Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm wondering whether you would be interested in spending a small amount of money bringing a legal action against this company in order to test the water – a sort of Pathfinder. We want to minimise your losses in the most likely event that you would not be able to enforce the judgement that we would want to maximise the risk and liability for them. It is clear that you are the owner of the vehicle and it is clear that they are depriving you of the use of it and by withholding it from you they are treating it as if they were the owners. There is a tort called "Conversion" which is where you do somebody wrong by treating their goods as your own. It is pretty well the civil equivalent of the crime of theft. "Conversion" refers to the act of converting your ownership into their ownership. It seems to me that that is what is happening here. You could bring a small claim in the County Court for conversion. Damages for conversion are awarded effectively for the insult of the fact that your ownership has been interfered with. This means that the damages don't necessarily have to reflect your actual losses and when one makes the claim in conversion, one generally identifies an upper limit for damages and asked the court to exercise its discretion in making its award. You could bring an action in conversion for anything from, say maximum damages £50 – to thousands of pounds if you wanted. Bringing an action for a large sum would incur greater costs. I don't see any point because as I said, the chances of enforcement are very slim. However, it might be interesting to sue for conversion damages not exceeding £650 in the discretion of the court. If you are awarded £600 or more then you could instruct High Court enforcement officers to enforce the judgement. These people have enormous power and they don't stand for any nonsense. Also the cost of enforcement by High Court enforcement officers is expensive but this would be borne by the defendant. Although this wouldn't provide any instant solutions for you, it would be interesting to see what the response of the seller might be – if anything. It might even prompt them to refund your money – although don't bank on it. The cost of bringing an action for conversion for damages not exceeding £650 would be £70 to begin the action and then a hearing fee of £80. The cost of attempting to enforce the judgement would be £66. As I said, you may consider that this would be throwing good money after bad but it might produce some interesting results. If they defended the claim then you are probably be risking all of this money – about £210. If they didn't defend the claim then you wouldn't pay the hearing fee – although the rest of the cost would have to be incurred. Please think about this. Frankly as far as I can see it is the only way you might be to make some kind of progress.
    • When she died us 3 wives of her sons were offered to choose a piece from her vast collection.  I chose this piece. When I told my husband I wanted out, I asked if I could keep the piece and he said no.  He still has a key to my house and I did say he could come whilst I am out to collect his things but I may just rethink that! 
    • I think we need to see the RAC report We need to see the advertising which was used to sell the car We need to see the exchange which you have already had with the dealer.   We will also need to see this invoice or other evidence that people are relying on to suggest that it is a trade sale. Please can you post these documents up in PDF format - single file multipage. The right way round and in the correct order   Also, it is likely that you will have to litigate on this. Are you prepared to do so? Are you happy to do it on your own with our assistance?
    • Read carefully as it is a badly formatted document.  It says weekly total for whole year and that from April 2021 you will be paying £111.60 per week in total.   Seems quite reasonable to me £101.23 rent per week and £10.37 services charges per week.   For this type of Housing they have agreement with Government that the increase in rent including services charges will be below a certain percentage.     
    • Is there a misunderstanding here?   I had gathered that the dealer had said that they were selling on behalf of someone else - a private owner - and therefore the sale was not a trade sale and therefore not subject to the 2015 Act.   But my site team colleague is suggesting that this not be correct and that in fact the dealer is saying that they sold the car to you and that you were buying it as a trader and therefore it was a "trade sale" and therefore not subject to the 2015 Act.   In fact going back over the posts so far I see that both scenarios may have been suggested. The RAC seems to be saying that the sale was a trade sale - within the trade.  The dealer seems to be saying that they were selling on behalf of someone else - I am presuming a private owner on commission. I suppose that we had better clear this up - although if no indication of any of this was given at the time of sale that it is a standard consumer contract and subject to the 2015 Act.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2578 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Excellent news for you Durkin, it is about time that these low life companies took responsibility for the damage they cause to peoples lives with their actions.

 

 

I am a little way behind you with a similar case having proved in court that I had no debt with a company yet they are still updating defaults on the credit file.

 

 

Once again congratulations and best wishes to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Very pleased for Mr Durkin, shame that the findings of facts of the First Division cannot be disturbed, I think all he gets it £8K, not much given the stress this must have caused over the past 15 or so years.

 

A win for consumers though.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Congratulations to Richard for taking this on and winning, but so disappointed for him that the judges awarded only £8,000. :-(

 

If you read the Judgement it does seem fair to me that the damages were only £8000.

 

I note there are at least 3 threads on this, spose they could be merged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations Richard. I hope you can put this behind you now.

 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro 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

Good to see that the court found a common sense way to rescind the credit agreement, personally I think that this aspect will be the greatest assistance to the consumer.

 

The section 75 argument failed and there was little mention of the general losses issue, except to say that they did not have the power to make a ruling on the issue. I cannot see how the situation regarding this has been changed.

 

Although I am sure that there will be a rash of CMCs which will argue otherwise.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you read the Judgement it does seem fair to me that the damages were only £8000.

 

I note there are at least 3 threads on this, spose they could be merged.

 

I can see why they put the damages where they did but it's still not very much considering the length of it all and the stress Richard has been through.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a great result for consumers and it is common sense. If you buy a product, then return the product, you don't need a credit agreement for that product. That is it in a nutshell and the whole thing could have been sorted out in five minutes if anyone had employed a modicum of common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Racking my brain for the main case on damages awarded for problems caused by reporting to CRA, am sure the award was £8,000 too.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer 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

well done paul I know we could wish for more damages but lets hope the interest owed will help some plus all costs hopefully again congrats

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

oooops Richard Apologies lol

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

Thanks for the support everyone.

 

I'm trying to push for a defamation claim now but it seems that it would cost too much.

 

British justice has failed, particularly in Scotland.

 

Rico.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the so called supreme court are powerless to institute previous determinations etc then they again are a waste of time = Also the so called cost to get justice degrades the British Legal system, as they could at outset sit around a table and discuss issues there and then instead of this proceedure that proceedure etecetecetc, they obviously did not want to rock the boat of Banks etc having the upper hand and set precenence to further scandle claims.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...