16 years!

[Deepie]

Re: 16 years!

Just heard on news the guy appealed £116K (!) and ended up with £8K

Here the full story ---> Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

thread closed.

[SA Gold]

Re: 16 years!

Just heard on news the guy appealed £116K (!) and ended up with £8K

[SA Gold]

Re: 16 years!

We are talking both PCWorld and HFC here. No chance.

fair play PC World are the fecking pits. I know of people who have purchased "new" machines from there only to turn them on and have documents saved in the my doc's area!

[Riz]

Re: 16 years!

A little common sense in the first place could have avoided this.

We are talking both PCWorld and HFC here. No chance.

[Pixie]

Re: 16 years!

A little common sense in the first place could have avoided this.

[SA Gold]

Re: 16 years!

Maybe lawyers have a vested interest? Aren't there £250k legal costs at stake

Over a £1500 laptop!

[PlanB]

Re: 16 years!

I am just astonished as to how long this has been dragging on for 16 yrs is a hell of a long time why?

Maybe lawyers have a vested interest? Aren't there £250k legal costs at stake

[oscar]

Re: 16 years!

I remember reading this in the paper .... I agree there were errors, but it was fairly simple to sort out in the first place!

[pompeyfaith]

Re: 16 years!

Niddy I am just astonished as to how long this has been dragging on for 16 yrs is a hell of a long time why?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: 16 years!

Well, see when you look into this although it does look like the claimant has a case, the facts must surely be properly studied by the lay-reader because whilst I agree that in cases where a product is returned, thus rendering the sale contract void, so too should the credit that came with the goods that doesn't mean I am entirely in agreement with the claimant in this case.

However that said, even in 1998 laptops DID clearly state on the box, and on literature within most stores, the spec. If nothing was ever mentioned about a modem then surely the claimant should shoulder some of the burden and also I'm not sure I agree that one adverse CRA entry would warrant such a large claim for damages (I'm led to believe it's over £100k)... Sorry, we've seen cases lose when dealing with similar issues before so until judgment is handed down, I'll reserve my opinion.

But if he wins it should surely be on the cancellation of contract point, not the damages for one default entry - when the claimant himself never raised the entry at the time, with the bank. Had he done so then maybe we'd not be in the Supreme Court today and maybe he'd have his mortgage.

Didn't we see someone else lose on similar grounds, the LB owners sister tried damages for an erroneous CRA entry - and lost. Shitty that the CRA's and the creditor can dictate our lives like that, but they can and we just have to accept it unless cases like thIs win long before any Supreme Court has it's say.

Good Luck is all I will say, I hope he kicks arse I really do

[MrsD]

Re: 16 years!

court of session overturned the sensible solution about 5??? years ago

[pompeyfaith]

Re: 16 years!

I mean the user posts there matey lol hence it's all over their forums.

What the feck is this doing in the supreme court I mean I hope it costs them dear.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: 16 years!

I mean the user posts there matey lol hence it's all over their forums.

[SA Gold]

Re: 16 years!

16 YEARS for a case that should have been resolved very early on, blimey hopefully this will cost the bank dear

Indeed. As soon as i saw the price of the laptop (and the fact a modem was the sole choice of purchase by the sound of it) it made me realise how long it had been going on!

[pompeyfaith]

Re: 16 years!

This is on LB / CAG.

I got it from Twitter

LeonC @leonc1963 10m @guardian @guardianmoney 16 YEARS for a case that should have been resolved very early on, blimey hopefully this will cost the bank dear