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

[GuidoT]

Bump.

[caro]

I've signed it too. How about putting this in the campaign forum?

[Durkin]

Thanks for all your continued support. Rupert Jones finally pulled through with this article.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/mar/12/pc-world-laptop-paul-durkin?commentpage=last#end-of-comments

 

Cheers,

 

Richard

[craigers]

good luck richard. hopefully the supreme court will do the right thing.

[Guest]

good luck richard

 

subbing bah humbug)

Edited March 12, 2011 by Ford

[icefall]

I have just signed after reading the March newsletter, I sincerely hope you get justice!

[vacma373]

Signed- Best of British to you

[GuidoT]

Bump

[ticson]

signed too

[ebonym]

Subbing - good luck Durkin. I had a similar thing done to me by Santander. The default has caused me no end of grief and denied me the opportunity to take advantage of % deals and lower interest credit cards costing me £££ in extra interest, when apart from the default, I have a good payment history.

[jamesbond]

good luck with this and i so hope you achieve a good result.

[Durkin]

Legal Aid Board should be deciding our claim for Legal Aid next month having finally considered the application last month.

 

Much will depend on the wider public interest aspect so please bring this to the attention of all those folk you may know who are having difficulties with defaults. Any potential sympathisers too.

 

Despite our challenge that this is a very simple matter, they're considering it as "complex".

 

Here's the link to the campaign: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?297131-Legislate-against-banks-defaulting-disputed-accounts

 

Thanks for your support.

 

Richard.

[Durkin]

Still jumping through hoops with the legal aid board.

 

Despite 2 of 3 external reports, support from the MP and CAG and significant prospects in the Supreme Court, they're still persuaded by the bank's lawyers!

 

The MP has spoken to ministers and pretty much confirms that the government will do nothing util the Supreme Court has ruled on this.

 

Could be another year at least then that the banks are allowed to continue blackmailing the public.

 

I reckon that's unacceptable. I'd like to hear Ken Clarke's excuse for this. Does anyone have him as their MP?

[patrickq1]

sorry to hear this D i wonder if we can find a major Shareholder to raise this at an extraordinary meeting of the board of Directors ...surely they must have a limited budget for this action

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

signed D good luck mate

patrickq1

[Scrapper]

 

I reckon that's unacceptable. I'd like to hear Ken Clarke's excuse for this. Does anyone have him as their MP?

 

I don't have him as my MP but I am currently in talks with my Conservative MP about an issue I'm having. He is currently in talks with the chairman of the bank in question.

 

I'd be happy to send him all the details to pass on if you wish to provide mw with them

 

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

[Durkin]

Cheers Scrapper,

 

I've already tried talking with Richard Spence (HFC's old CEO). A waste of breath. I really do wonder how long they think they can get away with it before someone less patient than ourselves decides to string them up.

 

There are plenty of unhappy bunnies now. Let's hope the Supeme Court can bring them into line before someone cracks.

 

I understand Richard Spence is now an advisor at The Treasury. No wonder the government isn't keen to protect the consumer. It seems they're all in it together!

 

Difficult to get them to admit it but it's often the case that actions (or lack of) speak louder than words.

 

I hope your issue is resolved today.

 

Richard.

[Rhia]

Richard I really think the judges have been told to try and stop consumers claiming any further against the banks due to the frightening situation with the Euro etc. I was involved in a recent and decent case (not mine) and the judge just rolled over and allowed the bank's barrister (in a small claims court) to run the show.

 

I also heard a story on Breakfast TV from Paul Lewis of Money box stating the people getting PPI back from banks are being hit with tax bills! It's case of a) putting people off trying and b) if they do try grabbing some tax. Do keep up your battle if you can.

[Durkin]

I'm still saving up for the court fees.

 

Here's an interesting link:

 

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/deferred-prosecution-agreements/consult_view

[caro]

Good stuff Richard. I'll see if we can get this in the next newsletter to make sure as many as possible respond.

[Peterbard]

HI

I haven't seen any discussion about the actual case, so perhaps this is the wrong thread.

I was aware of this case purely because i had used the precedent created in the awarding of costs issue. Which i may say has been a great help to many.

I couldn't believe the circumstance that caused the problem, i assumed that a credit agreement would automatically be cancelled on the return of an item in this way.

I was a little surprised when i read the transcript of the hearing to be honest, in that that the agreement was said to have been rescinded, due to section 75.

I didn't think that 75 worked that way, my immediate reaction was that the agreement would have been cancelled under the provisions in section 55-56 of the act in that no agreement was" made", as prof. Goode puts it.

 

I considered section 75 to be a device where, if you paid money to a supplier and lost it through their breach, you could sue the creditor in their place. This mechanics are simpler to understand on a running credit account, on a fixed term agreement the creditor i thought would simply repay the loan account( which i suppose is a kind of rescission). It is a subtle distinction and i suppose one that only emerges in the situation that came up here.

 

It is a serious gap in the consumer protection measures available under the act, lets hope the SC has the skill and the will to plug it.

 

DB

Edited July 8, 2012 by Dodgeball

[Peterbard]

Richard,

 

I am sure you are in good hands, but can I draw your attention to CCA74 section 57 which seems to cover your situation and was not mentioned in the latest judgment.

 

 

 

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.

 

HTH

 

Dad

 

I don't know why this has not been picked up on, it seems to me to be a good and valid argument.

 

There is a minor point that i would disagree with, and that is that the agreement was not executed.

In my view it was, however section 55 refers to the making of an agreement, professor Goode draws distinction between an agreement that is executed and an agreement that is "Made".

 

An agreement can be cancelled before it is made under section 57-69.

 

The agreement is made when the goods are delivered, in this case they were not, if you ordered a pound of butter and received a pound of salt would the goods be deemed to be delivered.

 

I think that this agreement should have been deemed cancelled not rescinded.

DB

[Durkin]

Hi DB,

 

Happy to discuss things here. I'm afraid I'm a tad cheesed off with "the law" just now. It seems set up to protect the criminals that can afford the best wordsmiths.

 

It shouldn't matter if the bank screwed us with Section 75 or Section 56. A good judge should still recognise that we've been screwed.

 

The Edinburgh lot have basically let the bank off with this Section 75 technicality that has been good these past 30 years. They are obsessed with linking new cases to previous ones to the extent that they alter facts and ignore evidence to fit.

 

Whether it was the candlestick or the lead piping say, we still have a corpse and we know who did it.

 

With conveniently deaf ears and turning a blind eye, judges have completely missed that the credit agreement shouldn't even exist, as it was processed fraudulently.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Durkin
Spelling

[Peterbard]

Hi DB,

 

Happy to discuss things here. I'm afraid I'm a tad cheesed off with "the law" just now. It seems set up to protect the criminals that can afford the best wordsmiths.

 

It shouldn't matter if the bank screwed us with Section 75 or Section 56. A good judge should still recognise that we've been screwed.

 

The Edinburgh lot have basically let the bank off with this Section 75 technicality that has been good these past 30 years. They are obsessed with linking new cases to previous ones to the extent that they alter facts and ignore evidence to fit.

 

Whether it was the candlestick or the lead piping say, we still have a corpse and we know who did it.

 

With conveniently deaf ears and turning a blind eye, judges have completely missed that the credit agreement shouldn't even exist, as it was processed fraudulently.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard.

 

HI Richard

 

I seem to remember reading somewhere in one of the judgments this was mentioned and the judge said that the only pleadings were based around the section 75 argument, is there going to be an extension to the pleadings in the new submission.

 

DB

Edited July 9, 2012 by Dodgeball
spell

[Durkin]

If the court allows it, we'll tidy up the pleadings.

 

The facts and evidence remain as always. This should have more weight than the pleadings.