I am also applying damages to all of my claims (exemplory and aggravated damages), plus i am pushing for a form of compensation for inconvenience and my own costs. I do realise fully that under CPR the no costs rules usually applies, however i beleive i can make the judge see that the defence has acted unreasonably, and thus under CPR i can apply costs also. My claims havnt been heard yet (TBH not even filed yet) though i will be filing atleast 2 of them this week coming. I must also point out my thoughts on damages are nothing to do with Tom Brennans case. i actually got the idea from a claim i saw posted by "just won" many months ago. And because i would relish actually facing the defence in court i wanted a means of leverage to force their hand into court, i beleive (like tom) this is about the only way it can be done.

Jos, sorry mate im now confused. Have you accepted a aprtial payment back then ? if so was it the "charges" part of the claim on its own ? therefore leaving the CI to be argued on its own ? Whats the total amount again (sorry for severe memory problems.alcohol has taken its toll this weekend ), im wondering why allocation has been fast track ? I think it may prove prudent not to accept any further monies at this stage.( certainly if its only leaving the CI on its own !) BTW for clarity how much of the "charges" are still owed to you ? regards johnny

Lucid, any idea when mindzai might awake from his coma ? lol j/k is he working 7.5 days a week or something ?

hi photoman, just found your thread and will be watching as things progress

Gez, check your PM's mate i have forwarded some notes, case law ect on time barred claims. hopes this helps you somewhat, BTW sorry its in no particular order, its really just copied and pasted from my own notes on the subject, so pick and choose what you feel may help you. Johnny

Ozzy do you work for one of the utility companies ?

Md the case will almost certainly proceed whether the judge considers the action of damages under tort a just corse of action or not. Tom is simply applying exemplory damages as a tool of leverage, ie to force the bank into court, rather than paying out of court as they always do. And yes they have paid the monies back into his account, though without his express permission and against his wishes, they duly closed his account shortly after. This is a tactic used by all the banks very frequently as a means to avoid having to prove their costs in court, they often do this just a few days before the hearing, without the claimant even knowing about it.

received a letter from Mbusa yesterday (dated a week before) saying they would send me a comprehensive and detailed reply to my previous letters by April 14th (Today) Lol I cant see that happening somehow, and to be honest if i had not forgotten i was on holiday last week, the N1 would have been filed already, but because of a slight logistical error it hasnt yet , but will be on Moday 16th But i think thats being quite fair, giving them another week over the dead line i mean, so i dont think its a bad thing. Anyway i will keep you posted if the postman does happen to turn up later this morning 8)

the limitations act did occur to me (atleast lack of knowledge of it) but then maybe he has been mis-quoted, though not likely i know. But bearing in mind he is a newly qualified barrister, and clearly has a long way to travle along the path of learning. Or perhaps he has weighed the LA arguments up and decided the banks have a point and has decided against using the arguments. who knows what hes thinking really, although another update from his own website may prove telling.

Jos, forgive my ignorance but i forget now how long the defence have taken the p*** for, i think its quite a while isnt it ? personally like i said before i would of applied for a strike out, as if the defence had then applied for a set aside...for what purpose ? i cant see they would have done this as it would have been totally foolish. The judge does has to give them an oppertunity to provide any papers necessary, although CPR rules are simple and straight forward, abide by them or risk losing ! I think maybe writing a letter to the judge wouldnt be such a bad idea (though dont scathe him directly atleast ) but perhaps show your full and explicit understanding of CPR, and your severe disapointment at the fact CPR has been fully ignored in your case. Perhaps it would be pertinent to ask why he though it necessary to dis-apply the rules, and if the boot had been on the other foot would he have done the same. (ok this is starting to sound slightly scathing..lol) just a thought and IMHO johnny

indebt. well the main issue Tom is confronting is clearly the charges, but cleverly (like other people here) and simply because he is a barrister he thought he could force the banks hand, and leave them no option but to fully defend in court. The mans not interested in the damages (hes a barrister for christ sake), he wants the issue publicly heard at a hearing for the sake of the nations consumers. Natwest sneakily paid the funds into his account (without his knowledge/consent and totally against his wishes) and then duly closed his account. This tactic by the bank is very under handed and one used when they are avoiding having to prove their costs in court, me for one will be very interested in the outcome of this case, as amongst other things i to am doing the same thing (though not copied from Tom i might add) i thought of this 4 months ago, and for the same reasons. ie to force the banks hand into court..

Hi bigmac yeah im still here just getting ready this weekend to file N1's, my PoC has taken some putting together but its about done now, thank god. ill keep you posted on this claim. i have just had an offer on one of my other claims (online finance) as i have been bouncing emails to the head of legal there, and eventually i came out on top after i ground him down.....muha

M55 are you a hairdresser ?

Un1boy personally i think the judge lost his bottle and decided to adjorn for another couple of weeks, as he thought 2 hours were not enough (bearing in mind this wasnt even the full hearing). Personally i think 2 hours were plenty, as the only bone of contention was the damages aspect, and im sure the judge could of made a desicsion whether to allow the full facts of the case to be heard (at the hearing) in 2 hours. I believe he realised the case had turned into a media circus and pooped his pants (so to speak) . As now clearly the case, and due weight of, is now on his fragile shoulders, which it would seem may not be able to carry the load.

Im really looking forward to the outcome of all this, funnily enough i am also claiming damages exemplory and aggravated on all of my claims, though i must point out that its nothing to do with this case in question . I just thought it may be a useful way of forcing the banks hand as it were, as i would relish the idea of going to court with them. cant wait till april 30th

from what i can gather it would seem as though he has already accepted the "charges" part of the claim back, and is leaving himself open to only being able to argue the damages side of the claim. Just read further into the article and realise that natwest has paid the money into the account without Toms permission, this is the usual dirty trick they play, in the hope of avoiding having to prove the costs in court. I hope the judge sees this and still expects them to prove the costs, by the sound of it the judge realises the seriousnes of the issue and is willing to set aside atleast a day to hear the case. Cant wait till April 30th now

mich, yeah i have a PPI claim with MBNA, im still working on the PoC, but hope i will of cracked it by sunday (if i get any peace) When you get to that stage send me a PM and i'll give you some pointers, though if your in the early stages of SAR ect then it will be a few months yet, so dont panic you have loads of time. Just one piece of advice really, and thats dont try and rush, take your time and understand what you are doing and you will be fine. Johnny

hydra yeah will do but i have been deliberately avoiding the phone call because for one i dont really want to go into on the phone and two i have the flu at the minute so im not at my best. i think its a small victory though, atleast on the point of admission (not that it would ever happen though)

jos i must admit i feel for you mate, when you see so many cases just breeze by, and then you get the odd one (like yours) that just drags on hang in there and dont send any scathing letter to the judge will ya lol johnny

Stone, in many ways you are correct, and as much as i respect the fact you have been a member of this site for a good while now, (and without seeming in anyway disrespectful or patronising) i feel you have slightly grasped the wrong end of the stick. Its not that the CI argument isnt legally correct (although there is a huge amount of debate over this exact issue) its that in law, its not actually a well proven point and will leave the claimant almost certainly open to having to argue this, if they leave themselves open to this point...ie accepting all the "charges" back out of court. Recently bankfodder has posted his most recent views on the CI argument, and towards the bottom of the post (around paragraph 14 and 15) i ask you pay particular attention, the post is here Can you see what i mean by leaving your self open. ie accepting the charges back before court, then the bank has nothing to prove and nothing to lose, so clearly they are going to defend. If you leave atleast part of the charges bulked with the other arguments, then the fact remains, they will have to fully dsiclose their costs, and clearly they are not going to do this are they, so therefore they will pay the claim. what im saying is, in certain situation accepting a partial payment is fine, but it depends on how much the payment is for, what kind of claim it is and whether it would leave the claimat open to attack. Its about damage limitation, i think we are all quite certain as to the unlawfulness of the charges, and we all know the defence will pay, but none of us really want to go to court unless we have to. And i think the best route in all of this is the one that leaves the claimant with the minimum of stress and maximum of payout, with the minimum of fuss. regards johnny

heres the email Daniel Baker (head of legal) at Online sent me well i guess we will have to wait and see whether or not they do admit the charges or not. Mr Progenic7, As I have previously mentioned you are quoting points of law that have no bearing at this stage, and you are further complicating the matter by doing so. Therefore I have not addressed these points as I do no see any benefit in doing so. Up to this point you have simply referred to law you have found in books and on the internet, much of which is irrelevant. By doing this you have failed to address the basics of your claim. The matter is simple one. 1. If you do not agree with the charges that we say we have charged then please provide me with evidence of payment of any charges that we have not admitted to. 2. What figure have we overcharged you and how? You have been vague, I quote ''which is either from an error in accounting or in interest paid on unlawful charges, either way its an error that needs correcting''' which is it and why does it need correcting? If you cannot provide sufficient proof of these two points then your claim will fail - it is that simple. In addition, we are not simply trying to rebut your claim here as a tactic, we are looking to settle this matter correctly. If you decide to issue this claim then we will submit a part admission for the monies we have admitted and any further claims will be vehemently defended. Neither party involved in a dispute wishes to have to go to a full hearing, however we will not pay any monies to you which you are not due. I think it would be benificial if we spoke about this on the telephone, and would be grateful if you would call me, as I do not have a contact number for you. Kind Regards Dan Baker Legal Dept. GMAC (UK) Finance +44 (0)870 2411122 ext 2082 +44 (0)870 242 2204 www.gmacfs.co.uk BTW he changed his tune slightly when i told my dad is a Law lecturer and a magistrate and a partner in my business is a solicitor, and much of the info came from them and not the tinternet

Hi Mich and thanks for watching i know this sounds really bad, but i have not had chance to file my N1 yet, but dont worry im on the case and will be doing very shortly. I have 5 claims on the go at the minute and one of them has been consuming alot of my time (online finance) as i have been in a battle of wits via email with a solicitor from said company. And because each of my claims is so very different, the PoC's need totally changing and reworking each and every time. The PoC i have come up with is quite large, 19 pages long and contains alot of detail, and although some say im taking a risk by doing this i am still going to file with the PoC i have written. Im hoping this weekend i have chance to sit down and finish the final points Ill keep you posted on anything i receive, to date all i have had is a photocopied "standard" response letter, (get this) telling me they have 8 weeks to respond I wrote back i hinted that they dont have anywhere near this length of time and i will be filing my court claim. regards johnny

yeah ill do that photoman, though it was not a without prejudice letter, im sure of that. maybe it was just part of their BS to put me off, im not sure really, though i would like to see his reply on the subject first. As i asked him to fully expand on this claim and whether or not it is indeed a first for them. Ill keep you posted Johnny

To totally clarify whether or not its ok to accept an offer on the basis as being a partial payment. I will try and clear things up for anyone slightly confused. Claimant - claiming £4000. (£2000 in charges and £2000 in CI) Defence offers £2000 (the charges in full) - then decline always Claimant - claiming £4000 (£2000 in charges and £2000 in CI) Defence offers £1000 then accept as partial payment Claimant - claiming £4000 (£2000 in charges and £2000 in CI) Defence offers £3000 then decline always Claimant - claiming £4000 (£3000 in charges and £1000 in s69 8%) Defence offers any amount - accept as partial or decline as it doesnt matter Claimant - claiming £4000 (£2000 in pre six year charges, £1000 in post six year charges and £1000 in s69 interest) Defence offers £1000 (the post six year charges only) - decline always I hope you can see from the above where im going with this, what i mean is dont leave your self open to argue a tricky issue on its own. Any tricky issue ie CI or LA then always leave them bulked with normal charges (ie keep the claim together in one piece) and dont leave yourself open to possible arguments in court. Remember that to date there HAS NOT been a single case defended in court (with normal charges involved). The banks will not risk having to prove their costs, so as long as you keep some charges in there for them to prove, then you will receive full payment, 100% every time. best of luck