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

[Peterbard]

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.

 

It is to be hoped, unfortunately the courts tend to look for a technical argument to back up their judgments. There is no doubt that there is a major injustice here and you would hope that the court would see it and make the appropriate decision, unfortunately as we learned in the bank charge issue they often don't, they go with the technicality.

 

It cannot be right of course that you are made accountable for goods you have not received, and i am sure that eventually this loophole will be sealed, the question as i see it is , is there scope within the CCA or was it a situation where the act has no power, and amendments or new law is required.

 

DB

[Peterbard]

Good article

 

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A7x9QX4C_PtP0WQAY0hLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTE1bmM1MnE0BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2lyZAR2dGlkA0FDQllVSzNfODE-/SIG=12rpq8rna/EXP=1341942914/**http%3a//www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/mar/12/pc-world-laptop-paul-durkin

 

D

[Peterbard]

Dont get me wrong i 100% agree that there has been an injustice here. MY concern is that people are being encouraged to invest and i have not seen any mention of the fact that the Supreme court may find against Mr Durkin.

There seems to have been little or no discussion about the legal merits of this on here and from what i see very little ensewhere.

 

I think that their several points that need to be addressed, not least the appeal courts assesment of the function of section 75 , which if i read it right will have to be overturned if the case for reparation is to succeed.

 

I think if people are going to invest , they should be aware of the facts, personally i will be investing but only what I can afford to lose, because I think it a cause worth fighting, but i am a realist.

 

I would start a new thread about this , but from previous experience i find that sometimes people interpret rugged analysis of an argument as criticism and i suspect i would be drawn to the job of playing devils advocate in order to get some constructive debate. This is the section that makes me wary.

 

[63] The Sheriff held the appellant validly rescinded his contract of sale with the first respondents on 29 December 1998 and his finding to that effect was not challenged before this court. However, for the reasons we have given, it was not open to the appellant to rescind the credit agreement, by invoking the provisions of section 75(1) of the 1974 Act. No other basis for rescinding the credit agreement has been advanced on behalf of the appellant. It follows, therefore, that throughout the period of time the entries posted by the second respondents remained on the registers of the credit reference agencies they were factually accurate, apart from the arithmetical error of referring to £1499 when it should have been £1449.

[64] The Sheriff dealt with the delictual issues which arose in this case in paras 93 - 121 of his judgment. Standing the conclusion we have reached on the rescission issues that also arose, it is unnecessary for us to deal with them in detail. Indeed it was recognised on behalf of the appellant that if we found against the appellant on the issue of whether he had been entitled to rescind his credit agreement by relying on the provisions of section 75(1), it would not open to him to successfully defend the award of damages that the sheriff had made in favour of the appellant.

[65] That concession was very properly made. The provisions of the 1974 Act admit the possibility of a creditor such as the second respondents supplying information relating to a debtor, such as the appellant, to a credit reference agency licensed under the Act. The credit agreement between the appellant and the second respondents in the present case explicitly provided that the appellant agreed that the second respondents could supply information relating to the credit agreement and to his conduct of the loan he received in terms of that agreement to credit reference agencies. The provisions of section 159 of the 1974 Act enabled the appellant to give notice of correction to credit reference agencies, which he did. In such circumstances, standing the appellant's conscious decision not to make any payments under the credit agreement to the second respondents and the conclusion we have reached on the issue of whether the appellant was entitled to rescind his credit agreement with the second respondents, by relying on the provisions of section 75(1), we consider that the second respondents were entitled to treat the appellant as being in default of the credit agreement. In these circumstances it follows that the Sheriff was not entitled to hold that the second respondents had made false representations relating to the appellant; that the second respondents had breached a duty of care they owed to him; and that the appellant was entitled to the award of damages he made.

 

Any thoughts anybody.

 

D

Edited July 10, 2012 by Dodgeball

[Durkin]

Hi DB,

 

Sorry not to be able to elaborate too much on this before it goes to the court.

 

Bottom line is that the bank cannot win if the appeal is accepted. The contract was processed fraudulently.

 

The bank has successfully argued that we shouldn't be entitled to legal aid and will also try to prevent the appeal through various points of procedure. It's full of malice that the government is fast becoming obliged to address.

 

It's understood that the court too is wise to these tactics and will assist in the pursuit of justice.

 

I imagine only the Supreme court will have the answers to these specific paragraphs that should never have been written.

 

Facts and evidence haven't been considered. Scotland's highest court has shockingly failed to deliver justice in very suspicious circumstances.

 

Richard.

[Durkin]

i had used the precedent created in the awarding of costs issue. Which i may say has been a great help to many.

 

Did you get any feedback about this Durkin case from any English judges?

[Peterbard]

The two cases i was directly involved with were both settled out of court. It seems accepted that damages arising from a wrongly placed marker is well established thanks to your good self.

I have to say the amounts involved were considerably less than are at stake here.

There are a couple of cases on the go at the moment in the place that dare not speak its name on here, but you are probably aware of them.

 

DB

[spartathisis]

Not sure how to follow a thread without posting.

[tedney]

Not sure how to follow a thread without posting.

 

Go to thread you want to follow, scroll to top of screen, go to thread tools and click on subscribe and click through. Good Luck!

[Samndazzle]

signed also a victim of this ive a long running thread and need help

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?273464-Blackhorse-keep-changing-default-date-everytime-in-gets-near-6yrs&p=3987027#post3987027

[Durkin]

Hearing listed for January 28th - 2014!

 

Another year then living hand to mouth and another winter to endure.

 

Oh well. Let's hope justice improvements will result and the right people are suitably punished.

 

Richard

[the_shadow]

Ever get the feeling theyre just trying to grind you down

[patrickq1]

Went 11 years with my case in the early 80s was a sickening the years rolled by felt like it was never going to. End

[Durkin]

Ever get the feeling theyre just trying to grind you down

 

They've maliciously and successfully been grinding us down since 1998. Those responsible will need to be ground down themselves.

 

Perhaps this is a good time to build a new prison, ready for the influx.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard.

[Durkin]

Happy New Year Folks,

 

Written case attached for Jan 28th.

 

HFC being earmarked as criminals to boot.

 

Let's hope a few of them, including those that have tried to resign themselves out of trouble, will finally be jailed.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard.

 

[ATTACH]48393[/ATTACH]

[citizenB]

This is excellent news

 

Will we see any criminial proceedings come out of this ?

 

What will you get out of this ?

[Durkin]

Hi CB,

 

Criminal proceedings will depend on the Procurator Fiscal, following the ruling. It needs to happen if the criminal bankers are ever to be stopped.

 

Hopefully, we'll finally be awarded true reparation that will allow us to set up a family home and plan foir the future.

 

Happy 2014.

 

Richard.

[Peterbard]

It has been a long hard road for you Richard and I sincerely hope this turns out well for you , if anyone deserved it you do IMHO.

 

I notice mention of the pre-contractual issues in the defense(section 56) was this a result of the judges earlier remarks? personally I think that this is a strong argument.

[Durkin]

It has been a long hard road for you Richard and I sincerely hope this turns out well for you , if anyone deserved it you do IMHO.

 

I notice mention of the pre-contractual issues in the defense(section 56) was this a result of the judges earlier remarks? personally I think that this is a strong argument.

 

Thanks DB.

 

Andrew simply read the facts and applied his knowledge.

 

I have mentioned fraud from the outset and it has actually been mentioned in both lower courts as well as being written into the condescendence. (Just not written as an official legal argument, apparently). Well, this time, it's written.

 

The Edinburgh judges could have found a way to rule in my favour, as the sheriff did. They chose not to. Outrageous. I wonder if they'll be investigated.

 

Happy 2014.

 

Richard

[caro]

Good luck Richard. I hope this will be the end of this so that you can move forward.

 

Thanks for keeping us updated too.

[silverfox1961]

Got everything crossed for you Richard. It does make it hard to walk though.

[the_shadow]

Good luck with this Richard

[GuidoT]

I wish you well with this too.

 

Is the hearing still listed for the 28 January 2014?

[Durkin]

 

Is the hearing still listed for the 28 January 2014?

 

Yes.

[Durkin]

Here's the latest drivel from the criminals. Crying because they'll be prejudiced and already trying to blame it all on an employee rather than take responsibility from the top.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Durkin
Punctuation

[tedney]

Good Luck with this, I hope you win out. Scandalous that HFC etc can squirm and wriggle on such a basic issue. Regards t

Edited January 9, 2014 by tedney
typo