Shopper wins 16-year laptop-payment battle
27 Mar 2014
1
Richard Durkin of UK has won a 16-year battle over payments for a laptop computer incurring £250,000 in legal fees in the process.
The 44-year old offshore surveyor took his case to the UK's highest court to press his claim that HFC Bank, now part of HSBC, ruined his credit rating after a dispute over the purchase of a £1,500 laptop.
Allowing his appeal, the Supreme Court in London ruled that he should receive £8,000 in damages.
Durkin made the purchase at a PC World store in Aberdeen in 1998, after he was given to understand that he could return the laptop if it did not have an internal modem.
After a £50 deposit he signed a credit agreement with HFC for £1,449, but returned the laptop at 9 am the next day as it did not have an internal modem.
He asked for the deposit to be returned and cancellation of the credit agreement.
Durkin's rejection of the goods was refused by PC World which also did not cancel the credit agreement. The £50 deposit was later returned in an out-of-course settlement.
HFC said he had to keep making payments and following his refusal, the bank issued a default notice.
The bank told credit reference agencies he had defaulted and his name was put on a credit register, where it remained for several years, justices were told.
Durkin took the matter to court, arguing that he had "validly rescinded" the credit agreement.
The Supreme Court yesterday ruled in his favour, saying he was entitled to rescind the credit agreement and had done so "validly".
Durkin approached the Supreme Court - the highest in the UK - after he turned down funds that had been awarded to him by a Scottish court.
Five justices of the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Durkin's favour.
They faulted HFC for breach of a "duty of care" and said Durkin was entitled to £8,000 damages.
"HFC treated him as being in default and intimated that default to credit reference agencies. Mr Durkin claimed damages for financial loss caused by the damage to his credit," said one justice, Lord Hodge, in a written ruling.
"The principal issue in this appeal is whether Mr Durkin was entitled to rescind the credit agreement."
According to Lord Hodge, he was "satisfied" that Durkin had been entitled to do so.
"I would allow the appeal and declare that Mr Durkin was entitled to rescind and validly rescinded the credit agreement by giving notice to HFC," he added.
"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."
The 44-year old offshore surveyor took his case to the UK's highest court to press his claim that HFC Bank, now part of HSBC, ruined his credit rating after a dispute over the purchase of a £1,500 laptop.
Allowing his appeal, the Supreme Court in London ruled that he should receive £8,000 in damages.
Durkin made the purchase at a PC World store in Aberdeen in 1998, after he was given to understand that he could return the laptop if it did not have an internal modem.
After a £50 deposit he signed a credit agreement with HFC for £1,449, but returned the laptop at 9 am the next day as it did not have an internal modem.
He asked for the deposit to be returned and cancellation of the credit agreement.
Durkin's rejection of the goods was refused by PC World which also did not cancel the credit agreement. The £50 deposit was later returned in an out-of-course settlement.
HFC said he had to keep making payments and following his refusal, the bank issued a default notice.
The bank told credit reference agencies he had defaulted and his name was put on a credit register, where it remained for several years, justices were told.
Durkin took the matter to court, arguing that he had "validly rescinded" the credit agreement.
The Supreme Court yesterday ruled in his favour, saying he was entitled to rescind the credit agreement and had done so "validly".
Durkin approached the Supreme Court - the highest in the UK - after he turned down funds that had been awarded to him by a Scottish court.
Five justices of the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Durkin's favour.
They faulted HFC for breach of a "duty of care" and said Durkin was entitled to £8,000 damages.
"HFC treated him as being in default and intimated that default to credit reference agencies. Mr Durkin claimed damages for financial loss caused by the damage to his credit," said one justice, Lord Hodge, in a written ruling.
"The principal issue in this appeal is whether Mr Durkin was entitled to rescind the credit agreement."
According to Lord Hodge, he was "satisfied" that Durkin had been entitled to do so.
"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 added.
"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."
