Should I sue for libel then, instead of defamation? Publishing a false credit reference. No defence on that. Or should I sue for both? Or just defamation? Is there a chance HSBC could defend an action for libel? (Apart from the standard dragging it out). What could a judge say to help them out? These are the questions I need answered ahead of time as I'll be going in alone this time. Thanks for the suggestion. Cheers, Richard

Hi Folks, It seems as if I may have to go it alone for phase 2 against HSBC. Proposed claim is attached. It's based on the theory that the UK "Supreme" Court were claiming not to have jurisdiction in Scotland. Hopefully, the trial court has jurisdiction to award damages again. The Scottish appeal court judges seem to have avoided misconduct charges because the Supreme Court appeal took longer than 3 months! It's a joke what they can get away with so easily. I'm keen to avoid res judicata in this fresh claim so I've geared it more towards defamation but I'd be happy to hear any other advice. Cheers, Richard.

Madness. They have a duty to check that the debt exists though. Otherwise they face a defamation claim.

Tried that. I've attached stuff before. It says that I've no permission to add attachments. Right at the bottom. Under posting permissions.

Hi Folks, I just had an interesting chat with CID. As some of you may be aware, I've been trying to have an ex CEO of a bank (HFC's Adrian Hill) prosecuted for extortion. It was very clear that they're very reluctant to go ahead. One of the reasons though was particularly interesting. They said that there'd been absolutely no other calls to prosecute from other citizens! It made me look like a sole nutter! So, if we're ever going to have these bankers jailed, I'd like folk to realise how simply banks can try and extort money from us. I appreciate, to date, that most folk are either intimidated and pay what they don't owe, or just assume the "banks are up to their usual tricks" without taking action, probably because they've no faith in justice. If we're unable to expose injustice though, we'll never be able to fix it. I'd like to attach an example of extortion, the one that's been put forward to CID in fact. (I'm unsure why I've no permission for that?) Basically though, if you're being asked to pay something you don't owe and being advised of "consequences if you don't", it's extortion. A criminal offence. Please go to the police if you have time. Thanks for reading. Richard.

..yet the "supreme" court has ruled that a default can't prevent a mortgage. Absolute tosh. Total annihilation. Not just a "reduced" credit score.

We already knew that. The important bit for reparation purposes was that a default prevents a mortgage and reparation is due. The lower court recognised this but the "supreme" court didn't. Nor did the Scottish appeal court for that matter.

Hi DB, I had assumed my case. It was more the "supreme" justices failing to recognise that a default prevents folk obtaining a mortgage, despite the evidence. If it's left like that, which seems most likely, no one now can claim proper reparation as banks continue to ignore the law. Cheers, Richard.

The problem being of course that there's currently no benefit if banks force things beyond small claims.

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=17255

The "supreme court" seems to have ruled unanimously that a default doesn't prevent a mortgage. Of course, that's not the case. They know it. Here's the truth about my case: https://ukinjusticebydurkin.wordpress.com/ I'm running out of ideas.

Update. "supreme" court, after more than a year, has finally decided that we must pay at least some expenses to the perpetrators from the lower court. They've essentially passed the buck back to Edinburgh, the very court that screwed us in the first place! As far as expenses in the "supreme court" go, my solicitors will need to negotiate with the perpetrators! Still no news from either the government or the shadow government on what we're supposed to do when the banks continue to refuse to abide by the law. Cheers, Richard

Word is that parliament believes that the consumer is adequately protected by legislation! (Neither the government nor shadow government seem willing to commit this to writing) Still no word on what I should have done. It seems that we're expected to pay the ransoms despite being told that we shouldn't give in to terrorism! So, the situation is set to continue where the banks keep on ignoring the legislation without fear of prosecution. They are the terrorists. A vote for Tories, Labour or SNP will not help change this.

I'm certain they will. They already have. They'll rely on it to pour as much confusion into the simple matter of a negligent misrepresentation as possible. The DPA has been designed to protect them. If the prosecution doesn't rely on it and the CRA brings it up, it fairly proves the point. There may be others too that disagree. The DPA doesn't suit the victim. So many have tried and failed, seemingly. Why isn't it applicable? It worked for us. Nice and simple. Common sense. The CRA's could use a sense of common decency rather than hide behind the intricacies of the DPA. Cheers, Richard.

We seemed to "get away with it" though and it did seem fairly simple. (Specific damages only fell through because the truth was erased in Edinburgh) DPA isn't designed to provide a remedy, rather to protect the creditors and the CRAs to allow them to continue annihilating folks creditworthiness and worse. It would be interesting to see a case, other than mine, that doesn't involve the DPA, just to prove how simple a claim for general damages can be.

We didn't mention Section 13 in our case. Neither did any of the courts. Proof then, that it's possible to follow a different, less precarious, path Without mentioning the DPA we were "successful" (for the purpose of this claim)

Everyone that has mentioned the DPA in their claim seems to have come off worse! The DPA seems to have been written to protect creditors and the CRAs, rather than the victims. A simple claim for general damages under common law (eg. negligent misrepresentation) is all that's required. The CRA has already admitted fault. It will all come down to the judge, on the day. Will they still think my case is "Scottish" (based on English judgements and ratified in London)? Will they still say King is "too old"? Will they still assert that Kpohraror's case was "too different"? It's about time, the UK's judges just grew a pair. When faced with a fight between good and evil, they should interpret the law to protect the victim. By keeping it simple, there's less to interpret. The CRA should already have compensated the OP. It needs to shape up and not hide behind the DPA that protects it!

Hi Dot, A small claim needn't be too stressful, particularly if you have a helpful clerk and especially if there's an in court advisor that might be associated with your local CAB. Perhaps you might write to the CRA beforehand something like this (remember I'm no lawyer although my sense of right from wrong seems to surpass most of the judiciary, legal practitioners, politicians and customer service managers that I've come across): Dear CRA, The CRA admits it has wrongly damaged my creditworthiness and is aware of the consequences such misrepresentation has on individuals. I am minded to pursue a small claim in court for general damages under common law (that doesn't require proof of loss) as per Durkin who had no need to refer to the DPA. This is a final opportunity for the CRA to do the right thing before I lodge a claim in court which of course will generate legal expenses. Yours Sincerely, DOT. I don't have much time to help now while I'm juggling kids. I hope this helps though. Good luck, Richard.

Happy New Year Dot, It's up to you how far you're willing to take this. If you have the energy and are willing to deal with the stress, you could try a small claim at your local court. I'd certainly avoid the ombudsman. In my opinion, having listened to other advice in the forums, you would need to avoid any mention of the DPA in your claim. You can already see that they are pushing you towards it. Your case is the same as mine in that you have suffered general damages to your creditworthiness. For them to suggest otherwise is absurd, demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of what they're about. Their antics are destroying people's lives and in your case thay can't pin it on a criminal lender. Someone needs to educate them that they can't keep getting away with it. I imagine their argument that you were screwed anyway because of the court itself, would need to be reasoned by your local judge. It could be interesting. Perhaps it might be better to avoid the stress though? Many people would be relieved at finally having a clear credit rating. Then again A £100 offer to settle might just be the insult that I'd need to put in a small claim! Good luck if you go for it. Best wishes, Richard.

Hi Dot, Strange they couldn't confirm receipt (I'm sure they could if they could be arsed). I wouldn't worry. Hopefully, the caseworker will show up on Monday. Cheers, Richard.

Hi Dot, Perhaps a brief call to confirm receipt of the letter. Ideally, you'd be speaking to them face to face. That way they'll see the real people whose lives they're trashing. I hope you manage to get through the festivities with minimum stress and even find a way to enjoy it. A clear credit file should help! Best wishes, Richard

Hi Dot, Kpohraror, which my case was based on, was screwed for just a day. The bank rectified the error within a day but were still required to pay the equivalent of £8K for damage to Kpohraror's creditworthiness. In my case, I remain screwed until 2017 at least and possibly for life. £8K was awarded. If you fail to notice within 6 years (possibly less in England), the law doesn't allow a claim although you can still press criminal charges if you've been the victim of fraud and/or extortion, as I have done. Cheers, Richard.

Go for it. Good Luck. Richard.

Hi Dot, Something like this? Dear CRA, Durkin was awarded £8K in general damages, without proof of loss, for the mere injury to credit, in 2006. This was ratified in the Supreme Court earlier this year. £8K 8 years ago would be equivalent to a higher sum today. If £8K is good enough in the eyes of the Supreme Court, then it's good enough for me. Yours Sincerely, Dot

Hi Dot, I'd definitely go for non-financial. Use my case - Durkin v DSG & HFC where the Supreme Court agreed that £8K in 2006 for the mere injury to credit (no proof of loss required) was at least reasonable. £8K 8 years ago will be more today but I'd keep the number under £10K. Cheers, Richard.