Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Sorry for the delay in getting back to you The email excuse and I do say excuse to add to your account and if court decide LL can't recoup costs will be removed is a joke. So I would Ask them: Ask them to provide you with the exact terms within your Tenancy Agreement that allows them to add these Court Fees to your Account before it has been decided in Court by a Judge. Until the above is answered you require these Court Fees to be removed from your Account (Note: I will all be down to your Tenancy Agreement so have a good look through it to see what if any fees they can add to your account in these circumstances)
    • Thank you for your responses. As requested, some more detail. Please forgive, I'm writing this on my phone which always makes for less than perfect grammar. My Dad tries but English not his 1st language, i'm born and bred in England, a qualified accountant and i often help him with his admin. On this occasion I helped my dad put in his renewal driving licence application around 6 weeks before expiry and with it the disclosure of his sleep apnoea. Once the licence expired I told him to get in touch with his GP, because the DVLA were offering only radio silence at that time (excuses of backlogs When I called to chase up). The GP charged £30 for an opinion letter on his ability to drive based on his medical history- at the time I didn't take a copy of the letter, but I am hoping this will be key evidence that we can rely on as to why s88 applies because in the GP opinion they saw no reason he couldn't drive i need to see the letter again as im going only on memory- we forwarded the letter in a chase up / complaint to the DVLA.  In December, everything went quiet RE the sleep apnoea (i presume his GP had given assurance) but the DVLA noticed there had been a 2nd medical issue in the past, when my father suffered a one off mini stroke 3 years prior. That condition had long been resolved via an operation (on his brain of all places, it was a scary time, but he came through unscathed) and he's never had an issue since. We were able to respond to that query very promptly (within the 14 days) and the next communication was the licence being granted 2 months later. DVLA have been very slow in responding every step of the way.  I realise by not disclosing the mini stroke at the time, and again on renewal (had I known I'd have encouraged it) he was potentially committing an offence, however that is not relevant to the current charge being levied, which is that he was unable to rely on s88 because of a current medical issue (not one that had been resolved). I could be wrong, I'm not a legal expert! The letter is a summons I believe because its a speeding offence (59 in a temp roadworks 50 limit on the A1, ironically whist driving up to visit me). We pleaded guilty to the speeding but not guilty to the s87.  DVLA always confirmed to me on the phone that the licence had not been revoked and that he "May" be able to continue to drive. They also confirmed in writing, but the letter explains the DVLA offer no opinion on the matter and that its up to the driver to seek legal advice. I'll take the advice to contact DVLA medical group. I'm going to contact the GP to make sure they received the SAR request for data, and make it clear we need to see a copy of the opinion letter. In terms of whether to continue to fight this, or to continue with the defence, do we have any idea of the potential consequences of either option? Thanks all
    • stopping payments until a DN arrives does not equal automatic sale to a DCA...if you resume payments after the DN.  
    • Sleep apnoea: used to require the condition  to be “completely” controlled Sometime before June 2013 DVLA changed it to "adequately" controlled. I have to disagree with MitM regarding the effect of informing DVLA and S.88 A diagnosis of sleep apnoea doesn't mean a licence wont be granted, and, indeed, here it was. If the father sought medical advice (did he?) : this is precisely where S.88 applies https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64edcf3a13ae1500116e2f5d/inf1886-can-i-drive-while-my-application-is-with-dvla.pdf p.4 for “new medical condition” It is shakier ground if the opinion of a healthcare professional wasn’t sought. in that case it is on the driver to state they believed they met the medical standard to drive. However, the fact the licence was then later granted can be used to be persuasive that the driver’s belief they met the standard was correct. What was the other condition? And, just to confirm, at no point did DVLA say the licence was revoked / application refused? I’d be asking DVLA Drivers’ Medical Group why they believe S.88 doesn’t apply. S.88 only applies for the UK, incidentally. If your licence has expired and you meet the conditions for S.88 you can drive in the U.K., but not outside the U.K. 
    • So you think not pay until DN then pay something to the oc to delay selling to dcas?    then go from there? 
  • 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 5932 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

Up until now none of the banks have defended a case in court and as such what do they have up their sleeves for this one?

 

I feel that they are on a hiding to nothing-if they do not defend then that is an admission that their charges are not justified and yet if they go to court I do not see what stance they can take to justify.

 

Also Tom has 'expert witnesses' who he claims can prove that it only costs the banks £2.50 to bounce a cheque rather than the £38 that they charge us.

PPMAN159

 

If this comment has helped please click on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

PPMAN the banks dont have a choice in this claim at the moment, the claim is about Brennan asking the court to allow the case to continue on the basis that the bank should pay exemplary damages.

 

Its not a hearing to determine if the charges are lawful, this would effectively be one of the outcomes should the court allow the claim to continue I believe.

 

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

Hi All

 

Hope you don't mind but this is a post I made an another thread earlier today.

 

 

 

Hi Guys

 

I'm really disappointed this has been delayed.

 

Just one point to make:

 

this case wasn't about bank charges - he's already been offered 4K even though he was (only) claiming 2.5K.

 

this case was about compensation. as we all know some of us have been put into serious financial difficulty due to the bank charges e.g. bankruptcy, loss of homes, etc.

 

This case is far from over - I think the judge realises this could be a long drawn out one - so he has delayed it so the Court could allocate more time to it.

 

Just my thoughts:-)

 

 

 

I am (cautiously) thinking that the banks might want to settle with us

claiming bank charges because if he wins the compensation argument............................... Well, who knows???

 

Cassie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Tom Brennans case has been postponed:

 

Sky News: Showdown Over Bank Fees

 

According to the statement made by Brennan on the above site, he's only claiming for 6 years of charges...

 

However, on this website ( http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/announcement.php?f=6&a=80 ) it states that we can now claim more than 6 years. Shouldn't someone tell him??

 

Matt

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely - Lord Acton.

 

Advice offered by MattyH is without predjudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt. Please research any information I have offered, as I will not be held liable for any incorrect advice i've given you.

 

<--------- If my advice has helped, please tip my scales. 8)

 

For Further advice come into the Chat Room: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/chat/flashchat.php

FAQ's : http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/

Step By Step Instructions ; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/31460-example-step-step-instructions.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how does this affect people with claims already in motion? I've just sent off my first claim to Abbey and wonder if they'll try and delay until this case is settled or can I still push ahead with my claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't know PPMAN - stranger things have happened;)

 

I'm so wrapped up in my claim against Abbey, in a strange way:evil: this was a welcome distraction (of sorts).

 

I'm supposed to be working from home but I've spent most of the day reading and re-reading threads for information/inspiration/messages from above:p . Think I need (another) stiff drink:p

 

Good Luck to everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Continue with the claim-as far as I can see nothing has changed, no ruling has been made by the court so it is business as usual.

 

There are still the set timeframes that they have to abide by so carry on with the claim

PPMAN159

 

If this comment has helped please click on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well after a couple of pints and a lengthy consultation with my outstanding and extremley bright bar maid, Brenda, I think todays postponment answers perhaps 3 of 4 crucial questions:

 

Did the judge throw the case out? - No

 

Did the judge deem Brennan a vexatious litigant - No

 

Is the judge taking Tom's case seriously and needs more court time? -Very possibly.

 

As to if m'learned got his oats last night, that one remains shrouded in mystery.

 

........................

 

 

 

The judge said the issues were "extremely important"

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Court adjourns bank charges case

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info PPMAN

 

I really thought it would be longer.

 

BUT

 

I work 1 minute from the Court where it was due to be heard, and I know although a lot of us travel into the City of London to work - the population of City residents is only about 6000 (don't quote me on that figure - I might be a bit out of date) so the City of London court may not be as busy as "our courts".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here-I am over by Mansion House tube.

 

I would assume that the City of London court would deal with the more complex financial matters and not the run of mill stuff that you may get locally so on that basis they would not be as busy.

 

It is not long time to wait but is a hell of a time to keep your fingers crossed!

PPMAN159

 

If this comment has helped please click on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

how unbelievable that he's only going for 6 years! can't be a CAG regular then!

 

And as he's already issued proceedings he doesn't need to be worried that the delay will affect the 6 years that are already in his claim. puzzling indeed, makes you wonder whether the reporter has ad libbed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This court case is NOT for bank charges.

 

It's for compensation for hardship:mad: :mad: CAUSED by bank charges.

 

I may be very wrong but I think this is a very different case to ours.

 

Cassie

 

well as far as I know I think he thinks it is about charges, and exemplary damages. otherwise why would he be being hailed as the first person to get the charges issue inside the courtroom?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I've missed the point.

 

But as I have read it, he has been offered 4K for a claim of 2.5K charges.

 

He is taking it further than any of us would/could because he's in the "privileged??" position of being able to.

 

His argument/case is that due to these "unlawful??" bank charges he has "suffered further financial difficulties that wouldn't have arisen if he hadn't been charged the bank charges in the first place".

 

I realise this case "originated" because of bank charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he has accepted or acknowledged their payment of the charges. whatever theyve offered it hasnt fully satisfied his claim so he believes he can pursue the whole claim and the charges issue through the courts. Thats my take on it anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bong

 

I need to read up on what he is actually fighting for.

 

I thought I read somewhere that he had refused their offer of 4K which is why this court case is so important to him.

 

I know a few people on this site are sceptical of his motives - but I've felt so secure here, I think I want to think the best of anyone who is fighting the banks :confused: :confused:

 

Am I gullible - maybe:oops: :oops:

 

Cassie

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I will be allowed to quote from his web page, if not maybe a mod can let me know and I'll delete it

 

The next hearing is due to take place on the morning of Friday 13th April 2007 at the Mayor's and City of London County Court. This is not the hearing that will determine the lawfulness of those charges; that will be determined at the full trial at a later date. Friday’s hearing is an application to determine the law involved in this case.

 

and

 

Natwest is arguing that this case involves a breach of contract and should therefore be dismissed. Natwest is arguing that it has repaid the charges into my bank account and has now closed that account, and as a result there is no case to be heard, since exemplary damages are not recoverable in contract.

 

 

 

It should be noted that I have, to date, refused all offers from Natwest to settle this matter, and that the charges were refunded into my account without my permission, without any explanation, and against my express wishes. We will have to wait and see what the judge makes of these matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope even though I think he may have his own agenda, i.e. making a bit of a name for himself, I still dont blame him at all. I think we should hail him as a pioneer, win or lose.............. If there were more people like him in the world, willing to take a risk/chance for the good of the common people then it would be a better world we were living in. Whatever his reasons/motives, genuine or self seeking, I still think hes a brave brave man. And I would be very proud to say I knew him, IF I DID OF COURSE. Whatever the outcome........... I SINCERELY WISH HIM THE VERY VERY VERY BEST OF LUCK, and I shall be saying a few private mantras for him in my head............. Win or lose, it makes no difference to me, its the fact he was willing to TRY........... when a lot of us wouldnt have. Again, privilidged or not, he still is risking a lot PERSONALLY,, so the guy deserves a flippin medal in my book. And I always love a person who wants to try and kick against authority for the personal good of others. YAAAAAAAAAAAAY AND TRIPLE YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY FOR MR TOM BRENNAN. WHAT A ICCLE STAR. Fendy xxxxxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...