A man placed on a credit blacklist after a row over payments for a laptop computer has won a Supreme Court fight.
Richard Durkin bought the laptop at a PC World store in Aberdeen in 1998 and signed a credit agreement with lender HFC Bank for about £1,500, Supreme Court justices heard.
He returned the computer the next day because it did not have an internal modem, and asked for the credit agreement to be cancelled.
HFC said he had to keep making payments and after he refused the bank issued a default notice.
It told credit reference agencies he had defaulted and his name remained on a credit register for several years, justices heard.
Mr Durkin took legal action, arguing that he had "validly rescinded" the credit agreement.
The Supreme Court today ruled his favour, saying he was entitled to rescind the credit agreement and had done so "validly".
Five justices delivered their decision at a hearing in London.
Mr Durkin took his fight to the Supreme Court - the highest in the UK - after losing an appeal in a Scottish court.
The five justices made a unanimous ruling in Mr Durkin's favour.
They said HFC had breached a "duty of care" and said Mr Durkin was entitled to £8,000 damages.
"HFC treated him as being in default and intimated that default to credit reference agencies. Mr Durkin claimed damages for financial loss caused by the damage to his credit," said one justice, Lord Hodge, in a written ruling.
"The principal issue in this appeal is whether Mr Durkin was entitled to rescind the credit agreement."
Lord Hodge said he was "satisfied" that Mr Durkin had been entitled to do so.
"I would allow the appeal and declare that Mr Durkin was entitled to rescind and validly rescinded the credit agreement by giving notice to HFC," he added.
"Damages resulting from HFC's breach of its duty of care are confined to injury to Mr Durkin's credit in the sum of £8,000."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article