Pricing a default

[huggles]

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?

[huggles]

*bump*

[dad]

A similar question has been before the Court of Appeal in:

 

kpohraror v woolwich building society [1996] C.L.C. 510

The decision they came to was the amount of the default plus £1,000. So if the default recorded was £100, then your claim would be for £1,100.

HTH

Dad

[Azazal23]

In would say its mich more, supposeing your credit file is clean apart from the default.

 

You wont be able to get a high street credit card for say 15% so you ll end up getting on for 35%

 

20% defference that could add for to a few hundred per year depending on how much money you borrow.

 

The mortgage add an extra 1 or 2% i would say £30 - £50 per month extra depending on how much your mortgage is

[dad]

Azazal,

 

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.

 

At the end of the day it is Huggles call.

 

Dad

[Paintball]

Azazal,

 

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.

[dad]

Paintball,

 

I am not a lawyer, but I agree with your view provided it is:

 

"...any false negative entries including late payment markers..."

 

Dad

[huggles]

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!

[Paintball]

Paintball,

 

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

[dad]

Painty,

 

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.

[pt2537]

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

regards

paul

[noomill060]

Amount of default recorded+ £1000

 

[noomill060]

Jayzuz

[noomill060]

Would this apply in cases where the amount of the default recorded was incorrect, because it included penalties and interest levied thereon?

[Mike220359]

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

 

regards

paul

I'd be grateful of a copy

 

Mike

[huggles]

I'd be grateful of a copy

 

Mike

 

same here

[pt2537]

ok no problems

 

if you pm me a email address i will send you a copy

 

 

regards

 

paul

[tifo]

A similar question has been before the Court of Appeal in:

 

kpohraror v woolwich building society [1996] C.L.C. 510

 

The decision they came to was the amount of the default plus £1,000. So if the default recorded was £100, then your claim would be for £1,100.

 

HTH

 

Dad

 

I was also looking for the same info.

 

Would this really work as i need to take banks and debt agencies to court who should not have defaulted me or carried on maintaining one.

 

I can't seem to find the text to that case although many links to other cases using it.

[tifo]

The decision they came to was the amount of the default plus £1,000. So if the default recorded was £100, then your claim would be for £1,100.

 

Would that be £1,000 per default at each CRA or £1,000 per account default.

 

So 1 each at 3 CRA's would be £3,300 or just £1,000 as they all relate to the same account?

[Paintball]

ok no problems

 

if you pm me a email address i will send you a copy

 

 

regards

 

paul

 

Hi Paul

If you click on the instant messenger icon under my avatar you can email me the info. Many thanks

Painty x x

[pt2537]

No problems, it should be sat in your inbox right now

[gemspan]

Would it be possible for me to have a copy too. Im just about to start with A&L and BofS for defaults but they havent supplied copies of the agreements.

 

Thanks so much.

 

Gemspan

[pt2537]

Hi Gemspan,

 

if you pm me an email address i will send it to you

 

regards

paul

[car2403]

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.

 

Paintball,

 

I am not a lawyer, but I agree with your view provided it is:

 

"...any false negative entries including late payment markers..."

 

Dad

 

I think the response would be that this is persuasive argument rather then binding authority, as that isn't part of the Judgment delivered but can be construed from it.

 

Interesting thread that I may have use of in many of my cases...

[tifo]

A similar question has been before the Court of Appeal in:

 

kpohraror v woolwich building society [1996] C.L.C. 510

 

The decision they came to was the amount of the default plus £1,000. So if the default recorded was £100, then your claim would be for £1,100.

 

HTH

 

Dad

 

I cannot see that amount or anything towards that decision in the case.

 

Am i missing it and can someone point me in the right direction?

 

It is crucial for me as i am now trying to use this case to ask for an amount, with the FOS and also maybe at court.