GDPR Cookie Consent by SimpleServe Privacy Script Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014 - AAD Consumer Forum

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

    Now here's a point of confusion (another forum) that hopefully nobody on AAD will incorrectly believe to be fact -->

    A creditor cannot simply report a default on a debtor's credit file unless it has served a notice of intent to file one, giving the debtor at least 28 days to fix the problem. This is set out in the ICO's guidance as well as the Lending Code.
    basically the poster is confusing a default entry with the CRA over a formal s.87/88 notice. Both are entirely separate and must be treated as separate. The default in respect of the CRA entry will always be allowed by the ICO if indeed the debtor is between 3-6 payments late and prior to the [D] entry being recorded there is factual evidence that the late entries preceding the Default exist (ie status 1, 2, 3....).

    Guys DO NOT think this case helps us UE fighters. It does not. so if you see posts such as the above quote you must ignore the content as incorrect in entirety.

    There will be a lot of people thinking this case helps them; it doesn't & won't unless you've rescinded a contract or in other exceptional circumstances. Our version of "Dispute" and the technical guidance version described in FCA CONC is entirely different. Chances are nobody on AAD really has what's called a genuine disputable point to argue.

    If your specific case warrants referral to Durkin then we'll guide you anyway.
    I'm the forum administrator and I look after the theme & features, our volunteers & users and also look after any complaints or Data Protection queries that pass through the forum or main website. I am extremely busy so if you do contact me or need a reply to a forum post then use the email or PM features offered because I do miss things and get tied up for days at a time!

    If you spot any spammers, AE's, abusive or libellous posts or anything else that just doesn't feel right then please report them to me as soon as you spot them at: webmaster@all-about-debt.co.uk

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

      Originally posted by Never-In-Doubt View Post
      Someone said on MSE why did he not use the cooling off period lol dont think there was any then.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

        Correct it was not in force.
        I'm the forum administrator and I look after the theme & features, our volunteers & users and also look after any complaints or Data Protection queries that pass through the forum or main website. I am extremely busy so if you do contact me or need a reply to a forum post then use the email or PM features offered because I do miss things and get tied up for days at a time!

        If you spot any spammers, AE's, abusive or libellous posts or anything else that just doesn't feel right then please report them to me as soon as you spot them at: webmaster@all-about-debt.co.uk

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

          Originally posted by ATW View Post
          This contract was rescinded so effectively no longer exists so cant be in default.
          That is the most sensible interpretation of this case I've read so far.

          It's a pity it took 16 years and half a million pounds of lawyers' costs to figure that out. As a result Mr Durkin is £108k worse off then he was before he decided, or was possibly encouraged with false hope, to appeal the earlier court decision.

          No one won this case except the lawyers.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

            There was an article about this case in the Daily Mail today
            I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

            If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

              Originally posted by SXGuy View Post
              There was an article about this case in the Daily Mail today

              Link please so we can respond to your post

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

                Originally posted by PlanB View Post
                Link please so we can respond to your post
                Perhaps I should explain that I did my journalist training on the Daily Mail newspaper many years ago so I'm fiercely protective of any criticism of the paper. It's nothing personal SXGuy

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

                  Originally posted by PlanB View Post
                  Perhaps I should explain that I did my journalist training on the Daily Mail newspaper many years ago
                  The Daily Mail was an immediate success and circulation quickly achieved 500,000. With the strong interest in the Boer War in 1899 sales went to over a million.

                  Well done Planb ....But I didn't think you were that old...

                  Time I left......
                  I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

                  If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

                    Originally posted by PlanB View Post
                    Perhaps I should explain that I did my journalist training on the Daily Mail newspaper many years ago so I'm fiercely protective of any criticism of the paper. It's nothing personal SXGuy
                    Its the daily family newspaper, so I have nothing bad to say about it.
                    I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

                    If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

                      +Best keep my views of the Mail quiet then!
                      I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

                      If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

                        Originally posted by SXGuy View Post
                        Its the daily family newspaper, so I have nothing bad to say about it.
                        Originally posted by oscar View Post
                        +Best keep my views of the Mail quiet then!

                        I couldn't agree more.

                        This thread is about the ramifications of the Durkin Supreme Court Judgement.

                        Tabloid newspapers and their ethics are not on trial on this particular occasion.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X