This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/250000-and-16years-later-richard-durkin-wins-protracted-legal-battle-over-1500-laptop-9216597.html
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 2 | Version 3 |
---|---|
Richard Durkin wins 16-year PC World laptop credit dispute with HFC bank | Richard Durkin wins 16-year PC World laptop credit dispute with HFC bank |
(about 1 hour later) | |
A man placed on a credit blacklist after a row over payments for a laptop computer said today he had "mixed feelings" despite winning a court fight. | |
Richard Durkin, who is in his 40s and comes from Aberdeen, spent £250,000 on legal fees in a protracted 16-year dispute over a £1,500 laptop he bought from PC World. | |
Today, Supreme Court justices ruled that a bank had breached its "duty of care" and awarded him a payout of just £8,000. | |
Mr Durkin, who had initially been awarded £116,000 by a Scottish court but appealed against the size of the damages, said he was glad that his "consumer victory" would help the "greater good". | |
But he said he had run up bills of about £250,000 on litigation which started more than a decade ago and was in "a lot of debt". | |
Durkin bought the laptop from PC World in Aberdeen in 1998. He paid a £50 deposit and signed a credit agreement with lender HFC Bank for around £1,500, Supreme Court justices heard. | |
He returned the computer the next day because it did not have an internal modem, and asked for the credit agreement to be cancelled. | He returned the computer the next day because it did not have an internal modem, and asked for the credit agreement to be cancelled. |
HFC said he had to keep making payments and after he refused the bank issued a default notice leading to him being blacklisted for credit. | HFC said he had to keep making payments and after he refused the bank issued a default notice leading to him being blacklisted for credit. |
PC World has previously argued that Durkin bought the laptop knowing that it did not have an internal modem. Durkin claimed the financial blacklisting had a major impact on his finances and prevented him from buying a family home in Spain in late 2003. | PC World has previously argued that Durkin bought the laptop knowing that it did not have an internal modem. Durkin claimed the financial blacklisting had a major impact on his finances and prevented him from buying a family home in Spain in late 2003. |
He took his case to court arguing that he had "validly rescinded" the credit agreement and initially won damages of £116,000, but later appealed against the amount awarded. | |
The Supreme Court today ruled in his favour, saying he was entitled to rescind the credit agreement and had done so "validly", but only awarded him £8,000. | |
In his ruling, Lord Hodge said he was "satisfied" that Mr Durkin had been entitled to rescind the credit agreement. | |
"I would allow the appeal and declare that Mr Durkin was entitled to rescind and validly rescinded the credit agreement by giving notice to HFC," he said. | |
"Damages resulting from HFC's breach of its duty of care are confined to injury to Mr Durkin's credit in the sum of £8,000." | |
Mr Durkin said today that he was disappointed the Supreme Court did not restore the full damages of £116,000 awarded by a Scottish court. | Mr Durkin said today that he was disappointed the Supreme Court did not restore the full damages of £116,000 awarded by a Scottish court. |
He told BBC News: ‘This decision is a great victory for all consumers and I am proud to have been the driving force behind it." | He told BBC News: ‘This decision is a great victory for all consumers and I am proud to have been the driving force behind it." |
"As a result of the decision, no consumer will have to endure again what I had to put up with - the loss of the ability to buy a family home because of wrongful blacklisting of me." | "As a result of the decision, no consumer will have to endure again what I had to put up with - the loss of the ability to buy a family home because of wrongful blacklisting of me." |
"Sometimes you have to do what is right, and not what is easy," he added. | "Sometimes you have to do what is right, and not what is easy," he added. |