Default damages [PCWorld wrong laptop sold & HFC Finance]- Supreme Court

[Durkin]

Check it out:

 

Laptop buyer's £116k damages win thrown out by appeal judges - The Scotsman

 

A fairly competent decision in law by the Aberdeen Sheriff overturned by an appeal court when I questioned the maths (not the law). Now I have to do both!

 

Anyone fancy getting involved with this?

 

I'm waiting for news from Ken Clarke, OFT and Martin Lewis.

 

I'll need some heavy hitters to sort this out. I ran out of credit a few years ago.

 

I'll need to find a way to import a document (The record) into here. Stand by...

Edited June 18, 2010 by Durkin
Extra info

[Durkin]

Here's the last closed Record that the Edinburgh judges were presented with. The banks advocates were picking away at the legal wording, attempting to veer the judges away from fact, witness and evidence!

THIRD AMENDED CLOSED RECORD.doc

[Rhia]

Ah I posted the Scotsman link about your hearing and wondered where it had gone to. Welcome to CAG Richard. You should get some big hitters along to help.

 

BTW your address is displayed on the Third Amended Closed Record document. I am not sure if you intended this to happen but we usually recommend removing personal details as far as possible.

[Durkin]

If I get help, I should be able to change my address. If I don't, I'll probably be forced to change address! Martin Lewis was unable to help. I'm appealing for everyone to ask their MP to look into this. Mine is less than reliable. Apparently, it could take up to 20 days for a reply from the justice ministry.

 

A summary of the situation:

 

The "law" (according to Scotland's "best"), says that a consumer, signing a credit contract purely on the basis that they are told it will be cancelled if the goods (for which the contract is designed to pay for) are not what they asked for, is still liable to pay for the goods, in any case!

 

Now, I understand the government has a lot on it's plate just now but I've only 5 weeks left to lodge an appeal (I think that's what "the law" allows).

 

I'll continue this fight as long as I'm able. Sometimes I wonder what the hell I am fighting. It seems like the devil! No pressure.

[Monty2007]

If I get help, I should be able to change my address. If I don't, I'll probably be forced to change address! Martin Lewis was unable to help. I'm appealing for everyone to ask their MP to look into this. Mine is less than reliable. Apparently, it could take up to 20 days for a reply from the justice ministry.

 

A summary of the situation:

 

The "law" (according to Scotland's "best"), says that a consumer, signing a credit contract purely on the basis that they are told it will be cancelled if the goods (for which the contract is designed to pay for) are not what they asked for, is still liable to pay for the goods, in any case!

 

Now, I understand the government has a lot on it's plate just now but I've only 5 weeks left to lodge an appeal (I think that's what "the law" allows).

 

I'll continue this fight as long as I'm able. Sometimes I wonder what the hell I am fighting. It seems like the devil! No pressure.

 

Dear Durkin

 

I assume this is your own case?

 

I have used the Durkin Aberdeen judgement myself in two cases but they did not go to Proof, indeed one is a small claim and only just starting.

 

I am sure it will stimulate a lot of debate here and should, of course be appealed further up the chain....

[Monty2007]

Here's the last closed Record that the Edinburgh judges were presented with. The banks advocates were picking away at the legal wording, attempting to veer the judges away from fact, witness and evidence!

 

Dear Richard

 

Are you able to disclose which Pleas were repelled an why?

 

What is your planned strategy now?

 

I think this is a very interesting and critical case, I have read the original Aberdeen judgement and it has been discussed between CAG members (off-line).

 

Regards

 

Monty

[Monty2007]

If I get help, I should be able to change my address. If I don't, I'll probably be forced to change address! Martin Lewis was unable to help. I'm appealing for everyone to ask their MP to look into this. Mine is less than reliable. Apparently, it could take up to 20 days for a reply from the justice ministry.

 

A summary of the situation:

 

The "law" (according to Scotland's "best"), says that a consumer, signing a credit contract purely on the basis that they are told it will be cancelled if the goods (for which the contract is designed to pay for) are not what they asked for, is still liable to pay for the goods, in any case!

 

Now, I understand the government has a lot on it's plate just now but I've only 5 weeks left to lodge an appeal (I think that's what "the law" allows).

 

I'll continue this fight as long as I'm able. Sometimes I wonder what the hell I am fighting. It seems like the devil! No pressure.

 

Me again.

 

Surely there are two separate issues here; (i) ending a contract under the 1974 CCA which you were entitled to do since the goods did not conform to the agreed specification/contract (abeit verbal) and (ii) the consequential losses that you suffered as a result of their reluctance to conform to (i)??

[Durkin]

Dear Durkin

 

I assume this is your own case?

 

I have used the Durkin Aberdeen judgement myself in two cases but they did not go to Proof, indeed one is a small claim and only just starting.

 

 

Hi,

 

Yes, my own case.

 

I understand that people are using the original judgement to good effect, particularly with removing defaults. I'm very happy about that. This appeal judgement shouldn't affect that. It confirms that £8K is still available for those that have "validly rescinded" their credit agreement (Still up in the air exactly how one is supposed to do that).

 

The maximum small claim is £5K, so most folk should get that. One good thing about it having been through the "Edinburgh Mill" is now the rest of the UK can use it. Good luck.

[Durkin]

 

Surely there are two separate issues here; (i) ending a contract under the 1974 CCA which you were entitled to do since the goods did not conform to the agreed specification/contract (abeit verbal) and (ii) the consequential losses that you suffered as a result of their reluctance to conform to (i)??

 

Edinburgh only really decided to deal with the first issue which was exceedingly frustrating for me. They decided that since I wasn't entitled to rescind the contract, nothing else matters!

 

Well, it matters to little old me!

 

I've suffered for 12 years in more ways than can be incorporated into the pleadings, originally written in 2004.

 

I think it's in the interest of everyone to get the first point sorted. The second point affects only those that have been defaulted for so long.

 

I'm trying to get my MP to recognise that there is no difference between a settled default and a default. He's not interested.

 

I now have several real defaults while trying to clear the original "wrongful" one!

[Monty2007]

Hi,

 

Yes, my own case.

 

I understand that people are using the original judgement to good effect, particularly with removing defaults. I'm very happy about that. This appeal judgement shouldn't affect that. It confirms that £8K is still available for those that have "validly rescinded" their credit agreement (Still up in the air exactly how one is supposed to do that).

 

The maximum small claim is £5K, so most folk should get that. One good thing about it having been through the "Edinburgh Mill" is now the rest of the UK can use it. Good luck.

 

I suppose that is a positive outcome but it seems unfair to impose a cap?

[Durkin]

 

Are you able to disclose which Pleas were repelled an why?

 

 

I'm not a lawyer but I'll try:

 

2nd plea in law for the Pursuer: Credit agreement a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement (within meaning of section 12(b) of Consumer Credit Act 1974). Pursuer entitled to reject computer as disconform with the supplier. Pursuer entitled to rescind credit agreement in terms of section 75(1) of said act.

 

Repelled because I'm NOT, in their view, entitled to rescind credit agreement (Many disagree)

 

3rd plea for Pursuer. The pursuer having rescinded the contract of sale and the credit agreement, decree of declarator should be pronounced as first craved.

 

Repelled because in their view (despite fact, evidence and witness before Sheriff Tierney) contract was NOT rescinded.

 

4th plea for Pursuer. The pursuer having suffered loss and damage as a result of the fault and breach of duty of the second defenders, is entitled to reparation therefor.

 

Repelled because in their view (despite the glaringly obvious) there wasn't ANY breach of duty on the part of HFC.

 

 

What is your planned strategy now?

 

 

I am at the mercy of our government. I'm seeking help pro bono.

[Durkin]

it seems unfair to impose a cap?

 

I agree but I've chosen a different war. Justice for all. It's dead in Scotland.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Durkin!

 

Welcome to CAG by the way.

 

I'll try to help all that I can, and will spread the word to see if others can be directed here to help and participate.

 

Best of luck with it.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[sequenci]

Have you tried the Govan Law Centre? Maybe Mike Daily might be interested in looking at this?

[Scrapper]

I'll keep it short. I've just emailed and called my local MP (Ben Gummer) We have history before he was elected. He told me if I ever needed anything to call so I've asked for him to call me urgently.

 

No promises but it might help.

 

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

[citizenB]

Have you tried the Govan Law Centre? Maybe Mike Daily might be interested in looking at this?

 

 

Good idea:)

[Durkin]

Have you tried the Govan Law Centre? Maybe Mike Daily might be interested in looking at this?

 

He's been too busy in the past. Martin Lewis suggested him too. I'll send another mail his way. Thanks.

[Durkin]

Thanks for the support. It's good to know there's someone that cares about justice. Just need to spread the word to the government and most of the legal profession.

[Scrapper]

I'll keep it short. I've just emailed and called my local MP (Ben Gummer) We have history before he was elected. He told me if I ever needed anything to call so I've asked for him to call me urgently.

 

No promises but it might help.

 

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

 

His office called me back and basically said he is not allowed to get involved with matters of law.

 

She said even though parliment creates the law once passed that's it. They know longer have an involvement.

 

I don't know enough to know whether that's fact or fiction I'm affraid.

 

I know it's no help but I tried.

 

 

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

[Durkin]

 

She said even though parliment creates the law once passed that's it. They know longer have an involvement.

 

 

If the law's not right (As the Edinburgh judges are claiming), it needs to change. Parliament make the changes.

 

In any case, in the short term, I'd like all MP's to ask for justice for the consumer. If the law is ambiguous, as seems to be the case, it's the consumer that should prevail.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Durkin!

 

If the law is ambiguous, as seems to be the case, it's the consumer that should prevail.

I think that's it, in a nutshell.

 

The problem we face is the Lawyers acting for the banks, twist the English language around until what should be clear, becomes ambiguous.

 

Once they make it ambiguous, then it becomes all too easy for biased and pro-bank Judges to leap further off the fence and find, as if by magic, that the ambiguity bends in favour of the banks as opposed to the Consumer that the Law is supposed to protect from the banks.

 

s127(3) wasn't ambiguous.

 

They could not get around it.

 

So, they scrapped it.

 

A dark day for Justice.

 

All too often The Consumer Credit Act 1974 is twisted around until it becomes The Useless Banker Protection Act 2010.

 

We are desperately in need of some balance, and Parliament should get its trotters out of the trough and start doing its job, instead of doing what ever the highest banking pressure group bidder happens to pay them.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Scrapper]

If the law's not right (As the Edinburgh judges are claiming), it needs to change. Parliament make the changes.

 

In any case, in the short term, I'd like all MP's to ask for justice for the consumer. If the law is ambiguous, as seems to be the case, it's the consumer that should prevail.

 

 

I'm only the messenger.

 

I have a meeting with him to be confirmed tomorrow. I called them back as I need to address something of my own.

 

I'm no expert and most of the items on this site might as well be written in double dutch as I don't have a clue where to start most of the time, (not really. I'm not that stupid) so if the meeting is before your 5 week deadline send me what you would like to address and I'll just bring it up during the conversation and just hand it to him and see what happens.

 

Hope that helps

 

Thanks

Scrapper Coco:cool:

[Scrapper]

Hello Durkin!

 

We are desperately in need of some balance, and Parliament should get its trotters out of the trough and start doing its job, instead of doing what ever the highest banking pressure group bidder happens to pay them.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Most politicians were in bed with the banks. I saw it with my own eyes week in week out when I had a job that is.

 

Politicians talk a good fight and justice for the person on the street, but it's all lip service until something else comes along and the circus leaves town. Then we the consumer are left to fight our own corners against an industry that seems to just have blantant disregard for the regulations and laws they are meant to abide by and if we query them they just ignore us completely then make out they have been hard done by when it reaches the court stage.

 

What recourse have we against this industry? None. FOS, FSA, OFT? They are about as much use as a wet paper bag. My own thoughts before anyone has a go at me.

 

You play by their rules or don't play at all and it needs to change and change quickly.

 

How can it be right that they can ignore us but ignore them at your peril. They will default you, wreak your credit rating and basically do their upmost to destroy your life even when they no they are wrong and CRA don't even query the information provided to them.

 

Enough of my rant

 

Scrapper Coco

[patrickq1]

all you will get from K Clarke is ,Thank you for your email. We cannot comment on any judicial decisions

..

as for the defaults they are being made by a company trading under ENGLISH LAW ? as it states in the consumer contracts so perhaps an action in an english court may be more appropiate,this way the contract gives you the right to rescind under the sections you have quoted..

i would also be wondering what happened to the computor did PC WORLD resell it ? probably never find out

patrickq1

[Durkin]

 

send me what you would like to address and I'll just bring it up during the conversation and just hand it to him and see what happens.

 

 

If you refer him to the article and ask him to obtain an opinion from Ken Clarke that would be ace.

 

Government backing will help enormously.

 

Cheers.