Richard Durkin wins Supreme Court appeal – beware lenders!

[Durkin]

My MP (Frank Doran) has been "trying" to persuade ministers to do something about the persistent criminal bankers that hold us to ransom with threats of defaults and then annihilate our lifestyles (and worse) when they illegally apply them.

 

He says he's been "brushed off".

 

I'm due to see him again on October 17th.

 

Let me know which other MPs have been approached on this matter. I'll encourage him to team up to try and get a better response.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard

[Durkin]

Word is that parliament believes that the consumer is adequately protected by legislation! (Neither the government nor shadow government seem willing to commit this to writing)

 

Still no word on what I should have done. It seems that we're expected to pay the ransoms despite being told that we shouldn't give in to terrorism!

 

So, the situation is set to continue where the banks keep on ignoring the legislation without fear of prosecution. They are the terrorists.

 

A vote for Tories, Labour or SNP will not help change this.

[Durkin]

Update.

 

"supreme" court, after more than a year, has finally decided that we must pay at least some expenses to the perpetrators from the lower court.

 

They've essentially passed the buck back to Edinburgh, the very court that screwed us in the first place!

 

As far as expenses in the "supreme court" go, my solicitors will need to negotiate with the perpetrators!

 

Still no news from either the government or the shadow government on what we're supposed to do when the banks continue to refuse to abide by the law.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard

[Durkin]

The "supreme court" seems to have ruled unanimously that a default doesn't prevent a mortgage.

 

Of course, that's not the case. They know it.

 

Here's the truth about my case:

 

https://ukinjusticebydurkin.wordpress.com/

 

I'm running out of ideas.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Durkin
Dodgy link

[renegadeimp]

You won't get any sense from the government. They're in it with the banks. Just look at the latest HSBC scandal

[Durkin]

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=17255

[renegadeimp]

Might have to step it up to euro courts but they can take forever.

 

The judges at the supreme court need disbarring for that verdict. Otherwise since its now case law everyone needs to harass mortgage companies into complying. And if they don't, take them to court.

[Durkin]

since its now case law everyone needs to harass mortgage companies into complying. And if they don't, take them to court.

 

The problem being of course that there's currently no benefit if banks force things beyond small claims.

[Peterbard]

Must admit to being a bit confused here, what case law are we referring to and which legislation is being ignored ?

[Durkin]

Hi DB,

 

I had assumed my case. It was more the "supreme" justices failing to recognise that a default prevents folk obtaining a mortgage, despite the evidence.

 

If it's left like that, which seems most likely, no one now can claim proper reparation as banks continue to ignore the law.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard.

[Peterbard]

I thought the only judgment in your Supreme court case was that an agreement made under section 12 of the cca implies a linked sales agreement ?

[Durkin]

We already knew that.

 

The important bit for reparation purposes was that a default prevents a mortgage and reparation is due.

 

The lower court recognised this but the "supreme" court didn't. Nor did the Scottish appeal court for that matter.

[Peterbard]

We already knew that.

 

The important bit for reparation purposes was that a default prevents a mortgage and reparation is due.

 

The lower court recognized this but the "supreme" court didn't. Nor did the Scottish appeal court for that matter.

 

I think this was the only piece of the judgment which actually we did not know.

 

I think we were already aware that a reduced credit score can reduce the chance of getting finance.

[Durkin]

I think we were already aware that a reduced credit score can reduce the chance of getting finance.

 

..yet the "supreme" court has ruled that a default can't prevent a mortgage. Absolute tosh.

 

Total annihilation. Not just a "reduced" credit score.

[Durkin]

Hi Folks,

 

It seems as if I may have to go it alone for phase 2 against HSBC.

 

Proposed claim is attached. It's based on the theory that the UK "Supreme" Court were claiming not to have jurisdiction in Scotland. Hopefully, the trial court has jurisdiction to award damages again.

 

The Scottish appeal court judges seem to have avoided misconduct charges because the Supreme Court appeal took longer than 3 months! It's a joke what they can get away with so easily.

 

I'm keen to avoid res judicata in this fresh claim so I've geared it more towards defamation but I'd be happy to hear any other advice.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard.

[caro]

You've left your address on it Richard.

[Brat673]

I pose a silly question on the topic of credit scoring. When a mistake is made by a company and they refuse to remove the untrue item why aren't they exposed to a charge of libel and hence damages? To publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person ...

[caro]

Libel cases are horrendously expensive to fight and outside the reach of most people.

[ploddertom]

You've left your address on it Richard.

 

 

Attachment unapproved pending edit.

[Durkin]

Should I sue for libel then, instead of defamation?

 

Publishing a false credit reference. No defence on that. Or should I sue for both? Or just defamation?

 

Is there a chance HSBC could defend an action for libel? (Apart from the standard dragging it out). What could a judge say to help them out?

 

These are the questions I need answered ahead of time as I'll be going in alone this time.

 

Thanks for the suggestion.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard

[caro]

Should I sue for libel then, instead of defamation?

 

Publishing a false credit reference. No defence on that. Or should I sue for both? Or just defamation?

 

Is there a chance HSBC could defend an action for libel? (Apart from the standard dragging it out). What could a judge say to help them out?

 

These are the questions I need answered ahead of time as I'll be going in alone this time.

 

Thanks for the suggestion.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard

 

Sorry Richard. I was responding to brat's question. I really have no knowledge worth mentioning on libel or defamation.

[Durkin]

Attachment unapproved pending edit.

 

Folk already know where we live. They also know that we'd like to move!

 

HSBC just refusing to help, happy to keep us pinned down.

 

Richard.

[Guest]

Should I sue for libel then, instead of defamation

defamation = libel/slander

[Durkin]

Sorry Richard. I was responding to brat's question. I really have no knowledge worth mentioning on libel or defamation.

 

Brat raises an excellent point that I'd be happy to explore. HSBC has plenty of money seemingly!

 

Richard.

[Durkin]

defamation = libel/slander

 

Thanks. It seems reasonable to stick with defamation then. Lord Hodge seemed to suggest that he'd have adopted that approach if he was ever in our shoes.

 

Richard