Original claim was negligent misrepresentation. Damages based on a guy screwed for a day as opposed to 6000 days. The longer it drags on the more damage is done. I should be suing for millions but I'm trying to be reasonable. All I wanted was not to be fraudulently blacklisted in the first place. I relied on the statement not existing. The fact that it did destroyed our lives forever. CRAs have agreed with the bank to fraudulently and maliciously report a falsehood, depriving me of the credit needed to set up a family home.

The agreement itself was processed fraudulently. A false account was created in my name by an agent for the bank (Andrew Taylor at PC World) Richard.

That's what caused the damage and that's what was successfully (barring the maths) argued in Aberdeen. Jurisdiction issues were that the UK Supreme Court cannot reinstate facts found in Scotland. Turns out that's complete tosh as they did exactly that in an earlier case that was "conveniently" ignored from our submissions! Rico

I imagine one could claim in Spain under Spanish law. My creditworthiness was maliciously annihilated only in the UK. Cheers, Rico

Thanks for that. That's the bit I'm relying on. We cannot have incompetent justices acting with a lack of integrity to deny justice. Changing facts without good reason is unlawful in itself. We are living in a society where appeal judges themselves are acting unlawfully! This will not do. As I've mentioned in this second adjustment attached (thanks to Champ) the bankers are creating a society of ruinous oppression regardless of the law. They must be stopped. Cheers, Richard

The legal fraternity call that Res Judicata I believe. A quirk that could put the last nail in my coffin. Hopefully I'll manage to convince a sheriff willing to prioritise justice ahead of quirks (common sense), that I'm not the bad guy! I'm trying to make the claim as different as possible and emphasise the criminal element of the bank's actions. Malicious falsehood was not raised before, nor the fraudulent misrepresentation, causing loss by unlawful means or the conspiracy to defraud. Cheers, Richard

Remember too that they gave me nothing. The legal bill they have ordered me to pay is £80K. I owe them for annihilating my creditworthiness and refusing proper reparation? Justice? They are in cahoots with the bank and I hope that the lower court can clearly see that and act more professionally.

Of course it could be argued. It would be only wasting time and life though. It must be obvious to the reasonable person reading the facts from the Sheriff court or indeed from experience that a default will prevent a mortgage. It should actually be judicial knowledge as it is certainly known by the banks themselves. The Supreme Court, by ignoring facts and submissions, found a quirk in the law that "prevented" them awarding proper redress. I've seen so much wrong with our judiciary and to find the UK Supreme Court demonstrating a lack of integrity with sheer incompetence was truly shocking.

Or perhaps this improves it? "Having suffered loss and damage as a result of the fault and breach of duty of the Defender, (ratified by the UK Supreme Court), the Pursuer is entitled to reparation, as previously determined by this court"

Hi Folks, Looking at the Provisional Record in post 86, can anyone explain how my first plea could be considered incompetent and how I might improve it's standing? The plea currently reads: " To reaffirm that the Pursuer, having suffered loss and damage as a result of the fault and breach of duty of the Defender, is entitled to reparation." Perhaps it would be better to tweak it like this: " To reaffirm that the Pursuer, having suffered loss and damage as a result of the fault and breach of duty of the Defender and ratified by the UK Supreme Court, is entitled to reparation, as previously determined by this court." Of course the bank knows what I'm trying to say but see how they are playing with lives as if it were just a game. They think they are God! Cheers, Richard.

All that evidence was lodged during a two week trial back in 2007 with expert witnesses to back it up. Appeal judges then promptly ignored it, preferring the bank's advocates unproven hogwash theories! (That I was unable to borrow money because I had been on too many holidays and refused to switch to a punishing Spanish tax regime. Nothing at all to do with the default!) It's impossible to get a mortgage in the UK with a default. I had an expert witness to confirm that. What I was trying to do was borrow enough money for a deposit on a house in Spain where I would have been able to get a mortgage (and where we'd like to live) had the bank simply removed the default when I pleaded with it to do so (even offering them the money I didn't owe!). Cheers, Richard.

Provisional Record attached to Post 86. No prospects, res judicata, prescribed, irrelevant averments lacking in specification and unfounded in fact, incompetent plea, excessive sum sued for and not having suffered. Cheers, Richard.

Hi Champ, I'll have to stick to the bank this time, I'm afraid. They are the most malicious. The police are going for the guy at PC World (albeit very slowly). I'm also trying to encourage government (via my MP) to allow police to prosecute bankers for extortion. The problem with more than one Defender is that proceedings take even longer. The hearing is set for 5th November. If HSBC are finally put straight, that'll be a fairly emphatic victory in itself. Time is of the essence. I've only 18 years left until I retire. This began in my 20s! Nothing in place while all this is going on. HSBC's tactics will be to drag it out for as long as they can (assuming they're unsuccessful in finding a legal quirk and/or applying their influence), hence the need for super simple. Not easy! Thanks for your help. The first hurdle (feels like the thousandth!) will be to persuade the Aberdeen Sheriff that there are prospects, perhaps as early as next week. Richard.

Hell yeah! Thanks very much for the confidence boost. One thing that's always bothered me in this case is how folk believe that I bought the laptop. The guy at PC World (acting for HFC) processed the agreement after I had rejected the laptop that they had fobbed me off with (having agreed the previous day that he wouldn't). He created a false account in my name. Fraud. Worse damage has been done with the default though. Damage that still persists. I have already started the action against HSBC alone. I think it's too late to add in the CRAs now but I'd recommend to others that have the gumption for this, to do exactly that. Cheers again, Richard

Hi Champ, On further examination of the detailed post, I see that a civil action is fine and I can sue HSBC on their own (or with the CRAs). There's some excellent phrases that I'll shove into the next adjustment too. I may as well keep the defamation part as malice is the key theme. I realise you've spent an age posting all that info. Thanks for that. Do you think "The pursuer's earlier attempt at reparation should interrupt any period of limitation" could be enough? My argument against HSBC's "No prospect of success" is that it is already quite successful (and would have been entirely successful had it not been for an incompetent judiciary!) Good enough? Feel free to chip in with this folks including tips that help to despatch much of the legal jargon. Cheers, Richard.

Thanks Champ, Can this be applied in civil courts? I had understood fraud was for the criminal courts. (I'm held up by the Police on that and extortion). It certainly fits into my case but would I need to add in the CRAs as a Defender? It's quite a lot to take in. I had been hoping to keep things as simple as possible so that others can get themselves off the hook too. Folk with defaults can't afford lawyers so things need to be expressed in layman's terms. For example, I'd expected that: "The pursuer's earlier attempt at reparation should interrupt any period of limitation" For sure that's one of the quirks that HSBC are trying to rely on. Cheers, Richard.

Internet connection's a little shaky offshore but I'll be up through the night.

None. HSBC themselves know that it's impossible for ordinary folk to get a mortgage with a default on their file. Only the well connected have a chance to get around this. I've prepared a provisional record (attached) for a hearing on 5th November. I have basically said that due to the incompetence of the Supreme Justices and the Inner House (Scottish Appeal Court) together with the continued malice of HSBC, my family continues to be denied the reparation that is due. I also mentioned the inept governments over the past few decades. First I need to dodge a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds that there is "no prospect of success". As I mentioned in the condescendence, HSBC's only hope is a quirk in procedure or law that'll continue to thwart justice or just good old-fashioned influence on the judiciary. Cheers, Richard.

Anyone else denied a mortgage because of a default? Please annotate this: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/supreme_court_incompetence#comment-59605 Cheers, Richard

Latest story. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3063088/Father-won-16-year-court-battle-1-499-laptop-PC-World-faces-whopping-300-000-bill-one-year-later.html Richard

Hi Folks, Here's the proposed writ again without the address. Perhaps begining the claim in England (instead of Scotland) would help avoid Res Judicata issues? Cheers, Richard.

Here's how things have been left so far. Richard.

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

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

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.