how to take legal action against hsbc?

[noddy997]

It may be Fast Track for its complexities..hence the N150...be careful of Costs.

 

What other costs may be involved after this?

 

I think I will go to court tommorow and ask them why they sent this one.

[noddy997]

I am finding paragraphs 117 and 119 contradicting on here http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/A187_04.html in Durkin's case.

 

I was hoping to use this in my letter to DG.

 

Can someone clarify this for me, my head is spinning from too much reading now

[Durkin]

I am finding paragraphs 117 and 119 contradicting on here http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/A187_04.html in Durkin's case.

 

I was hoping to use this in my letter to DG.

 

Can someone clarify this for me, my head is spinning from too much reading now

 

Even if special (Specific) damages were awarded he'd still be entitled to general (defamation) part.

[supasta1]

I can't see anything contradicting in those paragraphs?

 

It is how durkin explains above.

 

Just cut and paste a few paragraphs into a letter and send them to the solicitors to clearly explain that you do not have to prove a loss, for example:-

 

Looking at Durkin’s case and that of Kpohraror, King and Wilson on which the decision was based, I do not have to prove that I have suffered any actual loss. I must simply prove that the Defaults were on my credit file when they should not have been. Once this is proved then compensation for ‘general damage to my creditworthiness’ is due.

Paragraph 115 of the Durkin case states:-

The case of King v British Linen & Co dealt with the situation where there had been no specific damage. The only loss which the pursuer had occurred sustained was the loss to his credit standing. That was valued by the sheriff at £100 in 1897, a figure which was not interfered with in the Inner House. It is clear that the reason that the Inner House did not consider it appropriate to interfere with it was because they were dealing with a case where, in the words of Lord Kinnear, "No exact measure" of damages could be fixed. The case is clear authority to the effect that award of damages can be made for simple injury to credit although no actual loss is sustained.

Paragraph 117 of the Durkin case states:-

Had there been no finding of specific loss in this case, I would have had no hesitation in finding that an award of damages for the mere injury to credit was appropriate. In modern society credit plays a very big part in the conduct of the daily lives of a significant portion of the population. The financial services industry is constantly advertising loans, credit cards, store cards, mortgages, consolidation accounts etc. To have one's credit worthiness impugned so that one is at risk of being unable to obtain credit on the grounds that he is not credit worthy is, if anything, a more significant matter for the individual than it would have been at the time of King, over a hundred years ago. Mr Beynon has submitted that a figure of £10,000 would be appropriate. The figure of £100 awarded by the sheriff and left standing by the Inner House in King v British Linen translates, according to the Office of National Statistics Publication "Focus on consumer price indices" 2008, table 5/3, to £9,975 in the year 2008. The figure of £5,500 awarded to an individual in Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society 1996 4All ER 119 was not interfered with by the Court of Appeal in 1996 and, in today's figures, would be worth £8,215.

Paragraph 118 of the Durkin case states:-

The credit rating of individuals is as important for their personal transactions, including mortgages and hire purchase as well as banking facilities, as it is for those who are engaged in trade, and it is notorious that central registers are now kept. I would have no hesitation in holding that what is in effect a presumption of some damage arises in every case in so far as this is a presumption of fact.

[supasta1]

The case law speaks for itself, ignore their lies... they will just try to bully and confuse you

[noddy997]

The case law speaks for itself, ignore their lies... they will just try to bully and confuse you

 

Cheers think you done it for me there lol!

 

I am good with anything else but law jargon is very confusing and the way things are written!

[noddy997]

Also guys when do I get to submit my side to the court? Isit after the aq?!

[supasta1]

You will get to submit your side of things pre trial... usually by way of witness statement and skeleton arguement

 

Then at trial you explain your points and the judge will decide

 

If they have not sent you the small claims allocation questionnaire I would phone the court and ask why not and state your claim is a simple case and the amount is within the small claims limit.

 

That is what I had to do!!

 

You should not have to fill in the fast track AQ and pay £220, have a word

[AndyOrch]

Noddy is the claimant irrespective of which AQ is accepted the fee is still applicable which will be reclaimed in any costs.

 

Andy

[noddy997]

You will get to submit your side of things pre trial... usually by way of witness statement and skeleton arguement

 

Then at trial you explain your points and the judge will decide

 

If they have not sent you the small claims allocation questionnaire I would phone the court and ask why not and state your claim is a simple case and the amount is within the small claims limit.

 

That is what I had to do!!

 

You should not have to fill in the fast track AQ and pay £220, have a word

 

Guys, guys... I rang Northampton today and asked them you sent me N149 in summer and I got N150, the N149 fee is £40 compared to £220 that of the N150. They said its a grey area as you are claiming £5100!!! £5000 for the initial claim and £100 fee for the court... They said go to Nottingham CC and ask them.

 

I asked Notts CC and the woman first said yeah I see what you mean and printed an N149 off. Then she said hold on and asked 2 people and they said since its ABOVE £5000 threshold it falls under N150 and the higher fee!

 

I feel a bit robbed here, I wasnt aware of this otherwise I would initally would have put £4900! If I change it that means resubmitting the claim for the third time!

 

Also the hearing fee is £325 + £110 for the fast track claim. But then it says £545 so am not sure which one it is.

 

The costs seem endless here...And am not sure if they are recoverable?!

[noddy997]

@ supsta I didnt mean 117 and 118 I meant 117 and 119 -

 

119. Evans LJ went on to consider the issue of special damages separately. There is, however, nothing in the judgment of Evans LJ to indicate that had the special damages claim been made out he would not have made an award in terms of the general damage claim. Lord Justice Waite and Sir John May each agreed in all respects with the judgment of Lord Justice Evans

 

To me that says if there wasnt a claim for special damages then the Judge would not have made an award for general damages... no?

[supasta1]

The claim is for £5000 the £100 they add on to cover the initial court costs are not included!!!!

 

I had exactly the same conversation with them, you should only be filling in the N149 and paying the £40... The people who answer the telephone do not understand their own rules!!

 

Speak to them again and explain it is small claims and that you have been sent the wrong form, ask to speak to the manager as the normal people do not have much of a clue unfortunately!!

[supasta1]

They admitted in the end that they sent me the wrong form and i printed the correct one off and sent it with the £40

[supasta1]

@ supsta I didnt mean 117 and 118 I meant 117 and 119 -

 

119. Evans LJ went on to consider the issue of special damages separately. There is, however, nothing in the judgment of Evans LJ to indicate that had the special damages claim been made out he would not have made an award in terms of the general damage claim. Lord Justice Waite and Sir John May each agreed in all respects with the judgment of Lord Justice Evans

 

To me that says if there wasnt a claim for special damages then the Judge would not have made an award for general damages... no?

 

No, he is saying that there was nothing to indicate that he would not have made an award in terms of the general damage claim....!! In his eyes the award for general damage would still have been given irrespective of the special damages claim

[Durkin]

5000 is not above 5000! Legal folk aren't renowned for their maths.

 

There's another thread on here I saw (don't have time to check it now) that had the same issue. I think they, eventually, were allowed to submit the N149 when they explained that 5000 is NOT above 5000 (I think they're not supposed to take expenses into account).

 

I think you should try hard to keep it on the N149. The case isn't complex.

 

Ken Clarke is supposed to work for you. Complain if he refuses.

[supasta1]

Yes that would have been my thread richard, I had the same issue.....

[noddy997]

Ken Clarke is supposed to work for you. Complain if he refuses.

 

 

He cant be my "legal rep" as he says (I didnt ask him too!)

 

Supasta, is your thread dedicated to this glitch of £5100 issue? Looks like we found another flaw here.... it gets better and better!

 

I think I will visit the court again tommorow.

 

In my eyes Northampton are far better than Notts CC!

[Durkin]

He cant be my "legal rep" as he says (I didnt ask him too!)

 

 

It seems that you're busy just now but it may be worth seeing him on Saturday? You can tell him the problems you've had with CAB and the law itself.

 

It may be interesting to see what he says.

[noddy997]

It seems that you're busy just now but it may be worth seeing him on Saturday? You can tell him the problems you've had with CAB and the law itself.

 

It may be interesting to see what he says.

 

Do you think so? I dont want to get on the wrong side of someone like him you never when you might need him. Dont think there is much for him to help me with?

 

No am not busy, its that the Notts CC counter is only from 10am-2pm! And on the particular N1 CPC it says "Amount Claimed - £5000" so not £5100. I will take this in as well tommorow and kick off gently

[noddy997]

Guys, I just been reading on the fees and apparently if your on JSA you may not have to pay any court fees? It comes in under the form Ex160. Anyone been through this route before?

 

As I have mentioned previously, I am an unemployed graduate at the moment so I am on JSA..

[supasta1]

I am not sure... The court should be able to advise?

[Durkin]

Guys, I just been reading on the fees and apparently if your on JSA you may not have to pay any court fees? It comes in under the form Ex160. Anyone been through this route before?

 

As I have mentioned previously, I am an unemployed graduate at the moment so I am on JSA..

 

Good spot. You'll fill in this form and you'll be exempt. Sorry, hadn't noticed you're on JSA. You can probably get back everything you've paid so far too.

 

Ken Clarke visit is up to you. Certainly don't get on the wrong side of him but try the other side. Make him aware of the problem (it's not just you being shafted, far from it) and see what he suggests. CAB should be available. Ask him to investigate why it isn't?

 

This seems like a time that you need him. We all do actually.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard

[noddy997]

The ball is rolling as it should I think thats why I dont want to see Ken Clarke. I mean before, we all thought it was fishy that DG wrote to Judge directly. But on the order and letter from the court I got the reasons mentioned why made sense, hence it said on the earlier order "serve particulars by 9th Nov". But there must have been a backlog at the court.

 

Couldnt make it into the court today wasn't feel very well, will be done tommorow!

 

Edit: Durkin do you know when the Ex160 is to be submitted?

[Durkin]

Just hand in the EX160 tomorrow. They'll give you one to complete if you haven't already downloaded it.

 

I think we've different views on how the ball is rolling.

 

You should never have been in the situation that you're in. Ken Clarke & co. are responsible for letting the bankers shaft the rest of us.

 

I agree that there's a good chance you'd be wasting your breath though. We're relying on dodging the (Edit) judges until the government is inspired/forced to improve legislation by the Supreme Court.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard.

[noddy997]

 

I agree that there's a good chance you'd be wasting your breath though.

 

For which bit mate? lol...