Tweet
Richard Durkin v DSG retail – The long battle for common sense.
I first met Richard Durkin at the Supreme Court on the 28th January 2014 as he endured the latest, and hopefully final, hearing in his 16 year legal battle for redress following the life wrecking consequences of a simple purchase of a laptop. Richard has become something of a hero in Consumer Law circles, his case is widely reported and his original case at Aberdeen is cited in many ongoing cases of wrongful credit file defaults.
Richard is a quiet, modest family man who has had to put his childrens’ future on hold while he fights a crazy injustice which has cost him thousands of pounds simply trying to be put back into the financial position he’d have been in had he never set foot in a PC World in 1998. He seems absolutely exhausted by the lengthy battle, hardly surprising given how hard he has had to fight to get to the Supreme Court; but should he have ever been there at all ?
The answer is simple….NO.
Richard entered PC World with the intention of purchasing a laptop with an internal modem. The packaging was unclear and the store staff uncertain whether the chosen product was suitable, so it was agreed Richard could take the laptop home for inspection and return it the next day if found to be unsuitable. Before he could take it home he paid a deposit of £50 and signed a credit agreement for finance covering the full cost of the laptop.
The next day he returned to the store as agreed and, as the laptop was unsuitable, attempted to return it for a refund. After some to’ing and fro’ing he got his £50 back and the store accepted the return.
What happened next started Richard’s 16 year battle to gain justice, not just for himself and his family, but for the thousands of other consumers who have purchased products using consumer credit.
The legal system is a constantly evolving, complex entity. Startling omissions pop up from time to time. Richard’s case is a classic example of such an omission. The Consumer Credit Act is 40 years old this year, yet is constantly subjected to scrutiny and detailed interpretation to reflect changing times. Yet seemingly, there exists no automatic contractual mechanism to terminate the credit agreement when the purchase is aborted.
Richard began receiving demands for money to repay the finance agreement for the laptop. These demands eventually led to a default on Richards credit file. This default meant a house purchase Richard was undertaking fell through. It also meant he couldn’t renew preferential interest deals on credit cards, nor obtain other credit. His previously clean credit record was ruined and the impact snowballed.
The damage runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Richard’s legal costs would have become a huge barrier to his continuing the case had he not received legal representation via Lawworks, the solicitors pro-bono centre.
Only the most serious and curious cases reach the Supreme Court. Richard’s barrister, Andrew Smith QC, who represented him for no fee, was suitably moved enough by his plight to mount a devastating performance, which left the opponents’ barrister flapping feebly without a sensible argument to explain his clients actions.
A barrister friend of mine reviewed the Court of Session judgment where Richard’s earlier victory was overturned. He opined that it was woefully unfair and needed rectifying urgently.
Those of us lucky enough to have attended the hearing and those who listened on the live video feed all agree that Richard’s 16 year slog is drawing to a fair and final result for consumers by formally linking the termination of a purchase to the termination of a linked credit agreement.
we expect the judgment from the Supreme Court to deliver some much needed fairness in the current credit reference system and to rectify a glaring loophole in the Consumer Credit Act by returning with a ‘common sense’ based judgment.
Its just a shame that one man has had to fight so hard and for so long to deliver a simple piece of common sense to the legal system.
Richard meanwhile has to endure another month of nervous waiting. He has been an unwilling pioneer.
More...
Discussion thread -> http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...h-January-2014
Richard is a quiet, modest family man who has had to put his childrens’ future on hold while he fights a crazy injustice which has cost him thousands of pounds simply trying to be put back into the financial position he’d have been in had he never set foot in a PC World in 1998. He seems absolutely exhausted by the lengthy battle, hardly surprising given how hard he has had to fight to get to the Supreme Court; but should he have ever been there at all ?
The answer is simple….NO.
Richard entered PC World with the intention of purchasing a laptop with an internal modem. The packaging was unclear and the store staff uncertain whether the chosen product was suitable, so it was agreed Richard could take the laptop home for inspection and return it the next day if found to be unsuitable. Before he could take it home he paid a deposit of £50 and signed a credit agreement for finance covering the full cost of the laptop.
The next day he returned to the store as agreed and, as the laptop was unsuitable, attempted to return it for a refund. After some to’ing and fro’ing he got his £50 back and the store accepted the return.
What happened next started Richard’s 16 year battle to gain justice, not just for himself and his family, but for the thousands of other consumers who have purchased products using consumer credit.
The legal system is a constantly evolving, complex entity. Startling omissions pop up from time to time. Richard’s case is a classic example of such an omission. The Consumer Credit Act is 40 years old this year, yet is constantly subjected to scrutiny and detailed interpretation to reflect changing times. Yet seemingly, there exists no automatic contractual mechanism to terminate the credit agreement when the purchase is aborted.
Richard began receiving demands for money to repay the finance agreement for the laptop. These demands eventually led to a default on Richards credit file. This default meant a house purchase Richard was undertaking fell through. It also meant he couldn’t renew preferential interest deals on credit cards, nor obtain other credit. His previously clean credit record was ruined and the impact snowballed.
The damage runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Richard’s legal costs would have become a huge barrier to his continuing the case had he not received legal representation via Lawworks, the solicitors pro-bono centre.
Only the most serious and curious cases reach the Supreme Court. Richard’s barrister, Andrew Smith QC, who represented him for no fee, was suitably moved enough by his plight to mount a devastating performance, which left the opponents’ barrister flapping feebly without a sensible argument to explain his clients actions.
A barrister friend of mine reviewed the Court of Session judgment where Richard’s earlier victory was overturned. He opined that it was woefully unfair and needed rectifying urgently.
Those of us lucky enough to have attended the hearing and those who listened on the live video feed all agree that Richard’s 16 year slog is drawing to a fair and final result for consumers by formally linking the termination of a purchase to the termination of a linked credit agreement.
we expect the judgment from the Supreme Court to deliver some much needed fairness in the current credit reference system and to rectify a glaring loophole in the Consumer Credit Act by returning with a ‘common sense’ based judgment.
Its just a shame that one man has had to fight so hard and for so long to deliver a simple piece of common sense to the legal system.
Richard meanwhile has to endure another month of nervous waiting. He has been an unwilling pioneer.
More...
Discussion thread -> http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...h-January-2014
