Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments on your post in red
    • Thanks for your reply, I have another 3 weeks before the notice ends. I'm also concerned because the property has detoriated since I've been here due to mould, damp and rusting (which I've never seen in a property before) rusty hinges and other damage to the front door caused by damp and mould, I'm concerned they could try and charge me for damages? As long as you've documented and reported this previously you'll have a right to challenge any costs. There was no inventory when I moved in, I also didn't have to pay a deposit. Do an inventory when you move out as proof of the property's condition as you leave it. I've also been told that if I leave before a possession order is given I would be deemed intentionally homeless, is this true? If you leave, yes. However, Your local council has a legal obligation to ensure you won't be left homeless as soon as you get the notice. As stated before, you don't have to leave when the notice expires if you haven't got somewhere else to go. Just keep paying your rent as normal. Your tenancy doesn't legally end until a possession warrant is executed against you or you leave and hand the keys back. My daughter doesn't live with me, I'd likely have medical priority as I have health issues and I'm on pip etc. Contact the council and make them aware then.      
    • extension? you mean enforcement. after 6yrs its very rare for a judge to allow enforcement. it wont have been sold on, just passed around the various differing trading names the claimant uses.    
    • You believe you have cast iron evidence. However, all they’d have to do to oppose a request for summary judgment is to say “we will be putting forward our own evidence and the evidence from both parties needs to be heard and assessed by a judge” : the bar for summary judgment is set quite high! You believe they don't have evidence but that on its own doesn't mean they wouldn't try! so, its a high risk strategy that leaves you on the hook for their costs if it doesn't work. Let the usual process play out.
    • Ok, I don't necessarily want to re-open my old thread but I've seen a number of such threads with regards to CCJ's and want to ask a fairly general consensus on the subject. My original CCJ is 7 years old now and has had 2/3 owners for the debt over the years since with varying level of contact.  Up to last summer they had attempted a charging order on a shared mortgage I'm named on which I defended that action and tried to negotiate with them to the point they withdrew the charging order application pending negotiations which we never came to an agreement over.  However, after a number of communication I heard nothing back since last Autumn barring an annual generic statement early this year despite multiple messages to them since at the time.  at a loss as to why the sudden loss of response from them. Then something came through from this site at random yesterday whilst out that I can't find now with regards to CCJ's to read over again.  Now here is the thing, I get how CCJ's don't expire as such, but I've been reading through threads and Google since this morning and a little confused.  CCJ's don't expire but can be effectively statute barred after 6 years (when in my case was just before I last heard of the creditor) if they are neither enforced in that time or they apply to the court within the 6 years of issue to extend the CCJ and that after 6 years they can't really without great difficulty or explanation apply for a CCJ extension after of the original CCJ?.  Is this actually correct as I've read various sources on Google and threads that suggest there is something to this?.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Tom Brennan v NatWest - This is a must-read!!!


calvi36
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5931 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Guest NATTIE

The issue is not on defending charges but the level of compensation from my reading of this. OFT do not make law so they have no real input into the eqaution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

also i think we should have uk collection fund for this man if he lost this would pay his fees / but he will not lose then all the funds what ever it is goes to charities. just a idea i put in £20 he is asking for the bank to show the true cost of returned d/d cheques etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

My gut feeling says the issue is really to do with the issue of compensation and not the costs involved. I am sure if this was an area which you could have gone down that it would have been done before. Wait and see i guess

 

 

Or maybe as he said in the radio interview, he is pursuing it for the principle (and for other people in this situation) and in rejecting the offer and arguing exemplary damages, he will attempt to force the bank to disclose their charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

wonder if we could get a hold of a copy of his POC. I seem to recall reading somewhere that documents are available for public viewing at the court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrarie Nattie, the claimant would appear to be asking the courts to rule on the lawfulness of the charges.

 

So it could be about charges, we will have to wait and see.

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

ooooooooh exciting then................. lets wait and see. I see feel for the lovely man whose doing this. He must be fair old poopying his drawers at the moment, whilst also being a very brave individual. I personally wish him all the very very best. Hes a star...............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

I am so tired of the threads in progress. NatWest will not be forced to declare costs. To put it bluntly. If this was the case then Stephen Hone(stephen) the moderator on here and also the guys who runs Penalty charges website would have explored and possibly taken that route. It is highly unlikely or a defence which i am not going to speculate on will be made. I think the bank have admitted the charges aspect just the damages bit would be at issue. Just my opinion but my last one on this topic until after the damp squid hits the fan and sighs arrive afterwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Master Nattie. Were shutting up on this one. I was just intrigued as to whether or not they would just dish out compo on top of charges rather than defend at all, or defend the compo only. Sorry, I know we mere mortals bore the nuts off you at times but you have to remember, we are only mere mortals in the dark about banks,,,,,,, whereas you, this to you, with all your inside knowledge is just a walk in the park and a bit of a non story, but CAN YOU blame us for getting just a tinsy bit excited at the prospect of what the outcome might be.................. anyway besides anything else, its fun to speculate. Lol. Just try and humour us humans........... Lol . You do ok usually. Lol. Fendy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx HAPPY SATURDAY NATTIE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a listen online, this is great stuff

 

Those above wondering about the damages hes aiming for, he mentions 50 - 100% of the charges

 

Very risky, but the impact of this could be amazing

 

Gutsy guy, best of british to you if you're reading this mate

 

:cool:

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this as a way to get a bank into court (and Nat west may still settle on the court steps). What banks are afraid of is being forced to reveal their internal costs, if they get a court order to disclose they may bottle out and pay up. From the banks viewpoint they have to put up a fight, because if this goes against them it will be very bad for all banks. However I would like to wish Tom Brannan every success, as he is putting his future on the line on this important public issue. It's tough one to call I have no idea what the judge will decide, he may just ajourn and give the litigants 28 days to make an effort to settle out of court; which is the kind of anticlimax I have come to expect!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks catch students young, offer loads of incentive to use up their student loans knowing they will get paid in spades when they qualify. The banks prey on the weak and inexperienced.

Stands to reason a smart law student sooner or later will say enough is enough.

My best wishes to Mr Brennan, Friday the 13th is only unlucky for some, lets hope its not unlucky for him.

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest louis wu

I know petitions have been a bit of a touchy subject lately, but I am wondering if we could maybe help this guy out.

 

Quote

 

 

"If I lose and they state that I am acting unreasonably they can ask for their costs," he said.

 

"They are employing senior barristers. It would bankrupt me, and that prevents you being a practising barrister or transferring to be a solicitor.

 

"But that will only happen if the judge awards costs and he may not if he decides I am bringing this for public reasons. This case has a momentum of its own and is too important to walk away."

 

 

This could be an oportunity for CAG to get together a supply him with 120,000 signatures in support of his action, it may just help the judge decide this is in the publics interest, and may get a bit of publicity for CAG into the bargain.

 

I havn't really thought this through, but wonder if its worth discussing the merits of such a collected action.

 

Louis

Link to post
Share on other sites

At least this barrister fellow will be paying his own costs.At £200 per hour or so.:)

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

I think i can confirm the damp squid earlier than normal by re-reading the article which states that the judge will rule about exemplary damages. If that part of the case is won THAT is the moment when we can all go over the top about a bank revealing costs. Friday is a simple hearing not his case actually being heard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Precision is your forte Nattie. ;)

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL Nattie

 

You could be right of course, but did the Barrister is apparently asking the court to rule on the lawfulness of the charges with subsequent permission to seek exemplary damages.

 

Whilst it may not be heard on Friday (i.e. a hearing into the lawfulness of the charges) it may be the first step to the ultimate goal.

 

Incidentally have you listened to the recording on Money Box I haven't as yet i am going by what i heard on the TV Friday.

 

For the avoidance of doubt he is asking the court to rule on the money they made by the bank from the charges and to strip them of profits based on those charges. Which would require them to reveal their costs.

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

Glenn, i haven;t but that is my understanding from a further re read yesterday and this morning. It would compel the bank to reveal costs if he is successful. I think i may try and listen to it, i am just surprised nobody has tried this route previously. one to watch on Friday the 13th.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC Radio Player - all BBC players

 

hope this link works, it should be the radio 4 money box broadcast with CAG involvement.

 

Nope it did not, try this BBC NEWS | Programmes | Moneybox | Court bid for bank charge ruling then click moneybox listen icon on left hand side.

 

Right hand side even, GOD don't take any advice from me I don't know the difference between left and right ffs lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reason nobody has tried it is because none of us are legal brained enough to see it through to the end, or we dont have the money to back it up with costs if we lost. C'est la vie ????

 

Parky, u sure youre not said barrister, Lol Fendy xxxx My cluedo brain is working on overtime again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...