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

[Durkin]

Richard,

 

By my reading when you went back to the store the agreement had not been executed by the creditor and still at that time remained a prospective agreement.

 

Dad

 

Thanks Dad. Yes, that was the case ignored by the Edinburgh judges.

 

My "representatives" in Edinburgh conceded, against my will, that my whole case fails if Section 75 fails.

 

My case has so many stories but it is true that your own lawyers can score an "own goal" even against the run of the evidence. Pretty frustrating and almost fatal to the case.

 

As you are aware, this is a no-brainer made complicated by the lawyers.

 

Lets hope justice prevails after they've had their "fun" at my expense.

 

The Edinburgh judges have written Paragraph 58 to be used in the Supreme Court.

[sequenci]

i can see what the difference was in that yorkshire had innitially obtained judgement..where as no judgement had been sought on mine

sorry d for hijacking

patrickq1

 

aha I'm with you now APOLOGIES!

[patrickq1]

no problems seq,i was of this beleif for years that i had the right on my side and every year had been informed that i do not have, but the Nat west Case was not the only case nor reason,the written legal charge was suspect as well,due to the Banks failure and gross interferance ...anyway ive got the thread here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/123193-patrickq1-hfo-morgan-stanley.html#post1273662

[sequenci]

no problems seq,i was of this beleif for years that i had the right on my side and every year had been informed that i do not have, but the Nat west Case was not the only case nor reason,the written legal charge was suspect as well,due to the Banks failure and gross interferance ...anyway ive got the thread here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/123193-patrickq1-hfo-morgan-stanley.html#post1273662

 

cheers matey, i'll take a look.

 

i can only skim-read threads during the day as I'm at work, I'll take time to go through yours, if I can dig anything out that would be useful I'll let you know. Our library is FULL of old limitation cases!

 

Richard, sorry for the thread hi-jack, I'm delighted to see movement with your query!

[patrickq1]

yes i think we can all be pleased that some movement in richards case, i have just received my letter from the FOS MS / goldfish/barclays have agreed to clear my account and remove all adverse credit defaults...WON after 5 years

patrickq1

sorry for hijacking richard...so i can now look see if i can contribute to your case richard, something has to break and perhaps a touch of lady luck might help..

[Durkin]

No worries folks. I've read Patrick's thread. It's folk like him and countless others I'm hoping to help by persevering against the bank.

 

I'm determined to end up with a judgement that clearly tells them that they're wrong in their use of defaults and to ensure that the difference in house price is paid to help all the victims who've been prevented from buying a family home, buy one. I'm also trying to work with my MP to ensure that all expenses are repaid too. Reparation less expenses isn't reparation.

 

The idea is that they'll eventually have no incentive to issue defaults that aren't warranted.

 

They shouldn't be allowed to operate in the UK with such an attitude. The people controlling them don't seem to understand the misery they cause. Sadly, this misery may even turn into terror for us all. HFC don't care.

 

I'm trying to stop the rot at the source. In my eyes, the people controlling the banks wrongful issuing of a default and refusing to remove them are criminals. They need a good stoning and should be deported.

[bustthematrix]

Hello Richard

 

Really great to see you on CAG and thanks for posting your matters here both for our learning and for your own support.

 

Really hope it all works out for you and for us - but what a travesty to see the lengths to which you are having to go to get simple justice.

 

Btw, do you think your path may have been easier if your damages claim was for much less money i.e. did not involve a claim for loss against a lost property purchase etc? I imagine that apart from your legal costs, this is probably the biggest item of your damages claim?

 

Lenders are so silly sometimes - blinded by pure greed. All PC World had to do was give you the right laptop which they no doubt had/could have sourced and none of this would have happened!!!

[bustthematrix]

Something else that I find somewhat confusing Richard is how can Section 75 be found NOT to apply in this case?

 

This would have settled the matter would it not?

[Durkin]

do you think your path may have been easier if your damages claim was for much less money i.e. did not involve a claim for loss against a lost property purchase etc?

HFC had until 2004 to settle this at no cost to themselves. They had until 2005 to settle this for £11K. They aren't just greedy. They are evil.

 

I had taken the higher interest rates on the chin for so long but when it came to being prevented from buying a family home, basic human rights became an issue. Action needed to be taken. It seemed that I was the chosen one!

 

I was communicating directly with the CEO. There's absolutely no excuse.

 

I appear to be the first to take this path in the UK. Others that follow will certainly have an easier (hopefully stress free) ride. Indeed, by the time I'm finished, the issuing of wrongful defaults for bullying purposes will be a thing of the past.

 

Lenders are so silly sometimes - blinded by pure greed. All PC World had to do was give you the right laptop which they no doubt had/could have sourced and none of this would have happened!!!

Indeed.

[Durkin]

Something else that I find somewhat confusing Richard is how can Section 75 be found NOT to apply in this case?

 

This would have settled the matter would it not?

 

The whole of the UK is confused about this. Sheriff Tierney ruled that it did apply. He is correct and this should be made clear at the Supreme Court.

 

Lawyers are very keen to apply every case to previous cases, there aren't many unique cases and when they come along, they're at a loss.

 

My case was compared to UDT v Taylor. There were 2 contracts in that case. Mine was just the one but in any case the contract I signed came with an agreement that it would be cancelled the next day if the laptop didn't have an internal modem. Those were the only terms I was willing to sign it and it was post dated to the following day to reflect this.

 

The frustrating thing for me is that with all this legal debate surrounding Section 75, the Edinburgh judges have assumed that the contract was legally processed in the first place. It wasn't! Sheriff Tierney saw this too.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Durkin
Spelling

[patrickq1]

did you ever get dates from HFC as to when the contract was received by them and the time they proccessed the contract ? ime thinking pc world that they had posted the contract that same evening

patrickq1

[Durkin]

did you ever get dates from HFC as to when the contract was received by them and the time they proccessed the contract ? ime thinking pc world that they had posted the contract that same evening

patrickq1

No. PC World were acting as HFC's representatives. They are in it together. It is a [problem] that I have been trying to expose for 12 years now. HFC are aware of the circumstances. The laptop was returned unfit for purpose on the morning of the 29th December. The contract was dated the 29th December. I had a witness to confirm this.

[bustthematrix]

It seems such a simple matter. It is amazing how the judges in the higher courts can sometimes fail to see the wood for the trees. It happens all too often.

 

1. You agreed to buy a laptop, on finance.

2. PC World gave you the wrong Laptop.

3. You returned it the very next morning (well done by the way, others of us would have taken a couple more days - you know, New year and all.)

4. Surely there can only be two correct outcomes from here:-

a) PC World give you the right laptop. The purchase goes ahead, the finance goes ahead. Everybody is happy.

b) PC World keep their laptop and cancel the sale and any associated finance.

 

Can these judges, and HFC for that matter actually show that you had ANY intention of borrowing a dime from them for any reason whatsoever, other than the purchase of the laptop??

 

I know the matter is more complicated than this as it's not just the above issues - which I understand have been resolved - it's the associated issue of defaulting your credit file due to the loan and the consequential losses (damages) you then suffered as a result of the default registered.

 

But why can't HFC see that this is one they should have backed away from a long time ago? They can only win this if indeed they exert more control on the judiciary than is evident.

 

Even if they insist you entered into a CCA direct with them and took out a loan which you later defaulted on, the fact that you sought to cancel that 'loan' the very next day would not have been outside your cancellation rights unless the loan was uncancellable under the CCA. However I understood that all consumer credit issued in relation to retail/sale/purchase contracts are cancellable due to the nature of such transactions.

 

Incredulous stuff!

[Durkin]

 

1. You agreed to buy a laptop, on finance.

 

 

Only if it had a modem

 

 

4. Surely there can only be two correct outcomes from here:-

a) PC World give you the right laptop. The purchase goes ahead, the finance goes ahead. Everybody is happy.

b) PC World keep their laptop and cancel the sale and any associated finance.

 

 

One would have thought.

 

I know the matter is more complicated than this as it's not just the above issues - which I understand have been resolved

 

Still very much unresolved, I'd say.

 

 

But why can't HFC see that this is one they should have backed away from a long time ago? They can only win this if indeed they exert more control on the judiciary than is evident.

 

 

Worryingly, the second sentence may be the answer to the first. If so, we're all doomed!

 

 

 

Even if they insist you entered into a CCA direct with them and took out a loan which you later defaulted on

 

 

Difficult to understand how one can default on something where the law says that one isn't obliged to pay.

 

 

unless the loan was uncancellable

 

HFC/PC World could have cancelled the agreement at any time. They told me it would be cancelled. A blatant lie, followed through to the sheriff court.

 

 

Incredulous stuff!

 

Indeed. Thanks.

[patrickq1]

article 1 european human rights charter, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

[Durkin]

I hadn't realised I had been shafted in so many different ways! Thanks Patrick. Once I get the appeal in, I'll be off to find the nearest MEP. It's a shame to have to rely on Europe though to tell us about basic hiuman rights. Cheers.

[patrickq1]

i was of the beleif you had already researched the EU CHAPTER 1, but isnt it strange ive been reading this for over a year and so many wrongs within UK legislation that could easily be made right had these been pointed out to a judge who is being asked to use common sense and fairness....

but a good read chapter 1 ..covers so much ground

patrickq1

[mystery1]

You should read Amex v Brandon.

 

48. Lastly, ch~rewas the counterclaim. This involves MrBrandon'sa93ertion that his

commercia! reputation has been besmirched by virtue of the fact that his so-called

dcfault has been referred to one or more of the credit agencies. Tquite accept on the

authorities that a wrongful placing of someone's namewith one of those authoritie~

and registering such a person as a bad debtor i5wholly defamatory and can be very

damaging to a person's credit standing and credit rating. Onc of the authorities, and r

have forgotten which one it is now, refers specifically to a case where a man had

boughc a computer and he took it back becauseit did not work properly a.nd,a3was

subsequently found, was entitled to take it back and repudi!ite the contra.ct. In spite of

that the suppliers put his name on the credit blacklist. It is clearly outrageou3. He

clearly exercised his right to tennina.te the contract andclearly and properlyhisname

6hould never have gone on.

 

 

English and Welsh Court of appeal.

 

M1

[patrickq1]

yo D you is famous lol...

discharge by agreement,

fulfilment of condition warranty ,such as , i will buy your car if you fit new tyres on it, i shall incur no liability unless the tyres are fitted ?

so any defaults are a breach of your human rights

[Durkin]

You should read Amex v Brandon.

 

 

Cheers M1. I'm very happy to hear that there's another judge in existence that agrees with Sheriff Tierney. If you have it handy, could you post a link to this? My efforts to "Google it" proved fruitless. I'll mention it to the advocates.

[the_shadow]

Its attached to this posting (for now) I would download it now.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?196312-Invalid-Default-Notices&p=3079201&viewfull=1#post3079201

 

S.

[Durkin]

Its attached to this posting (for now) I would download it now.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?196312-Invalid-Default-Notices&p=3079201&viewfull=1#post3079201

 

S.

 

Thanks Shadow

[mystery1]

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/A1522_05.html

 

M1

[Durkin]

Cheers M1. I've just been to see the advocate today. He seems confident the banks will finally be brought to justice. I've been advised not to say too much more though to help ensure the job gets done. He liked the comment from the judge in Bristol. OK, so this could take a few more years yet but the job will get done. By the time I'm finished, the banks will be less likely to be issuing defaults. It will be a matter for Westminster though to ensure jusice is achieved more swiftly in the future.

[patrickq1]

well done D hope you get somewhere at last...

patrickq1