Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Bugger me. The forum involved in this case, with the claimant being a user there doesn't understand legal jargon on an ermmm legal forum

--> http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...585#post420585

Good god. Next they'll be saying they're worth £30m

Unless they chuck in a free copy of a Parry Mason annual, I'd doubt they're worth any more than 3/6d.

[ATW]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Im not sure in the scheme of things that it was that much of a personal victory for Durkin in terms of what he actually got in the end.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Wasn't he awarded £120k at Aberdeen

Gutted.

[MrsD]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

but it was him that appealed cos he thought it wasn't enough

I think the real villian is the bugger in the PC store who wouldn't admit he had returned the laptop and cancelled, surely that must be fraud..................

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Original Claim (Aberdeen) - http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/A187_04.html

Appeal (Court of Session) - https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010CSIH49.html

[mystery1]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Im not sure in the scheme of things that it was that much of a personal victory for Durkin in terms of what he actually got in the end.

Pretty certain you're correct. It's a shame. He did say yonks ago, perhaps on cag ?, that he wasn't happy with his legal team and some concessions made in Edinburgh and that appears to have harmed his case. The original pleadings appear to have been a little short too.

He'll be glad it's over, i'm sure, but i doubt he'll be celebrating.

M1

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

As this sets precedent what impact will it have for others? will it make much difference

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Well really it'll be case by case as no two situations fits all. In this the £8k was damages for credit rating effect. That's it.

So in theory yes, we now know if exceptional circumstances allow then this may come into play BUT this doesn't affect UE. Don't forget that. At the end of the day the DPA stipulates the base rules and the ICO police them so based on the DPA and other case law (McGuffick etc) then because he was in default and the firm recorded it as a default then it's allowed. The data must be factual.

In Durkin the default was wrong as the contract was rescinded as he handed products back thus he never had any benefit of the goods and the credit was worthless but wasn't rescinded (this states it SHOULD have been) so any derogatory markers were incorrect as there could never be a default as the contract should have been rescinded at the point he returned the goods (laptop),

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

PeterBard puts a good spin on things over at LB

It really is not important. It is however important to understand that the creditor does not have to cheek that an agreement is enforceable under the act before he can register a default.

Because registering a default is not enforcement.

That's entirely correct and additionally so long as the debtor was late in paying and the lender added the correct late status with the CRA's you've really got no argument if they subsequently default you & add a default marker with the CRA's.

Remember a default with the CRA's is nothing to do with a formal default under s.87/88 CCA1974. They're entirely different.

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

As this sets precedent what impact will it have for others? will it make much difference

Having successfully taken on a company who were operating unlawfully myself several years ago (which cost me approx £6k in legal costs before it even made court), and really the only 'victory' I had was a moral/ethical one, its a bit of a hollow when I see the same company still operating in the same way and screwing people out of their life savings and their homes.

I think what it demonstrates is that big companies will continue to operate how they like the majority of the time as the costs of getting legal redress are so huge that the majority of people will throw in the towel rather than amass a huge figure in legal costs.

[ATW]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

PeterBard puts a good spin on things over at LB

That's entirely correct and additionally so long as the debtor was late in paying and the lender added the correct late status with the CRA's you've really got no argument if they subsequently default you & add a default marker with the CRA's.

Remember a default with the CRA's is nothing to do with a formal default under s.87/88 CCA1974. They're entirely different.

I think that all of the above is correct. This contract was rescinded so effectively no longer exists so cant be in default. This is entirely different from one that still exists but is unenforceable by one party against the other which therefore can be in default although the aggrieved party can't do anything about it in court. They can still register that default though.

[vossy]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Looking at the big picture this guy has lost out big time, only his greed prevented him from getting the higher award .... what a knob! Shut up and take the money is good advice.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

You say it as you see it mate. Don't hold back

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Here's MSE's take on it --> http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/new...ffect-millions

[vossy]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

You say it as you see it mate. Don't hold back

We are certainly into the blame and claim culture but this bloke just defies belief, maybe he needs a hobby .... well I doubt he can afford one now