A £116,000 damages award to a disgruntled shopper has been wiped out by appeal judges, in a landmark ruling with implications for thousands of consumers in Scotland.
Richard Durkin returned a laptop computer to PC World because it turned out not to be the kind he wanted.

However, the bank that had provided credit for the purchase continued to chase him for payments, and blacklisted him when he refused to mak
e any.

Mr Durkin, 41, an off-shore surveyor, of Aberdeen, successfully sued in the sheriff court over the blacklisting, but that decision was overturned yesterday by appeal judges in the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

Recognising it would be an unpopular ruling with consumers, the judges said the credit agreement had remained in force even after the sale of the laptop was cancelled. One did not automatically end with the other, they stated.

So, when Mr Durkin would not pay, HFC Bank was entitled to treat him as being in default, and to report him to credit reference agencies for inclusion on their registers as a bad risk.

Lord Mackay, sitting with Lord Hamilton, the Lord President, and Lord Eassie, said consumers like Mr Durkin could sue to have a credit agreement annulled and to recover money they had been obliged to pay in the meantime, but he conceded: "We recognise that from a lay consumer's point of view, such remedies to recover damages are not as obvious or as readily enforceable as a right to rescind the credit agreement itself."

Mr Durkin intends to take the case to the Supreme Court in London, but said it had already cost him "over £200,000" in the Scottish courts.

"It is a travesty of justice. I am still in shock. I just can't believe they have done this. It is difficult to quote any printable statement. I have always said the law is an !!!," he said.

In 1998, Mr Durkin wanted a laptop with an built-in modem. The assistant in PC World in Aberdeen suggested a Hitachi model, but it was in a sealed box and could not be checked for a modem. Mr Durkin bought the laptop on the understanding it could be returned if there was no modem. He paid £50 and signed a credit agreement with HFC for £1,449 to cover the balance of the price. At home, he found the laptop did not have a modem, and he took it back to PC World first thing the next morning.

The store refused to take it back, but Mr Durkin left it, and had to raise a small claims action before PC World repaid his £50.

Although he explained the situation to the bank, HFC insisted he meet payments under the credit agreement, and warned of the consequences if he failed. In due course, he was served with a default notice and his name was added to registers of the UK's largest credit reference agencies. The entries remained until 2005.

Mr Durkin had wanted to buy a property in Spain, but was unable to obtain a mortgage while on the registers. He sued HFC, and Sheriff James Tierney in Aberdeen ruled that Mr Durkin had validly rescinded the credit agreement and awarded him £116,674, mainly for the difference between the price of a Spanish home while he was on the registers and after he was removed from it.

Following a similar case, Sheriff Tierney held that under the Consumer Credit Act, the canceling of a sale meant a linked credit agreement also fell.

In yesterday's appeal judgment, Lord Mackay said the contract of sale and the contract of loan were separate agreements, and the proper reading of the legislation went against Mr Durkin's case, even though "the general policy which lies behind the 1974 Act involves the protection of consumers".

The consumer champion Which? said its advice was: "Do not sign a credit agreement unless you are completely sure you want to enter into the agreement and you are not going to change your mind."
"
So you won the case, they appealed and you lost. Now you need a lawyer on your side. Have you got legal insurance with your house insurance?

mystic_trev

Bearing in mind the recent 'victories' for Banks in the Charges case, and more recently the 'unenforceable credit agreements' I really can't see the OP having any success at the Supreme Court, although as tormterm8 says, he may as well give it a try!

Nice to see how the price of Laptops has dropped in the last 12 years!

Rico6.9

silvercar wrote: »

The consumer champion Which? said its advice was: "Do not sign a credit agreement unless you are completely sure you want to enter into the agreement and you are not going to change your mind."
"
So you won the case, they appealed and you lost. Now you need a lawyer on your side. Have you got legal insurance with your house insurance?

I appealed the maths: £116K doesn't equal 300 000 Euros (Difference in purchase price). Still no answer on that although it does seem obvious. Instead they spent 6 days (cross appeal) quibbling about all kinds of legal issues coming out with the stunner that I'm not allowed to rescind the contract in the first place!

I have legal insurance now (I'll need to check that) but it'll not help as this case has been running since 2004 when I didn't have the insurance. Something to do with the law again.

Rico6.9

tomterm8 wrote: »

think you would have been better off just forking out the money to buy an external modem

So true. Although I didn't realise what a mess the justice system was in at the time. I really wish they'd just kept their word. Simples.

I've discovered many practitioners and now judges who have no interest in justice.

If the new government doesn't act many of us will end up paying ransoms to banks to avoid staying off the black list.