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

VictimOfImpersonation

I am pretty certain that I read Durkin was at some point in this saga if not still represented "pro bono" and if that is the case* then his legal team has in deed done much public good gratis and for free! The legals and their sponsoring employers do generally keep tabs on what they might otherwise charge so perhaps that is where the Durkins costs figure comes from?

We should all be glad that cases like this are thrashed out by committed legals who may not be earning anything other than an enhanced reputation, as such cases very often have the effect of rebalancing/redirecting the spirit of the law for the good of all.

Edit: *Yes the Guardian article linked to above confirms it.

Kernow666

sounds like one of these nutters who moan about the neighbours oversize hedges or tree that is 2inches on there property and run up legal bills of 1000s

aldredd

From your news article...

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

From your Credit Scores article (the first thing on it!)
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/loans/credit-rating-credit-score

Contrary to popular belief, THERE'S NO SUCH THING as a 'credit blacklist'

(your emphasis, not mine)

Nice to be consistent eh?

tinkerbell28

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

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

No he didn't. He actually appealed the 116k damages saying they were not enough for the house he missed out on. He did not bank on the cross appeal and the whole damages award being over turned.

Shot and foot springs to mind here...well it has done from the start.

National_Debtline

briesmith wrote: »

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.

Hello there,

At the time there Consumer Credit Act didn't allow for contracts which were signed on the premises to be cancelled; there was no cooling off period. Had the agreement been signed off the premises it would have been different.

The 2008 Consumer Credit EU Directive has now forced a change, there is now a 14 day cooling off period. This provision has been inserted in to the original 1974 Act (s66a). Experian have made clear that they would remove the record in a 14 day cancellation. So, in short, had Mr Durkin taken out his laptop within the last few years none of this would have happened.

For what it's worth, I'm pleased we now have broader cancelation rights in relation to regulated agreements, it's amazing these rights were not in place earlier.

Best wishes,

David @ NDL.

BillJones

VictimOfImpersonation wrote: »

We should all be glad that cases like this are thrashed out by committed legals

And we should also be glad that the Supreme court is able to hand out pyrrhic victories such as this, where they realise that they have no choice other than to find in favour of an appellant, but want to show that this does not mean at all that he was in the right with his course of actions.