Appeal: Richard Durkin arriving at the Supreme Court today as he battles for compensation from HFC Bank
A man who has bankrupted himself by
spending £250,000 on legal fees in a 16-year court battle over a laptop
today took his case to the Supreme Court in a bid to claw back the money
from banking giant HSBC.
Richard
Durkin, a 44-year-old father of two, claims that HFC Bank ruined his
credit rating after he tried to back out of an agreement to buy a
computer from PC World for £1,499.
In
an earlier hearing, a court ordered the bank to pay him more than
£100,000 in damages, but after that decision was reversed he has
launched a new appeal at the highest court in Britain.
Mr
Durkin, an offshore construction surveyor, bought the laptop from the
Aberdeen branch of PC World in 1998, paying a £50 deposit and signing a
£1,499 credit agreement with HFC - now part of HSBC - for the remainder.
He
claims he was told he could get a refund if he had a problem with the
computer, but when he complained that it did not have an inbuilt modem a
manager said he could not have his money back.
Although
PC World eventually relented, HFC told Mr Durkin he was obliged to
carry on making payments, arguing that the credit agreement was legally
unrelated to the purchase of the computer.
He was put on a credit blacklist until 2005, which he believes prevented him from buying a new home in Spain.
Mr
Durkin insisted all along that the credit agreement with HFC was
dependent on the purchase of the laptop, meaning that it was void as
soon as he returned the computer.
In
2008, Aberdeen Sheriff Court ruled that he was entitled to cancel the
agreement and awarded him damages of £116,000, but two years later the
ruling was overturned at the court of session in Edinburgh.
Today
Mr Durkin opened his appeal at the Supreme Court in London, which is
reserved for cases 'of the greatest constitutional importance'.
Speaking before the case, Mr Durkin said it was 'too late' to give in and concede defeat in the 16-year case.
Claim: Mr Durkin has bankrupted himself thanks to the legal bills incurred in his 16-year court case
'It's too late for me
to throw in the towel now, and besides, I'm a very determined chap,' he
told MailOnline. 'I've spent so much on lawyers I'm bankrupt already - I
might as well go bankrupt for doing the right thing.
'Until
you get a credit blacklisting you have no idea how much damage it can
do - it has wrecked my life. At first I thought I would just take it
like a man, but a bad credit rating affects everything. I can't do
anything.
'It's no longer about
the money for me - it's the principle. Why should these companies and
banks be allowed to get away with treating consumers like this?'
Andrew
Smith QC, representing Mr Durkin, told the Supreme Court today: 'This
case is when a consumer goes into a credit or debit agreement and
whether he has the right to leave that agreement.
'We have the surprising situation from the consumer's point of view that he paid for something he no longer has'.
But Lord Sumption replied: 'The credit agreement is conditional of that deal and continues to exist upon sale or transaction.
'Otherwise
we have a rather strange conclusion that the price of the computer is
paid by way of advance to the supplier of the goods'.
Outlining
HFC Bank's case to the panel of five justices, Alistair Clark QC said:
'The creditor has advanced a sum of money on behalf of the consumer,
£1,449, to the supplier.
'So the supplier has parted with the goods to the consumer who now owns the goods.
'The
consumer rejects the laptop in this case and he says he has rescinded
the contract. The supplier says there is no basis for that.
'The question must be what is the basis for the consumer rescinding the credit agreement?'
Lord
Sumption said that Mr Durkin's credit contract with HFC Bank seemed to
be dependent upon there being an ongoing sales contract with PC World,
which had already been 'lawfully' terminated.
'£1,449
is paid by the creditor to the supplier towards the price of a laptop
under the contract of sale', the judge said. It would seem to me on the
face of it that there was a right to rescind'.
He
added: 'You have lawful rescission so the money, on the face of it, has
to be paid back from the supplier to the creditor who paid it. That
surely is the only and inevitable conclusion'.
The panel reserved judgement on the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment