Hero Or Bellend?

Richard Durkin has today won his 16 year battle with HFC Bank over a credit agreement he signed back in 1998 when buying a PC from PC World.

He claimed the HFC bank ruined his credit rating after he tried to pull out of a credit agreement when he returned the £1500 computer.

In 2008 the Sheriff of Aberdeen (Hipster's Dad) actually found in Mr Durkin's favour and awarded him £116,000 damages. Incredibly Mr Durkin went back to Court as he felt the £116k award was too small and he wanted another £100k.

The Court of Session in Edinburgh did the opposite and reduced his damages to just £8,000. And despite winning the Supreme Court ruling today, they have not increased his damages by a penny meaning all he gets for 16 years of stress is £8k.

So is he a hero or a bellend? He did take on and beat a major UK bank so he must be applauded, but by being a greedy twat he has cost himself £108,000.

What a bellend.

he is a hero and a bellend, not many can claim that accolade!

Norpig wrote:he is a hero and a bellend, not many can claim that accolade!

I can't believe the fool wasn't happy with £116k, he lives in bloody Aberdeen for God's sake - he could buy the town with that.

Why does he deserve £116,000 or £216,000 for that matter?

Put him back in the position he was before so returning the item for refund and credit agreement cancelled and bad marks on his credit score removed for this.

Absolute greedy bastard, I wouldn't even award him the £8K!

Another chancer, fuck him!

To run up a bill of £250,000 in legal expenses over a £1,500 PC/Laptop is bloody stupid.

He will have known all along how much his legal expenses were!

karlypants wrote:Why does he deserve £116,000 or £216,000 for that matter?

Put him back in the position he was before so returning the item for refund and credit agreement cancelled and bad marks on his credit score removed for this.

Absolute greedy bastard, I wouldn't even award him the £8K!

Another chancer, fuck him!

It's called the fucking principle you absolute bellend.

Some people will go all out for justice regardless of the cost.

Shame on you.

So you risk everything you have worked for and now he is bankrupt and family (if any) are now suffering due to a £1,499 loan from PC World!

Here's a tip, if you can't afford it then save up!

What a cock!

karlypants wrote:So you risk everything you have worked for and now he is bankrupt and family (if any) are now suffering due to a £1,499 loan from PC World!

Here's a tip, if you can't afford it then save up!

What a cock!

Listen to Richard Branson!

Not everything is as cheap as the slags you knob behind Bargain Booze.

Your beginning to lose your mojo love.

There's nowt wrong with having a good rough jump behind bargain booze every once in a while.

Whenever your fanny gets back in action you should try it!

Hero.

He claims it badly affected his credit rating so the reason for £100,000 or whatever the original settlement was is obvious, the court deemed that amount the cost to his livelihood.

HAHA KP seriously slapped around the chop's by NAT    

Mr Magoo wrote:HAHA KP seriously slapped around the chop's by NAT    

Have you got your glasses on Magoo?

Not sure where I have been slapped around by the chops? Although I wouldn't mind it from Nat, the big tart that she is!

So what do you think about this story Magoo?

The greedy twat, should have taken the money.

I think part of his settlement will involve his costs being met by the losing side (ie PC World) or by Legal Aid which you CAN get for Civil Cases if the panel believes the case has a reasonable (ie better than 50%) chance of being successful and is deemed to be "in the public interest" which this almost certainly would have been. Further, because the case began in 1998 he would NOT have had restrictions on the amount his Legal Aid certificate allowed for other than the words "within justifiable reason" which is effectively a blank cheque as the lawyer being paid was almost never asked what the bill was for or to justify their actions. 

As to the damages award. Bellend there for sure. 116K was a decent number especially when it was tax free. With that kind of lump sum he could have got at least three children through university with no need to take out any kind of loans, paid off all but a very large mortgage or used it to enhance his life in a large variety of ways. To appeal against it made him look greedy and the judges slapped him down by reducing the damages as a result. 

PC World could also have acted far better. They knew long ago they'd screwed up. A simple statement and apology to that effect and ensuring his credit rating was properly corrected would have cost far less than these proceedings and possibly enhanced their public image rather than damaged it by playing the big uncaring corporation trying to grind the little man down as they are now widely perceived and with some justification. 

It was probably an honest mistake to begin with and could have easily been corrected with a few phone calls and e-mails long before this whole pantomime got played out.

I don't think it had anything to do with BC World Peter?

I think the issue was with the bank (finance company) who loaned him the money to buy the laptop.

I think basically he got finance to buy a laptop, found out it was not what he wanted and PC World was happy to take it back and refund his deposit to fix up the loan with the finance company BUT the finance company said it wasn't their fault he didn't want the computer and the loan still stood.

I guess he refused pay the loan and thus got a bad credit reference

The court agreed that the finance company should have rescinded the agreement at the time and thus there was no need for the bad credit reference and all damages resulted from how the bad credit effected him.

His legal costs were paid by the Scottish Law Society.

Sounds to me that he did have a case but he saw a chance to make money from it - £116,000 wasn't enough to him for a bad credit score -ffs!

Serves him right for being too greedy it seems.

Therefore Bellend for me.

Greedy bell end

Not bad for getting one over HSBC (owners of HFC Bank)!!!

But bellend for being to f'in greedy!

BoltonTillIDie wrote:Greedy bell end

In a nutshell. The greedy bastard should have been thankful for the original judgement and walked away with £116,000. I have no sympathy with him whatsoever. A 24 carat bellend deserves no sympathy..