MSE News: Court ruling over 16-year-old laptop 'could affect millions' 26 March 2014 at 6:41PM in Loans 16 replies 3.4K views

Former_MSE_Darryl

"An oil worker placed on a credit blacklist in a row over payments for a laptop computer he bought 16 years ago has won his case in the Supreme Court...."

Read the full story:

Court ruling over 16-year-old laptop 'could affect millions'



Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

rizla_king

Better write up here.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/26/supreme-court-victory-hsbc-pc-world

pooch

Thanks rizla!

I knew there had to be more to this story than MSE provided and that guardian article explains.

Although the guy attempted to return the laptop, the store did not accept the return of the laptop.

Now 16 years on, £250,000 down and it still not clear who will pay the £300,000 legal bill of the other side, I'm not sure I'd call £8k damages awarded a winning situation.

What he should have done was enforce his rights under SoGA at the time of sale, not let it carry on for 16 years involving the creditor.

rizla_king

It wasn't that simple either.

Think anyone who wants a proper picture would be best off listening to the judges summary of the case as he handed down the judgement. That gives a good overview of why it went this far and didn't get sorted under SOGA or similar.

cookie365

You can read the full judgement here:

http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0135_Judgment.pdf

He should have taken the £120k and run for the hills.

jonesMUFCforever

cookie365 wrote: »

You can read the full judgement here:

http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0135_Judgment.pdf

He should have taken the £120k and run for the hills.

He would have but did not PC World appeal which is why it got this far.

digp

I think it is being missed that there was a cross appeal by DSG, so Mr D was not the only person appealing.

I also read into it that if the court could have it might well have increased the damages, but its powers did not extend to that, as it was bound by the decision on damages by the Sheriffs court.

cookie365

It was the bank that cross appealed, not DSG. But maybe if he hadn't appealed, they might have decided that an appeal themselves was throwing good money after bad.

Dakota_2

It's outrageous he hasn't recovered his costs.

briesmith

The Supreme Court judgment includes the finding that HFC Bank failed in their duty of care to Mr Durkin. This leaves them open to a claim for damages on this count that they would find very difficult to defend.


I think they will be trying to reach terms with Mr Durkin but whether that will extend to the size of compensation he has in mind - remember his troubles started when he appealed against the original award from the Sheriff's court of £116,000 - is unlikely.


What is also not clear is why did the shop refuse to take the laptop back? And why didn't Mr Durkin cancel the credit agreement under the cooling-off period provisions allowed (in England anyway) for credit agreements signed on shop (or business) premises.


These reports are all very well and MSE provides a great forum but when they are inaccurate or incomplete they do more harm than good as those that might want to rely on the judgment from the Supreme Court may find themselves out of luck because they either didn't understand the judgment because it was carelessly reported or their case is fundamentally different.


I'll wait until a more thorough and authoritative organ like the BBC's Moneybox programme tackles this, what could be very significant, judgment.

dimbo61

£250,000+ legal bill on one side and £300,000+ legal bill on the other for a £1600 Laptop.
No wonder the Legal profession is doing very well.