PC World 16 year court case in today's DM

sirwiggum

Occasionally I keep receipts and the box of electrical items, in case I decide to ebay them in a few years time

Also handy for warranty claims etc. if required.

Leo2020

I used to work at the PC World call centre. There were staff who did not have a clue about SOGA, DSRs, etc. (not their own fault, just a serious lack of training) and I heard some right clap-trap being told to customers.

However, after reading the case and other articles online it seems to me that the following happened.

When he tried to return the laptop the store refused to accept it (because either they did not mis-sell it or because they did but didn't want to accept it back because they would lose money). He left the laptop at the store, so he did not return it in the traditional sense - he just left it there and I think this is when the problem started.

If PC World had accepted they were at fault they would have arranged for the finance agreement to be cancelled (I know because agreements were cancelled if needed) but because they did not accept fault they did not cancel the agreement. My understanding with finance is that PC World would have been paid for the laptop by HFC as soon as the agreement had been processed. The customer then pays the HFC for the amount owed.

Durkin seems to have thought that even though PC World refused to accept the laptop back if he just left it at the shop and walked out then they would accept it back and cancel the agreement.

It would have later become very apparent that the agreement had not been cancelled when HFC started sending letters seeking payment.

This is backed up by the following:

"The second respondents insisted on the appellant making payments in terms of the credit agreement. By letter dated 22 July 1999, they advised the appellant of the possible consequences if he failed to do so. They indicated that on a monthly basis they reported to national credit reference agencies on the status of customer accounts. They suggested that might lead to his having difficulty in the future in obtaining a mortgage or other credit. The second respondents subsequently served a default notice on the appellant, in terms of the provisions of section 87(1) of the 1974 Act, and caused entries to be made in the registers of Experian Limited and Equifax Limited, the two largest credit reference agencies in the United Kingdom."

Now I'm not saying that it is right for PC World to mis-sell a computer but the customer in this case did not do the right thing by refusing to pay the finance agreement. He should have carried on paying, I appreciate from a moral point of view why this would not have been easy (it would have grated against me too), and then taken PC World to small claims for the laptop not being fit for purpose.

VictimOfImpersonation

Leo2020 wrote: »

Now I'm not saying that it is right for PC World to mis-sell a computer but the customer in this case did not do the right thing by refusing to pay the finance agreement. He should have carried on paying, I appreciate from a moral point of view why this would not have been easy (it would have grated against me too), and then taken PC World to small claims for the laptop not being fit for purpose.

This is all wonderful hindsight in trying to make what PCWorld caused to be a chaotic transaction look like it was an orderly one and then unravel it in orderly fashion. It was never orderly after PCWorld clearly decided to confront the customer and deny him rights when he came in clearly to cancel the whole deal.

It is not up to the customer to incur additional cost and expend time to battleplan and try to second guess what a crooked retailer will do next in order to safeguard their own selfish sales target interests.

I make no judgement on the extent of the damages that were appealed other than to say they were suitably large as to be deservedly punitive against the PCWorld and the bank that I believe them to be. The question of whether Durkin deserved such a result is almost irrelevant, but he was the one that decided to put himself out prosecute the case and so perhaps he deserved the original result for that reason alone.

I would very much like to see him win through in the end and contrary to what some posters have said, this case of a new item immediately returned within hours if finally settled in Durkin's favour will open no floodgate opportunity to refuse to pay based on some delayed and contrived disatisfaction after an item has been used for example.

Leo2020

Its not hindsight though is it. If a retailer disagrees with your about an issue covered under the SOGA then it is up to a court to decide who is right. PC World say one thing, customer says another and no agreement can be made - someone else (a court) has to unravel what they believe is the truth and make a ruling. Thats the way it is whether you or anyone likes it or not.

You do not refuse to pay a finance agreement unless you are prepared to accept the consequences. If a friend was in a similar situation as Durkin I would advise them to pay their finance agreement whilst sorting out the SOGA issue with the company involved. I would not recommend not paying the finance - you seem to be condoning not paying. This is not good advice because they may find that even if they take a company to court they may not win. So they would still be liable for the finance plus they might have late payment fees added on, or worse as Durkin as found out.

VictimOfImpersonation

Leo2020 wrote: »

Its not hindsight though is it.

Of course it is. Remember we are talking 16 years ago when PCWorld was nowhere near as all pervasive as it is now.

If a retailer disagrees with your about an issue covered under the SOGA then it is up to a court to decide who is right.

Don't be daft! If that was true the courts would be swamped. The rule 16 years ago still had echos of "the customer is always right". And that rule was a good rule which retailers damaged first. UK retailers opened the floodgates on immorality, not customers. Go elsewhere in western Europe and you will find "customer is always right" systems still working perfectly well. You stuff a customer and ten will come in next week and stuff you! Or a hundred if they read MSE! If you respect your customers, there's a good chance two more will come in next week upon recommendation of the first.

Don't war with customers. You'll lose.

PC World say one thing, customer says another and no agreement can be made - someone else (a court) has to unravel what they believe is the truth and make a ruling. Thats the way it is whether you or anyone likes it or not.

That's the way PCWorld liked it in this case. They will reap what they sowed.

You do not refuse to pay a finance agreement unless you are prepared to accept the consequences. If a friend was in a similar situation as Durkin I would advise them to pay their finance agreement whilst sorting out the SOGA issue with the company involved. I would not recommend not paying the finance - you seem to be condoning not paying. This is not good advice because they may find that even if they take a company to court they may not win. So they would still be liable for the finance plus they might have late payment fees added on, or worse as Durkin as found out.

Hindsight hindsight hindsight. Customers do not think like retailers who play with lending like you have maybe. They aren't that sophisticated and nor should you ever expect them to be.

Got it? Get it! Good!

If Durkin ultimately loses this case it will be because the judiciary have allowed themselves to be bamboozled by highly paid corporate lawyers who should be ashamed.

matttye

Leo2020 wrote: »

Its not hindsight though is it. If a retailer disagrees with your about an issue covered under the SOGA then it is up to a court to decide who is right. PC World say one thing, customer says another and no agreement can be made - someone else (a court) has to unravel what they believe is the truth and make a ruling. Thats the way it is whether you or anyone likes it or not.

You do not refuse to pay a finance agreement unless you are prepared to accept the consequences. If a friend was in a similar situation as Durkin I would advise them to pay their finance agreement whilst sorting out the SOGA issue with the company involved. I would not recommend not paying the finance - you seem to be condoning not paying. This is not good advice because they may find that even if they take a company to court they may not win. So they would still be liable for the finance plus they might have late payment fees added on, or worse as Durkin as found out.

It's a pretty onesided "agreement" when you're still expected to pay for something that was missold.

It's like entering into a broadband agreement and being provided with a modem that doesn't support the full speed of your broadband, but still having to pay for it.

The_pc_tech

If the goods weren't as described didn't anyone point him toward trading standards?

Even though 1500 quid isn't peanuts spending more than that on legal costs is just mad and as others have said ceasing to pay the finance has just compounded the problem.

Rico6.9

Hi Folks,

Thanks for all the support. I'll try and clear a few things up.

Trading Standards weren't interested. My word against theirs they said. The same thing was said by just about every solicitor. Thankfully, I managed to find the sales clerk to back me up and the sheriff agreed that I was telling the truth with his support.

I posted in 2008 on here to help others in similar situations.

I hadn't agreed to buy a laptop unless it had an in-built modem. Because I was going offshore the following afternoon, we (the sales manager, sales clerk and myself) agreed that I would sign a deliberately post-dated contract (just one - not two) that would not be processed in the event that the laptop didn't have an in-built modem.

The next morning, the sales manager who signed the post-dated contract processed the contract anyway knowing that I had not agreed to buy it! That is fraud and he'll eventually be prosecuted.

For HFC to then threaten me with a default, knowing that I hadn't agreed to buy the laptop, is extortion and they too will be prosecuted.

For HFC to actually annihilate my credit rating is malicious defamation and for that I guess those responsible will be heading straight to hell.

For HFC to try and squirm their way off the hook is merely perverting the course of justice.

Be in no doubt that the only reason that we still haven't set up a family home is the original wrongful default. I have lived the nightmare and I know. Both mine and my wifes lives will have been shortened due to the stress we've had to endure.

Thousands of other families have been affected by wrongful defaults. The banks have blood on their hands yet the CEOs responsible remain free.

My current defaults are a direct consequence of the original wrongful one.

Legal action was necessary because the bank refused thousands of opportunities to remove the wrongful default at no cost to themselves. I am very fortunate to be the first person to see the action through to conclusion with the help of charity.

The Small Claim was supposed to be a hint for PC World to do the right thing.

If anyone affected by wrongful defaults would like to get involved in the ensuing media frenzy resulting from the Supreme Court ruling (hopefully before Easter) consider writing a small comment on this petition:

http://www.gopetition.com/petition/43459.html

Cheers,

Rico.

fermi

http://supremecourt.uk/current-cases/case_2012_0135.html

Durkin (Appellant) v DSG Retail Ltd and another (Respondents)

Case ID: UKSC 2012/0135

Case summary

Issue

1. Whether there was a valid loan agreement between the Appellant and the Second Respondent
2. If there was a valid loan agreement, whether the right to rescind was a "like claim" under s. 75(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Facts

On 28 December 1998 the Appellant visited the retail premises of the First Respondent, trading under the name PC World, to purchase a laptop with an inbuilt modem. A laptop was identified by an employee of the First Respondent as meeting the Appellant’s requirements, but the Appellant was not allowed to check that the laptop had an inbuilt modem.

The Appellant agreed to purchase the laptop on the understanding that if it transpired that it did not have an inbuilt modem he could return it. The Appellant paid a £50 deposit to the First Respondent, and signed a consumer credit agreement with the Second Respondent to cover the balance of the purchase price.

On discovering that the laptop did not have an inbuilt modem, the Appellant returned the laptop the next day and sought repayment of his deposit and cancellation of the credit agreement. This was refused. The Appellant successfully sued for the repayment of the deposit. Following a request for payment from the Second Respondent, the Appellant explained that he had returned the laptop and rescinded the consumer credit agreement. The Second Respondent served a default notice on the Appellant, and reported the Appellant to certain credit reference agencies.

In 2004 the Appellant sought declarators that he had validly rescinded the contract of sale and the consumer credit agreement and damages. This claim was successful, but the Appellant appealed the quantum of damages awarded and the Second Respondent cross-appealed against the decree of declarators

Parties

Appellant

Richard Durkin

Respondents

1. DSG Retail Ltd
2. HFC Bank Plc

Appeal

Justices allocated names

Lady Hale
Lord Wilson
Lord Sumption
Lord Reed
Lord Hodge

Hearing date

28 Jan 2014

fermi

https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/statuses/425639364517851136

Paul Lewis @paullewismoney

Any tweeps who have returned an item only to find that they are still tied in to a credit agreement and have to pay email [EMAIL="moneybox@bbc.co.uk"]moneybox@bbc.co.uk[/EMAIL]