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

silvercar

Rico6.9 wrote: »

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.

So you appealed the calculation and that ended up with you getting nothing!

Shame you didn't ask for the payment in Euros, you'd be streets ahead now!

Seems very bad luck that your appeal led to the ruling being overturned.

Rico6.9

silvercar wrote: »

Shame you didn't ask for the payment in Euros, you'd be streets ahead now!

I asked for the difference in purchase price so that I could buy the house I wanted to buy. I wasn't after a profit. From the start all that I wanted was for HFC to remove the default. Up until 2004 it would have cost them nothing to do that. The fairest way would be to get a valuation after judgement (the time that I can actually buy) and pay me the difference at the exchange rate of the day or in Euros, whatever is most convenient. The law isn't fair though. Expense issues too, pretty much ruin anything that reparation law is trying to achieve.

silvercar wrote: »

Seems very bad luck that your appeal led to the ruling being overturned.

Very worryingly it seems like it has nothing to do with "luck". There appear to be very dark forces operating in order for the appeal judges to make such a blunder in justice.

RabbitMad

I think you should appeal and I would be very suprised if one of the consumer charities wouldn't support you.

This is because to (the arm chair lawyer in) me they are actually saying that the 1974 CCA doesn't protect the consumer as everybody thought.

I guess the correct action in 1998 would have been to contact HFC and tell them you'd returned the laptop and if they didn't cancel the contract sue both HFC and PC world jointly for the entire purchase price. - However the judge seems to be saying that you would have lost that action too and would have been relaint on PC world paying up so you could pay back HFC

Conrad

Rico - I see cases like yours virtually every day and it always always comes back to the same point;

1) Client agreed to be bound by the terms of a financial contract

2) The client then decided not to abide by said terms due to a product or service not meeting thier satisfaction


Now all of us have to endure a sub standard product or service outcome at some point in our lives, but the correct thing to do is not to take an ad hoc self propelled decision to try and circumvent the contract terms, instead we get the product or service rectified and wait if needbe until we have explicit written permission to cancel the contract.

In this way organised people do not tend to end up with any credit problems, otherwise we would all end up with defaults.

The law is that we cannot take unilateral decisions to walk away from the terms of a contract unless the contract explicetly entitles us to and in that event only where all parties unequivocaly agree in writing that the contract may be annuled.

Follow the simple steps in life and you will never end up with a default, period.

Rico6.9

Conrad wrote: »

The client then decided not to abide by said terms

Not the case here. I returned the laptop before I even "signed" for it!

Conrad wrote: »

only where all parties unequivocaly agree in writing that the contract may be annuled.

Not sure this is true. PC World and HFC Bank do break the law. I'm living proof.

Conrad wrote: »

Follow the simple steps in life and you will never end up with a default, period.

This is possibly true outside a recession.

Rico6.9

OK folks. The time has come. If any of you believe that me winning in the Supreme Court will help you please e-mail Frances McCartney at

[EMAIL="fm@patrickcampbellsolicitors.co.uk"]fm@patrickcampbellsolicitors.co.uk[/EMAIL]

She's really interested in your story!

We're in the process of applying for legal aid using the "wider public interest" approach.

If you have an idea of the numbers of people affected by wrongful defaults in the UK, you can really help here. Please also recommend any bodies I should write to for this kind of statistic. I'll be asking Martin by PM too.

I'm guessing at least tens of thousands but have no proof.

Cheers,

Richard.

Rico6.9

Time for a story.

Could someone PM me details of a journalist who'd like to help. Preferably in the London/Kent area?

We need to make this blatantly clear, despite the blatantly obvious, that a Supreme Court ruling prohibiting banks from extortion/defamation/negligent misstatements (basically issuing wrongful defaults) will be in the public interest!

The team's in place (pro bono) and prospects of success are "significant".

Cheers,

Rico.

[Deleted User]

Interesting thread Rico and I admire your determination. Good luck!

Regardless of whether people on here agree or disagree with your actions, I think it highlights the risks of sticking up for your rights and just how far our civil justice system has moved from justice to a means of lining the pockets of solicitors and judges. There is something fundamentally wrong with large organisations and the rich being able to to flaunt civil laws simply by making the cost of pursuing the case too much of a risk for their victims.

Percy1983

Still confused after reading this, you didn't follow the conditions of your credit agreement and thats the banks fault?

You didn't actually confirm the specs of a laptop before buying and thats PC worlds fault.

Glad the justice system is working just fine.

CloudCuckooLand

Good to see that Scotland still has at least one growth industry - stupidity. imo