Jump to content



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


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2431 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

If the Justice Minister feels unable to help citizens regarding matters of justice we're all doomed.

 

Come on England. God save the Queen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one England.

 

So, which charities should I be approaching for help with this matter of Consumer Law?

 

I had agreed with PC World (HFC's representatives) that ALL contracts would be cancelled (the credit contract hadn't even been processed), if the laptop didn't have a modem.

 

PC World (HFC's representatives) then told me, when I returned the laptop as useless, that I had to pay for it anyway.

 

PC World (HFC's representatives) told porky pies. Under oath.

 

I found the one guy on the planet (in USA now) to prove this.

 

The Aberdeen Sheriff agreed. PC World (HFC's representatives) were telling porky pies. Sadly, the Aberdeen Sheriff screwed up with his maths regarding reparation. Law and maths don't gel.

 

Justice should prevail always. If I get help in the Supreme Court, the consumer will win. (Unless there are darker forces at work)

 

"Which" only take on folk who were paying subscriptions.

 

Their advice was not to sign a contract, ever, just in case the vendors are telling porky pies!

 

I'm still waiting to hear from Watchdog. Govan Law Centre remains silent.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just added a few more thoughts. Strange how the courts love to split up one contract into 2. It doesn't help.

 

Both courts admit that it's possible to rescind a contract in the circumstances of my case. The higher court hasn't considered the evidence! What a howler!

Answer to appeal June 2010_Update.doc

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the Justice Minister feels unable to help citizens regarding matters of justice we're all doomed.

 

Come on England. God save the Queen.

my quote is what it says that was what i received from the new justice minister ?

sorry if it sounded curt but its what it says, in effect he is too busy for us mere mortals to bother to even contemplate looking at problems we have,

your case it trully intresting durkin and i be subbing to it,if i have any thoughts that might help in contributing towards it i will add too

patrickq1

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

CCA 1974, I understand, is UK Law. In any case the Supreme Court is in England. I've no idea what happened to the laptop. I doubt HFC ever paid the money to PC World after the contract was processed without regard to it's terms. No evidence that they did yet the judges in Edinburgh insist I pay the ransom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

posted by oft today ///

no durkin my problem is not related ,mine goes towards the law of contract and limmitations act on a charge over property,ive just read the act and it confirms that indeed the limittations act does apply..

so when i go to sell my property i can expect them to try and put a spoke in the wheel the charge dates back to 1991 and they have had since 1992 to begin an action i suspect at the time libel charges were instigated against them and they backed off and have left this charge hanging over me like a noose,but i worry less now

patrickq1

 

quick note for you D

OFT has imposed requirements on a major retail finance company that issued proceedings against Scottish debtors in the English courts. It said this practice is unfair because consumers will be unfamiliar with law and procedure and would have to travel to defend the claim. This might make them less likely to defend the action. OFT said it considers this practice a breach of its Debt Collection Guidance.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites
posted by oft today ///

no durkin my problem is not related ,mine goes towards the law of contract and limmitations act on a charge over property,ive just read the act and it confirms that indeed the limittations act does apply..

so when i go to sell my property i can expect them to try and put a spoke in the wheel the charge dates back to 1991 and they have had since 1992 to begin an action i suspect at the time libel charges were instigated against them and they backed off and have left this charge hanging over me like a noose,but i worry less now

patrickq1

 

quick note for you D

OFT has imposed requirements on a major retail finance company that issued proceedings against Scottish debtors in the English courts. It said this practice is unfair because consumers will be unfamiliar with law and procedure and would have to travel to defend the claim. This might make them less likely to defend the action. OFT said it considers this practice a breach of its Debt Collection Guidance.

 

Dear pq1

 

I have also been looking at this and came across the attached from a Scottish Law firm called Nolans who represent CapQuest up here, thay are also seem a little sensitive to S19 of the CCA 2006, you have to scoll down a bit (under WARNINGS) but interesting reading.

 

Downloaded from https://www.nolmac.com

Brochure_nc.pdf

Edited by Monty2007
typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

i wonder how much commission they were paid ie the staff at pc world according to reports it was 20% but on finance contract was it more ?

PC World switches off commission - Telegraph

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've attached the appeal that I'll be looking to be addressed at the supreme court regarding Sheriff Tierney's judgement. This was swept under the Edinburgh carpet. Of course, there will be further points now to raise regarding basic, basic, consumer law.

 

I noticed in the Edinburgh judgement that the judges seemed desperate to tell us about a "Contract of Sale" (mentioned 41 times).

The contract was an agreement to pay instalments at 0% interest IF the laptop had a modem.

 

The judges seem determined to split it into two contracts to the extent that they've altered a fact to that effect! They've also either deleted or altered facts that state that the contract was validly rescinded. (Thankfully, fact 13 still remains as does 38 and 41)

 

Incredible. No regard to the evidence. Just the words of the bank's advocates that helped make my case more relevant to other cases.

 

Sheriff Tierney didn't mention a contract of sale once in his findings in fact. This is because there wasn't one. (Only a debtor/creditor/supplier agreement)

 

Law Works have agreed to try and help find a pro bono solicitor. They've also asked the bar pro bono unit to find Counsel. Progress.

 

No word from the Ministry though.

MinuteofAmendment_081009_E.doc

Edited by Durkin
Grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Law Works have agreed to try and help find a pro bono solicitor. They've also asked the bar pro bono unit to find Counsel. Progress.

glad to hear this D at least its a good start plus you have already done a lot of the leg work already making for a speedily resolve...

see if any of these cases are relevant D

patrickq1

Lexology - Banking bulletin

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another link.

 

Scots Law News, Edinburgh Law School

 

Bar Pro bono unit have said they're unable to assist in Supreme Court matters that began in Scotland regardless of the impact on the rest of the UK.

 

I'm still hoping though. I've 3 more weeks. My MP has finally sent an e-mail to Ken Clarke! (I had been wrongly advised that he had done so weeks ago).

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats bad news D ,sickens you right to the pit of your stomach that these law lords are so detached from the real world,one day they will have to pay for their mis guided veiws, it really is time that judges in such a position stood in front of the electorate and pleaded for their jobs on the basis of their fair mindedness and sense of true justice...

to many of them now sit and think they are supreme ayahtolla's needs a mammoth change in the constitution to make this happen huh....

lets hope you find some top barristor with a sense of justice..

patrickq1

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Very happy to report that the Law Works charity have today managed to secure me Scottish representation in the Supreme Court. Just in the nick of time! I imagine the next step may take a couple of years but at least it will be taken.

 

Meanwhile I continue to hassle my MP and MSP about trying to put things right so that folk don't need to trot off to the Supreme Court (could well turn out to be a 16 year journey!) every time a bank holds folk to ransom.

 

Still no word from the justice ministry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no word from the justice ministry

THEY WILL MORE OR LESS SEND YOU A BOG OFF LETTER SAYING THEY CANNOT COMMENT ON INDIVIDUAL CASES..

 

GOOD NEWS FOR YOU D PLEASED YOU HAVE GOT SOME HELP AT LAST

PATRICKQ1

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

THEY CANNOT COMMENT ON INDIVIDUAL CASES.

 

I'm asking them to modify the law so that justice is served. Consumers have

been humped, from what I've seen, for at least 12 years and will be for the next 6.

 

They're free to look at my case to see how "the system" works so far. It ain't good. I'm living proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Withdrawal from prospective agreement.

 

57. (1) The withdrawal of a party from a prospective regulated agreement shall operate to apply this Part to the agreement, any linked transaction and any other thing done in anticipation of the making of the agreement as it would apply if the agreement were made and then cancelled under section 69.

 

(2) The giving to a party of a written or oral notice which, however expressed, indicates the intention of the other party to withdraw from a prospective regulated agreement operates as a withdrawal from it.

 

(3) Each of the following shall be deemed to be the agent of the creditor or owner for the purpose of receiving a notice under subsection (2)

(a)

a credit-broker or supplier who is the negotiator in antecedent negotiations, and

 

(b)

any person who, in the course of a business carried on by him, acts on behalf of the debtor or hirer in any negotiations for the agreement.

 

 

(4) Where the agreement, if made, would not be a cancellable agreement, subsection (1) shall nevertheless apply as if the contrary were the case.

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
posted by oft today ///

no durkin my problem is not related ,mine goes towards the law of contract and limmitations act on a charge over property,ive just read the act and it confirms that indeed the limittations act does apply..

so when i go to sell my property i can expect them to try and put a spoke in the wheel the charge dates back to 1991 and they have had since 1992 to begin an action i suspect at the time libel charges were instigated against them and they backed off and have left this charge hanging over me like a noose,but i worry less now

patrickq1

 

You need to read the case of Yorkshire Bank Finance Ltd v Mulhall [2008] EWCA Civ 55.

 

It was held in that (Court of appeal) case that the charge holder *would* be entitled to their money even if the charge holder hasn't enforced the charging order by way of an order for sale within 12 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

National Westminster Banklink3.gif Pl v Robin Ashe (Trustee in Bankruptcy of Djabar Babai) [2008] EWCA Civ 55

http://news.roslingking.com/?p=25

 

thanks seq

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...