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

[citizenB]

You should be able to watch this here I believe

 

http://news.sky.com/info/supreme-court

 

Wow..that made for some very interesting listening...Good luck Richard.

 

As it was live, I don't think there is a recording of it - yet. I get a blank screen too- now! as the hearing is finished

 

Darn..

[Peterbard]

Darn..

 

Sorry CB perhaps I should have posted the link earlier(if it helps it was really good :))

 

Here is a link to look out for the judgment, it is usually posted on here about a week or so before it is handed down.

 

http://supremecourt.uk/news/future-judgments.html

[citizenB]

Thanks for the link DB - for some strange reason, I didnt get notification that the thread had been updated so I would most likely have missed seeing the video anyway

[Peterbard]

Thanks for the link DB - for some strange reason, I didnt get notification that the thread had been updated so I would most likely have missed seeing the video anyway

I wonder if someone has copied it and stuck it on U tube or something. There is some interesting stuff discussed on there particularity relating to possible causes of action for incorrect data reporting disputes.

[silverfox1961]

The televised proceedings are not recorded and they are copyrighted as well so no recordings will be available.

 

The supreme court do publish videos of the judgements on YouTube, usually within a few days

[Peterbard]

The televised proceedings are not recorded and they are copyrighted as well so no recordings will be available.

 

The supreme court do publish videos of the judgements on YouTube, usually within a few days

 

That is interesting you would think that they would be public domain, anyway I shall be looking out for them appearing on there in any case

[silverfox1961]

I ought to qualify what I meant by copyright.

 

From supreme court website

 

The live video stream is ©UK Supreme Court. All footage is copyrighted and the property of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and may not be recorded, published or redistributed without permission.

[Peterbard]

I ought to qualify what I meant by copyright.

 

From supreme court website

 

Phew close escape, nearly recorded it, I could have been spending the night in chokey

[hmscollingwood]

I hope you win and give one in the eye for the small man.

 

I hope too, you claim on the basis of winning this outstanding case, substantive damages for all this unnessary suffering and financial loss. I understand that this stand has bankrupted you (and presumably seriously damaged your career, due to bad publicity, unfavourable credit reports, and sleepless nights). Not to mention affecting your family life.

 

The devil doesn't always play the best tunes.

 

Paul. =)

[Durkin]

Thanks Paul,

 

I'm only facing bankruptcy if I lose (You can't believe everything you read in the papers!).

 

I've been very lucky to have charitable help without which, society would have left us all to rot.

 

We're hopeful for a ruling that will put an end to wrongful defaults annihilating lifestyles.

 

I'll have 5 other creditors to deal with if the ruling is favourable. They've the potential to prolong the misery for another 3 years. All because of the original wrongful default and associated crime.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard.

[hmscollingwood]

Dear Richard

 

What I read was that the legal process had cost you around £1/4 million and you felt that you needed to carry on to the highest court in the land "because you had nothing left to lose".

 

Whatever your current financial circumstances it's still a bitter battle. Lawyers will run with things simply to squeeze every last penny out of the client (just like banks do with charges and similar 'slash and burn' credit ratings for companies they want to asset strip. RBS has been pilloried recently, for carrying on the same culture as Fred 'The Shred' Goodwin).

 

I know of a woman who exhausted £46,000 in legal aid to fight a £9,000 demand for a year's rent on a dilapidated London flat.

 

I hope you win as I said earlier, and set a new legal precedent to encourage others. A few years back I was paying £150 a month just in interest alone, for credit card and overdraft arrangements while being unemployed; and living on a much reduced income thanks to serving a Nationwide £5000 hiked up credit card debt, and a Lloyds Bank £1000 business overdraft. Small beer compared to your odyssey but very stressful until I contacted Brighton Credit Union who banged the table on my behalf with the debt collectors.

 

Here on the south coast of Sussex, I read three years ago about a Southwick boy (aged 25) who threw himself off the 60ft high bridge arching over the A27 bypass near Shoreham Airport, over a mere £14.500 debt. He probably knew nothing about the life saving Credit Union. Billions were spent on rescuing RBS - while it still hands out hundreds of millions in bonuses to floor traders every year despite making £3.4 billion losses. Yet the Credit Union only opens its office in Brighton two days a week, due to underfunding. Likewise the local CAB in Hove only opens a few days a week. It's an outrage.

 

Socialism for the rich, and Free Market Capitalism for everybody else, especially the poor.

 

As for the five other creditors, I can recommend your nearest Credit Union. The Credit Union bites back, and the bullies back down in my experience. Good luck.

Edited February 2, 2014 by hmscollingwood

[GuidoT]

This is an interesting paper on decision making in the Supreme Court.

 

http://www.bailii.org/bailii/lecture/02.html

[hmscollingwood]

'This is an interesting paper on decision making in the Supreme Court'.

 

Thank you for the link. However, in the 2+ hours, 22 page PDF lecture it seems to suggest that at this stage the judges of the Supreme Court are still mostly 'talking about talking'.

 

Where it comes to judges stepping out of line and taking on the big banks and credit agencies, it seems apparent that it is still up to the collective-poor 'class action suit' - rather than the OFT, or 'closed chamber' private chats within the elevated judiciary, to determine the fairness of banks charges and the credit ratings of their eviscerated clients. Where the banks use our money, and effectively limitless credit, to protect themselves from us, their clients. A perfectly parasitic arrangement, promoted and promulgated by the parasite. Rather similar to the governments of the world building nuclear bunkers for the few, paid for by the many who will not of course survive their suicidal, strategic military decisions... everyone knows about it but feels powerless to change the status quo ante bellum.

 

Too many Neanderthal genes in the Cro Magnon smorgasbord.

 

Socialism for the rich and powerful, Free Market Capitalism (and dog eat dog) for everybody else.

Edited February 3, 2014 by hmscollingwood

[GuidoT]

It is not really for the judiciary to take on the big banks and credit agencies, but our (elected) parliament.

 

Having said that, parliament is not particularly effective at representing those that really need it, i.e. not the rich and powerful.

 

Outcomes of cases can be unfair, but still answer the legal point correctly.

 

We live in a unfair country, where without the sufficient funds it is very difficult to fight your corner fairly in court, in particular when you are against large corporations.

 

Notwithstanding all that, I hope Mr Durkin gets the answer he has fought so hard for.

[hmscollingwood]

"Which ever party you vote for, the government (establishment) always gets in" (a Marxist).

 

It could be argued that law and Statutes are often set by the OCD establishment control freaks who are the eminence grises of government.

 

I have listened to many Parliamentary debates: and have noticed how painfully unjust systems are dragged out for decades by controlling interests, and lobbyists for influential businesses.

 

Take for example an iniquitous state for 30 years, necessitating the Mobile Homes Bill, where everybody (mostly) agrees (except for mobile homes estates owners and management, en masse) that people should not be paying £1 per unit of electricity, and having their home compulsorily purchased for a rapacious discount, by a bunch of unprofessional and unqualified gangsters who should not have a licence to run a business.

 

Yet 130,000 unprotected people have languished in despair for decades, thanks to successive governments, including so-called Socialist, 'talking out' worthy bills.

Edited February 3, 2014 by hmscollingwood

[Old Cogger]

cut the number of MPs by 2 thirds, end of problem, money saved cut out secretaries, MPs pay for their own secretaries out of their own pocket, MPs wages stay the same as now, only one home no further local home paid for as they have a wage stick to within means -= a fairer society from MPs personal experience. == Problems solved.

[spartathisis]

The 'ordinary' man on the street can see the obvious, but those who crave power and the need to inflict their ideas on others can't see 'the wood for the trees'. Prob why UKIP is getting its support, points out the obvious that we mere mortals can see clearly.

[sequenci]

I think UKIP is getting support due to massive voter apathy in relation to the other parties. It's incredible yet massive frightening at the same time. They are a seriously inept organisation. Sorry, tangent.

[Peterbard]

I think UKIP is getting support due to massive voter apathy in relation to the other parties. It's incredible yet massive frightening at the same time. They are a seriously inept organisation. Sorry, tangent.

 

Yes and it is a shame. I think a lot of the British public like the apparent honesty of the members of the party, they seem to speak their mind and say what they believe rather than what is politically expedient, Unfortunately they do not have the depth of understanding required to be a serious contender for running the country IMO.

[citizenB]

This is an interesting paper on decision making in the Supreme Court.

 

http://www.bailii.org/bailii/lecture/02.html

 

 

Especially this bit...

 

 

 

The first big challenge for the Court in the eyes of the public: the 'unfair bank charges case[6] was also arguably an opportunity missed for the new Court. The public at large, the media, the Office of Fair Trading and the lower courts all thought that the case was about whether the bank charges for accidental overdrafts were unfair. The Supreme Court did not. Lord Phillips makes this abundantly clear in the first words of his broadcast delivery of the judgment: 'This appeal was not about whether bank charges for those who overdraw on their current accounts are fair. It was about a much narrower issue. On what basis can the OFT investigate the fairness of those charges'. Assuming that the Supreme Court's analysis of the law was correct on the narrow and determinative point, it does not account for the Court's failure to explain to the waiting public that however penal the charges levied by the banks, the relevant consumer protection legislation in this country (as opposed to that of some other countries who had implemented the EU Directive) was not couched in a way that would protect them.

 

The correct answer to Lord Phillips' introduction was that there was effectively no basis on which the OFT (or anyone else) could realistically challenge the fairness of the bank charges – in terms of price. Some of the Justices ( including Lord Phillips ) sought to soften the blow by saying that there might be other avenues for challenging the fairness of the charges. Since the OFT had neither the finances nor the will to return to the fray and because in any event the 'other avenues' of challenge proved legally illusory, this palliative designed to show that the Court had not missed the point of the case served only to rub salt in the wounds. The Court had missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it had grappled as effectively as it could with the aspects of its first big case to touch the lives of millions of ordinary citizens. A bold challenge to Parliament and Executive to address the deficiency in our consumer protection laws might have been more apposite. Lord Walker's brief but well intentioned suggestion along this line was too little, too late. So the dialogue with the public is work in progress.

 

 

[citizenB]

I think UKIP is getting support due to massive voter apathy in relation to the other parties. It's incredible yet massive frightening at the same time. They are a seriously inept organisation. Sorry, tangent.

 

Yes and it is a shame. I think a lot of the British public like the apparent honesty of the members of the party, they seem to speak their mind and say what they believe rather than what is politically expedient, Unfortunately they do not have the depth of understanding required to be a serious contender for running the country IMO.

 

I suspect they know they will not receive sufficient votes to actually be in government - however they could well pick up enough votes that will put them in the position that the Lib/Dems were last time !

[Peterbard]

Ihowever they could well pick up enough votes that will put them in the position that the Lib/Dems were last time !

 

Now that would be interesting

[silverfox1961]

A win

 

http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0135_Judgment.pdf

[Guest]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-26731192

[sequenci]

Congrats