Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I'm writing a complaint about a default which should not be on my file. It's the only thing on my file but it's pretty recent so it's got 6 years to run if it stays. Does anyone know how I might go about "pricing" it. i.e. how much extra a mortgage / other credit might cost me?
I don't doubt what you say. But that appraoch requires you to prove each of those losses and prove the causal link to the default. Huggles said that it is a recent default entry, so there will not have been much time for losses to buld up. You also have an obligation to minimise any loses. All of which makes it difficult to get a satisfactory result.
The advantage of the kpohraror ruling is all you have to prove is the existence of the incorrect entry. Lord Justice Evans ruled:
It is abundantly clear, in my judgment, that history has changed the social factors which moulded the rule in the nineteenth century. It is not only a tradesman of whom it can be said that the refusal to meet his cheque is 'so obviously injurious to his credit' that he should 'recover, without allegation of special damage, reasonable compensation for the injury done to his credit'(per Lord Birkenhead LC (above)). The credit rating of individuals is as important for their personal transactions, including mortgages and hire purchase as well as banking facilities, as it is for those who are engaged in trade, and it is notorious that central registers are now kept. I would have no hesitation in holding that what is in effect a presumption of some damage arises in every case, in so far as this is a presumption of fact.
So the question becomes whether the authorities compel the conclusion as a matter of law that the presumption cannot extend beyond the category of trader. In my judgment, they do not.
I don't doubt what you say. But that appraoch requires you to prove each of those losses and prove the causal link to the default. Huggles said that it is a recent default entry, so there will not have been much time for losses to buld up. You also have an obligation to minimise any loses. All of which makes it difficult to get a satisfactory result.
The advantage of the kpohraror ruling is all you have to prove is the existence of the incorrect entry. Lord Justice Evans ruled:
At the end of the day it is Huggles call.
Dad
I'm thinking that the judge's summing up and ruling apply on a broader scale than just defaults,i.e., any negative entries including late payment markers would incur losses to the data subject as these affect your creditworthiness.
thanks for this useful information - I'm just looking for theoretical ideas to bolster a complaint rather than court action for now so don't worry too much!
I am not a lawyer, but I agree with your view provided it is:
"...any false negative entries including late payment markers..."
Dad
Dad, was this the case in the ruling made by Lord Justice Evans in the kpohraror v woolwich case, that the default was a negative entry or was he making general comments? I've done a search for this case and can't find it, could you let me have a link to it?
Thanks, Painty x
There isn't a copy on the interenet and I only have a summary.
In short:
Mr K paid for some goods with a cheque for £4,500.00. The woolwich wrongly bounced the cheque. They were informed of the error at 5.00pm and issued a new cheque and phoned the recipient to inform him of the mistake by 5.30pm. The recipient received the funds the next morning.
The case was about whether a private individual was entitled to anything more than nominal damages. Prior to this judgement only a trader could claim substantial damages without specific proof of the loss.
The common law presumption that a trader can recover substantial rather than nominal damages for loss of business reputation without proof of actual damage is an exception to the general rule for breach of contract that a plaintiff can not recover substantial damages in the absence of proof that some actual damage had been suffered.
That exception was based on loss by injury to credit and reputation, which because of changed social circumstances, in particular the importance to individuals of their credit rating for personal transactions, can now be presumed to affect every customer.
Accordingly a bank's customer who is not a trader can recover substantial damages for injury to his reputation or credit without proof of special damage.
i have full access to all available legal databases and have a pdf copy of the Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996] 4 All ER 119 ruling should anyone want it
i have full access to all available legal databases and have a pdf copy of the Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996] 4 All ER 119 ruling should anyone want it
Pricing a default
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by dad
