little fish Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 The guy won...sort of http://www.bbc.co.uk...etland-26731192 The judgement. DurkinUKSC_2012_0135_Judgment.pdf http://supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/ edited to add youtube judgement DurkinUKSC_2012_0135_Judgment.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyguy Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 The judgement. DurkinUKSC_2012_0135_Judgment.pdf http://supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/ edited to add youtube judgement HFC were a bunch of idiots. The Durkin bloke was total f-wit. He got granted 100k compensation for a totally made up claim of capital loss. Then he contested it. And lost. A very expensive way to advance the legal corpus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 HPC were a bunch of idiots. Steady on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turned Out Nice Again Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 HFC were a bunch of idiots. The Durkin bloke was total f-wit. He got granted 100k compensation for a totally made up claim of capital loss. Then he contested it. And lost. A very expensive way to advance the legal corpus. your description of the plaintiff is apt. 116 grand in the bag ... and he goes for more. now he's in debt, and minus a hobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 i think he deserved the original level of damages - £8,000 is a sick joke. Shame on the Supremes! He rejected it. That was his choice. The supreme court weren't in the business of ruling on his damages for the original injury, but they now appear to have upheld the principle that - at least in some circumstances - you can claim for consequential damages if your credit score is wrongfully damaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 They do, and I just love the way that firms treat their customers this way. Indeed their first line of attack seems to be a threat to blacken your credit history. Just pay cash for stuff, if you can't afford it, don't buy! +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Hmm, not sure about this one. PC world are bunch of d1cks. Consumer finance is a scam. Offshore workers tend to go nuts - paid a lot of money and sit there thinking about for 2 week stretches. It would help if they did not get shacked up with thai brides and leave them alone for 2 week stretches. Still the lawyers win and the judges are kept in (un)gainful employment. and it wouldn't have happened to start with if the buyer hadn't been given inaccurate advice from the original sales assistant (apparently). It happens all too often at the inadequately trained/temporary/part time/zero hours "shop floor" level of any industry from retail through to pension company advice etc and in attempting to remedy the incompetence the consumer pays to the benefit of the legal profession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted May 2, 2015 Author Share Posted May 2, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3063088/Father-won-16-year-court-battle-1-499-laptop-PC-World-faces-whopping-300-000-bill-one-year-later.html An oil worker who won a 16-year court battle over credit payments for a laptop revealed today that he is facing a bill of £300,000 after having to fund his enormous court costs with high-interest loans. Father-of-two Richard Durkin, 45, of Aberdeen, claims the court said he was unable to claim any legal costs from the bank despite winning his case. His ordeal began in 1998. In an attempt to back out of an agreement to buy a £1,499 computer from PC World, he took his case to court and won. After this victory was overturned on appeal in 2010, he took the case to the Supreme Court, which last year decided he should in fact receive damages of £8,000. However, Mr Durkin has now told MailOnline that the court said he was unable to claim any legal costs from the bank despite having eventually won his 17-year-long case. And he says the saga has left him in financial ruins. His legal bill is £110,000, but loans he took out to fund this have seen it hit £300,000, of which he has repaid £70,000 so far. Took out high interest loans.... It's clear that the legal system is for the rich and not the plebs. A total waste of money on his part as paying up and not complaining was clearly the most cost effective option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.