Media caption Richard Durkin: "I've got myself in a lot of debt seeing this through" 
 
 A man has won a 16-year dispute over a laptop which he bought from the Aberdeen branch of PC World. 
 
 Richard Durkin claimed the HFC bank ruined his credit rating after he tried to pull out of a credit agreement when he returned the £1,499 computer. 
 
 Mr Durkin, 44, took his case to court and initially won damages of £116,000 but that ruling was overturned. 
 
 Analysis Today's judgment is a significant victory for consumers, but rather a hollow one for Richard Durkin. The judgment establishes that if you buy goods using a credit agreement, and then validly terminate the contract of sale by rejecting the goods, you can also validly end the credit agreement. More significantly, it establishes that any lender who wants to blacklist a consumer's credit rating, when they are asserting that they've terminated the credit agreement, owes that consumer a duty of care to ensure that they are genuinely in default of the credit agreement. Mr Durkin had told HFC bank that he'd ended the credit agreement. The court found that, in the light of that, HFC were under a duty to make the appropriate enquiries to establish if he had. They did not do so. Mr Durkin had originally been awarded £116,000 in damages, but that sum was dramatically reduced on appeal at the Court of Session in Edinburgh. Sadly for Mr Durkin, the Supreme Court in this type of appeal is unable to reassess the damages in the case, and so he was left with just £8,000. However, his legacy will perhaps be that banks and others extending credit to purchase goods under what are known as 'debtor, creditor, supplier' agreements will have to be exceptionally careful before informing credit agencies that the customer is in default. If they get it wrong and are negligent, they can be sued by the customer. 
 
 The Supreme Court in London has now allowed his appeal and ruled he should receive £8,000 in damages. 
 
 Mr Durkin said the ruling was a victory for the consumer but a blow for him personally. 
 
 He had handed over £50 and signed a credit agreement with HFC in 1998, but said he was told by a sales assistant at the store in Aberdeen that the laptop could be returned if it had a problem. 
 
 He discovered the laptop did not have an inbuilt modem. 
 
 Mr Durkin was eventually paid back the £50 by PC World but HFC said he was still required to make payments under the terms of the credit agreement. 
 
 In 2008 Aberdeen Sheriff Court ruled that he was entitled to reject the laptop and cancel the sale and the credit agreement and awarded damages of £116,000. 
 
 The decision was overturned later by judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh after Mr Durkin himself appealed against the size of the damages. 
 
 Delivering the Supreme Court conclusion, Lord Hodge ruled: "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 in about February 1999. 
 
 "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. 
 
 "I would give the parties an opportunity to agree the date from which interest should run and the rate or rates of interest to be applied." 
 
 Lord Hodge said the Supreme Court did not have the power to restore the damages originally awarded to Mr Durkin. 
 
 Media caption Lord Hodge delivers the judgement 
 
 Mr Durkin said: "I am disappointed that the Supreme Court was unable to restore to me the full damages awarded by the sheriff - even though it was clear that they were sympathetic to my position on this. 
 
 "This decision is a great victory for all consumers and I am proud to have been the driving force behind it. 
 
 Analysis Richard Durkin is far from victorious today. In the kitchen of his modest terraced house in Aberdeen he shook his head repeatedly as he watched the Supreme Court judgment. This battle has dominated 16 years of his life and the stress it has caused him is clear in his eyes. Mr Durkin directs his anger at PC World, HFC bank and the justice system. He says he is "a quarter of a million pounds down," and the award of £8,000 will make little difference to him. Above all he says he is struggling to understand how the Supreme Court can rule in his favour and yet fail to right the wrongs of his case. 
 
 "As a result of the decision, no consumer will have to endure again what I had to put up with - the loss of the ability to buy a family home because of wrongful blacklisting of me." 
 
 He added: "Taking a case to any court is a huge stress, but taking it to the highest court in the land with all the risks that go with it was the most stressful thing that anyone could voluntarily put themselves through. 
 
 "But sometimes you have to do what is right, and not what is easy." 
 
 Mr Durkin said: "I am grateful to my legal team, and to the Law Society of Scotland who funded the court fees which I could not afford. 
 
 "But I am most grateful for an end to this matter now, having fought a long and difficult battle which at last is over." 
 
 A statement from HSBC - which now owns HFC - said: "We note the court's judgement and are pleased that this matter has finally been resolved." 
 
 Lawyers for Which? magazine are assessing the ruling and its possible implications for consumers. 

 A man embroiled in a massive 16-year legal battle over a laptop is celebrating a victory of sorts in his David-and-Goliath case after the supreme court found in his favour. 
 
 Richard Durkin, 44, who claimed a division of HSBC had "annihilated" his credit rating, was left bitterly disappointed that he will not receive the six-figure sum he was seeking. Instead, because of a legal technicality, he will have to make do with £8,000 damages. 
 
 However, legal experts said the unanimous judgment in Durkin's favour could unleash a tidal wave of similar claims from people who argue that their lives were ruined after black marks were put on their credit files. 
 
 Andrew Smith QC, who represented the married father of two in court, indicated the ruling would make it much harder for banks and other financial firms to report people to credit reference agencies, leading to them being blacklisted for credit. He said the judgment meant that where a consumer disputes that he or she defaulted on a loan or credit agreement, the bank or firm cannot put a default notice on their credit file until the matter has been resolved. 
 
 "It's victory, but they didn't have jurisdiction to help me in the end, which is disappointing," Durkin told the Guardian immediately after the judgment. "But I'm pleased for the consumer. A lot of people will benefit from this – it's massive." 
 
 Had Durkin lost, he would almost certainly have faced bankruptcy, as he could have been hit with a legal bill for an estimated £300,000, on top of his own £250,000 legal bill. 
 
 His legal team is now likely to argue that HFC Bank, a division of HSBC, and PC World – the other party in the case – should pay their own costs, plus at least some of Durkin's. 
 
 Durkin took his case to the UK's highest court after claiming HFC wrecked his credit rating following a dispute over a credit agreement he signed when he bought the £1,500 laptop at his local PC World in Aberdeen in 1998. 
 
 He argued that being wrongly blacklisted meant he was unable to buy a home. Papers lodged with the court said Durkin alleged the bank's conduct "amounted to extortion". 
 
 The saga began on 28 December 1998, when Durkin, an offshore construction surveyor, went to PC World to buy a laptop. The sales assistant pointed out a particular model, but it was in a sealed box, so it was not possible to check whether it had the right modem. It is claimed that the assistant suggested Durkin buy the laptop, saying that if there was a problem he could return it and get his £50 deposit back. Durkin bought the computer, handed over his £50 and signed a credit agreement with HFC Bank, which provided PC World's in-store finance, for £1,449 to cover the balance. When he got home he found the laptop did not have an built-in modem, so he took it back the next morning. But the manager on duty refused to take the computer back, refund his £50 or cancel the agreement. 
 
 Durkin left the laptop at the shop, then went to work offshore, but when he got home a fortnight later he found the laptop waiting for him. He again took it back to the shop, where it stayed, and later sued PC World for the £50. The company paid up without admitting liability. Durkin assumed that was the end of the matter, but HFC Bank said he was still required to make payments under the terms of the agreement. He says he explained what had happened, but the bank warned that if he did not pay up, possible consequences included "difficulty in the future in obtaining a mortgage or other credit". 
 
 Sure enough, HFC Bank put a default notice on his Experian and Equifax credit files. Durkin says he tried without success to get these black marks removed, and they stayed on his files until at least 2005. This had a major impact on his finances and, he claimed, prevented him from buying a home in Spain in 2003. 
 
 The case eventually made it to Aberdeen sheriff court where, in March 2008, Durkin won his case. Sheriff James Tierney ruled he had been entitled to reject the laptop and cancel the sale and the credit agreement. The court awarded damages of £116,000 to Durkin. But, two years later, that decision was overturned by judges at the court of session in Edinburgh. They ruled that even though the sale of the laptop had been cancelled, the contract of sale and the contract of loan were separate agreements, and Durkin was not entitled to cancel his credit agreement. That meant the information put on his file about being in default was factually accurate, the court added. 
 
 Giving the judgment at the supreme court, Lord Hodge said Durkin had "validly rescinded the credit agreement by giving notice to HFC in about February 1999". But, in terms of the damages Durkin was seeking, Hodge said the Court of Session Act 1988 "limits the role of the supreme court in relation to such appeals", and that therefore the damages resulting from HFC's "breach of its duty of care" were confined to "injury to Mr Durkin's credit in the sum of £8,000". 
 
 Hodge said the bank could have tested the effectiveness of the credit agreement by suing Durkin, adding: "It should not have intimated the default without a reasonable basis for the belief that it had occurred." 
 
 The legal row is seen as an important test case for thousands of people who say their lives have been ruined after black marks were put on their credit files, and is likely to open the floodgates to many similar cases. 
 
 Durkin said: "Although I am disappointed that the supreme court was unable to restore to me the full damages awarded by the sheriff – even though it was clear they were sympathetic to my position – this decision is a great victory for all consumers, and I am proud to have been the driving force behind it. As a result of the decision, no consumer will have to endure again what I had to put up with: the loss of the ability to buy a family home because of wrongful blacklisting. 
 
 "Taking a case to any court is a huge stress, but taking it to the highest court in the land with all the risks that go with it was the most stressful thing that anyone could voluntarily put themselves through. 
 
 "But sometimes you have to do what is right and not what is easy. This case was not all about me – it was about principle for all consumers. I always felt that PC World and HFC Bank had acted disgracefully towards me, and I have now been proved right." 
 
 Durkin said he was grateful to his legal team and everyone who had worked on a pro bono basis to take the case. 
 
 "But I am most grateful for an end to this matter now, having fought a long and difficult battle which at last is over," he added. 
 
 Meanwhile, Smith said he had already received instructions from about 20 people who wished to follow Durkin's example in taking legal action on the grounds that they had suffered as a result of defaults being wrongly put on their files. 
 
 He said: "There may be many people who have in the past been wrongly listed as being in default who potentially have rights to litigate now." 
 
 The case raised significant issues as to whether credit reference agencies such as Experian and Equifax "are exposed to the risk of litigation if they incorrectly report or list someone as being in default".
– Score one for the little guy in a fight against the banking industry—a 16-year fight to be exact. The Supreme Court in London has ruled in favor of a 44-year-old man who got severely penalized over a small loan for a laptop that he never actually owned, reports the Guardian. Richard Durkin's case began in 1998 when he bought a $2,400 laptop at a store called PC World. He put $50 down and signed a credit deal with HFC Bank, a division of HSBC, which handled the store's in-store financing. Durkin returned the laptop the next day, as he was told he could do, when he discovered it didn't have the appropriate modem. The store (eventually) returned his deposit. The bank? Not so much. HFC insisted that Durkin still had to honor his loan payments on the laptop he didn't possess. He refused, and the bank destroyed his credit rating in turn, reports the BBC. Durkin won about $13,000 in damages, though he estimates that he's out far more than that because of his lousy credit. He says, for instance, that he was unable to buy a home. "It's victory, but they didn't have jurisdiction to help me in the end, which is disappointing," he says. "But I'm pleased for the consumer. A lot of people will benefit from this—it's massive." Both stories suggest that his victory could pave the way for others to challenge their credit ratings in court.