Cap1 & CCA return

[car2403]

Just a quick point. Placing adverse data on credit files gives a claim for substantial damages not the £1000 that has been suggested by some.

 

Paul

 

Agreed, (where the data is wrong or inaccurate, of course) but there is some precedant to say that £1,000 is the damage recoverable by a personal banking customer that was wronged by a mistake on the other parties behalf; (kpohraror v woolwich building society [1996] C.L.C. 510)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/115630-pricing-default.html

 

Having said that, as damages is at the discretion of the Court, I can't see this being binding. In fact, I was in Court with Barclays on this exact issue on Friday and the Judge was having none of it - there's another hearing ahead, but I think I may just rely on s.13 DPA 1998 instead.

[car2403]

Paul, this it the first time I've heard about this - can you give me more info? By PM is necessary. I have a claim in at the moment regarding no CCA and this could be useful for me.

 

Whoops, just answered that one.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Agreed, (where the data is wrong or inaccurate, of course) but there is some precedant to say that £1,000 is the damage recoverable by a personal banking customer that was wronged by a mistake on the other parties behalf; (kpohraror v woolwich building society [1996] C.L.C. 510)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/115630-pricing-default.html

 

Having said that, as damages is at the discretion of the Court, I can't see this being binding. In fact, I was in Court with Barclays on this exact issue on Friday and the Judge was having none of it - there's another hearing ahead, but I think I may just rely on s.13 DPA 1998 instead.

 

Cheers CAR Ive been looking for this thread for weeks

 

HAK

[ncf355]

Agreed, (where the data is wrong or inaccurate, of course) but there is some precedant to say that £1,000 is the damage recoverable by a personal banking customer that was wronged by a mistake on the other parties behalf; (kpohraror v woolwich building society [1996] C.L.C. 510)

 

 

Car/All

 

Actual damage given in that ruling was default amount +£1000, so total was (I think) £5500

 

This was for a dishonured cheque, so my argument would be CRA data is at least, if not more damaging than this

 

The COA judge stated he had no problem in accepting damages of this level should be awarded for damage to a persons credit reputation as it effects ability to obtain mortgage, bank accounts etc

 

Dont know why your judge would argue this, as the court of appeal was civil division so is binding?

[car2403]

I think he hasn't seen the link between dishonoured cheque and unlawful Default on a CRA file.

 

He also thinks its a claim for defamation, which I can understand.

 

As you say, it's binding on the Court, so I'll have to see what happens in the final hearing.

 

The bank are trying to complicate the case, of course, so I've got my work cut out to put my case forward to pursuade him. If the Judge takes their view, he can consider it as pursasive only and not follow the Judgment if they can distinguish my case from the binding decision.

[trevor33]

Hi all.

Can anyone help me with my agreement. Been posted a few days now. T33

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Trevor

 

The agreement has all the perscribed terms on it.

 

Did they send the original terms and conditions

[trevor33]

Hi HAK

I CCa'd DCA back in April last year but only got agreement a week ago. I thought it was gone forever.

I did get a separate sheet with T&C.

It has not been signed by HFC, do I now have to pay?

T33

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Are the T&C the original ones. Can you scan them up

[paulwlton]

Car/All

 

Actual damage given in that ruling was default amount +£1000, so total was (I think) £5500

 

This was for a dishonured cheque, so my argument would be CRA data is at least, if not more damaging than this

 

The COA judge stated he had no problem in accepting damages of this level should be awarded for damage to a persons credit reputation as it effects ability to obtain mortgage, bank accounts etc

 

Dont know why your judge would argue this, as the court of appeal was civil division so is binding?

 

The £1000 was for damages to his reputation in Nigeria.

 

Paul

[trevor33]

Hi HAK

T&C posted as follows. Not vey clear though. I do not know if this is original.

 

 

Thanx T33

[patrickq1]

you are paying a awful lot of insurance for this did you agree to ppi itsof no use if you are self employed

patrickq1

[un1boy]

Hi HAK

T&C posted as follows. Not vey clear though. I do not know if this is original.

 

 

Thanx T33

 

Trev, it would appear that this agreement is completely enforcable.

[trevor33]

I had to wait 10 months for DCA to sent agreement. It was only after I sent default letter 1 Feb 08 that I received it.

I do not remember signing for PPI.

[car2403]

The £1000 was for damages to his reputation in Nigeria.

 

Paul

 

It's still binding on UK courts.

[noomill060]

Nigeria was a British colony at the time- 1950s

[trevor33]

Trev, it would appear that this agreement is completely enforcable.

What is my next move. Do I start paying them as it took them 10 months to produce agreement.

I have read loads of threads on this but still not sure about it not being signed by HFC. Where do I stand? T33

[car2403]

What is my next move. Do I start paying them as it took them 10 months to produce agreement.

I have read loads of threads on this but still not sure about it not being signed by HFC. Where do I stand? T33

 

One of my HFC agreements wasn't signed by them neither, but I still think it's enforceable despite this - remember that a legal agreement to perform a task doesn't require a "signature" as we know it, as that written squiqqle isn't the legal definition of "signature", which is a committment to perform some obligation in return for a benefit. I won't get too technical here, but the absence of a creditor signature may only result in an improper execution - but a Court would allow execution by Court Order because you have had the benefit of the agreement, so it's unjust for the creditor not to receive the same benefit.

 

There may be other issues with the account, such as unlawful Default and penalty charges or missold PPI that could give you grounds to challenge them on - if you can prove you were prejudiced by this improper execution, you may escape an enforceable debt, but it's unlikely in reality. (Worth a go though!)

[dad]

@Paulwlton

 

Paul, first of all can I congratulate you on your stand against RBS. I hope you will take my comments as constructive criticism, but I disagree with your interpretation of Kpohraror. eg:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulwlton

The £1000 was for damages to his reputation in Nigeria.

 

Paul

 

 

Reading the judgement I believe it is clear that the damages (£5,500) were awarded as follows:

 

The assessment of damages came before Master Tennant in chambers on 16 February 1994. He awarded £5,550 with interest as general damages for the injury to the plaintiff's credit by reason of the dishonour of the cheque and the apparently discreditable reason given for it, which was of course unfounded.

 

Lord Justice Evans finished his judgement with:

 

The above conclusions mean that I would dismiss both the appeal and the cross-appeal, and would uphold the master's award of general damages of £5,550. He said that it was 'somewhat coincidental', that this was £1,000 more than the amount of the cheque, although I think he meant by this that the appropriate sum by way of general damages could be calculated in that way in the circumstances of this case. This amount, as he explained, contained some allowance, though not very great, for injury to the plaintiffs credit and reputation in Nigeria such as was alleged to have occurred.

 

The circumstances of the case are that the Woolwich acted very quickly to remedy their error, rather than the typical case we see here where bad credit records are maintained for months and sometimes years.

 

My personal view is you start with the 'default sum' which is then adjusted up depending on the actions of the defendant.

 

Dad

[Scrappy01]

Can someone take a look at my 2 threads below, regarding Consumer Credit Act Agreements?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/132003-halifax-cca.html[/url]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/131985-hsbc-valid-agreement.html[url=http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/131985-hsbc-valid-agreement.html]

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Anita

[trevor33]

One of my HFC agreements wasn't signed by them neither, but I still think it's enforceable despite this - remember that a legal agreement to perform a task doesn't require a "signature" as we know it, as that written squiqqle isn't the legal definition of "signature", which is a committment to perform some obligation in return for a benefit. I won't get too technical here, but the absence of a creditor signature may only result in an improper execution - but a Court would allow execution by Court Order because you have had the benefit of the agreement, so it's unjust for the creditor not to receive the same benefit.

 

There may be other issues with the account, such as unlawful Default and penalty charges or missold PPI that could give you grounds to challenge them on - if you can prove you were prejudiced by this improper execution, you may escape an enforceable debt, but it's unlikely in reality. (Worth a go though!)

Thanx car2403. Are you an early riser or a night owl going by the time of your post.......

I have had a lot of bother with this debt.....I wont go into details....but I would like to do something to challenge them. What do you suggest. T33

[car2403]

Thanx car2403. Are you an early riser or a night owl going by the time of your post.......

I have had a lot of bother with this debt.....I wont go into details....but I would like to do something to challenge them. What do you suggest. T33

 

Early riser trevor - I'm up with the excited dog waiting by the letterbox for the post to arrive these days!

 

Have you a thread on this I can look at? If not, worth starting one and posting a link up.

[trevor33]

Early riser trevor - I'm up with the excited dog waiting by the letterbox for the post to arrive these days!

 

Have you a thread on this I can look at? If not, worth starting one and posting a link up.

Don't have a thread on this but would be greatful for any help. How do I post a link................t33

[paulwlton]

@Paulwlton

 

Paul, first of all can I congratulate you on your stand against RBS. I hope you will take my comments as constructive criticism, but I disagree with your interpretation of Kpohraror. eg:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulwlton

The £1000 was for damages to his reputation in Nigeria.

 

Paul

 

 

Reading the judgement I believe it is clear that the damages (£5,500) were awarded as follows:

 

 

 

Lord Justice Evans finished his judgement with:

 

 

 

The circumstances of the case are that the Woolwich acted very quickly to remedy their error, rather than the typical case we see here where bad credit records are maintained for months and sometimes years.

 

My personal view is you start with the 'default sum' which is then adjusted up depending on the actions of the defendant.

 

Dad

 

Am i right in saying compensation was awarded to the value of the dishonored check for £4550, and £1000 for damages he was likely to suffer in Nigeria.

 

Paul

[car2403]

Don't have a thread on this but would be greatful for any help. How do I post a link................t33

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html