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

[MondeoST24]

Any news on this? Was it today?

[Guest bong]

yes it was adjourned to end April - see this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/80804-tom-brennan-natwest-must-2.html#post728777

[mariejader]

Customer takes NatWest to court over bank charges | News_ | Guardian Unlimited Money

[witchywarloc]

I remember seeing some solicitor was going to court today despite being offered nearly double what his charges were

 

Has anybody heard anything about this today?

[pmahonc]

Yes heres the link

BBC NEWS | Business | Court adjourns bank charges case

 

And here's the article

 

Court adjourns bank charges case

 

Brennan said he was very disappointed at this latest delay

 

An attempt to force the NatWest bank to justify its overdraft penalty charges has been postponed again.

A barrister, Tom Brennan, is claiming damages from the bank for levying penalty fees he says were unlawful.

He was charged a total of £2,500 by the NatWest for unauthorised overdrafts when he was a law student.

Judge Peter Simpson, at the City of London County Court, adjourned the hearing until a full day could be set aside to hear the arguments.

The judge said the issues were "extremely important" but the two hours set aside to hear the case would not be sufficient.

Outside the court, Mr Brennan said he was very disappointed at this latest delay as it was to his disadvantage.

"It should be noted that any delay is going to assist the defendants because only six years of charges can be made," he said.

"Every day that passes, more money is being saved by the bank," he added.

Settlement

In an attempt to settle the case, NatWest has refunded Mr Brennan's penalty charges, and offered to pay him £1,500 extra if he does not take the case to court.

Mr Brennan has refused to accept this and is pursuing his claim for exemplary and aggravated damages to punish the bank for what he claims was the unlawful seizure of his money, causing him economic harm. The court hearing, which will now take place on 30 April, will not be a hearing of the full case. It will be to establish, first of all, whether Mr Brennan does in fact have the right to claim these extra damages.

 

pmahonc

[Mistermind]

We all know that Direct debits and cheques etc are rejected by the Banks computer it checks your account and if you have not go the funds in to pay them it rejects it and applies a penalty to the account.

 

So if a direct debit comes up say £100 and theres not enough money in the account, bingo £30 plus penalty.

 

But if you go to the cash point machine and try to draw out £100 and there is not enough money this very same computer rejects you application BUT you do not get charged a penalty ....I want to know what is the difference. the same computer has rejected the same amount for the same reason not enough money, the cost can't be any different, anyone any different ideas?

 

sparkie1723

 

If your request for cash at the ATM is refused, this transaction involves only 2 electronic messages, and involves no third-party bank and individual to be notified. ATMs became universal no more than 20 years ago, from Day One a purely IT electronic process, with no manual historical precedent (well if a cashier at the counter refused to pay out cash, like the ATM she would never have charged either) .

 

Cheques and DDs bouncing has a different historical origin. 30 years ago cheques and D/D were pieces of paper laboriously centralised in Crawley and Lombard Street data centres from 10,000 originating bank branches nationwide, then redistributed to 10,000 other branches overnight, distance no limit, by strictly secure and confidential courier service.

 

Come 9am the following morning when branches open, one or more human cashiers would go through the incoming pile of cheques and D/Ds to check the signatures and D/D authorities (in the truly old days checking against balances written up in a ledger). Debits ripe for bounce are placed before the branch manager who allows himself a few hours to decide whether to bounce or not bounce, at times even ringing a customer. This is the origin of a bounce charge or exceed-limit charge -- in the old days more legitimately covering a laborious manual service.

 

However times have moved on, and ALL the manual intervention steps have been replaced by automated IT. Cheques and D/Ds no longer travel the laborious two-way journey, and human intervention long ceased. These cost reductions have not been passed on to the customer. Quite the reverse, the £2 manual bounce fee in the seventies has now been jacked up to £39 for the Abbey Bank.

 

Bouncing at the ATM does not have a tradition of incurring a penalty charge. Perish the thought Sparkie, if your thread gives them such a good idea, lol.

[ncf355]

Madness, surely the judge could see the time would be inadequate prior to today?

 

Although, in some ways, considering it wasnt the full hearing I fail to see why it wasnt adequate?

[Mistermind]

And I would be very proud to say I knew him, IF I DID OF COURSE...........

 

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

 

Fendy,

 

Not for the first time, an Englishman stands up against an army of bullies.

Not for the first time, ten million cheer and support him.

[witchywarloc]

Thanks for that

[Mistermind]

 

Precedent's can't be set in County Courts...that's right isn't it?

 

In the court of public opinion it can.

Anyone volunteering to stand against the will of the people?

[Guest NATTIE]

Need i say business as usual? Go cobbetts:D

[progenic7]

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

[progenic7]

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

[crfx250]

As I understand it the bank, against his express wishes, 'forced' the 4 grand settlement into his account and then closed it. So to say he accepted it might be a bit wide of the mark. The settlement figure also had a clause with it that he could

not continue his court action.

[Mistermind]

Tom Brennan v NatWest

Guildhall court, Monday 30th April (maximise for display)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/radio4/aod.shtml?radio4/moneybox

-

Radio 4 interview outside Guildhall featuring Tom

http://www.tombrennan.co.uk/

(updated 9pm, 13th April)

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

(

1

2

)

….. -

BankFodder

Nat West in the dock! Will this change things for all

?

(

1

2

)

-

freakyleaky

Good luck Tom

(

1

2

) .

………………………........................ -

crfx250

Natwest Finally In Courts On 13th

Friday

(

1

2

)

………… -

humbleman

The First Bank Charges Court Hearing

……………….. -

whizzkid001

Tom Brennan v NatWest -- This could have important consequences for you

-

BankFodder

Bank charges challenge by

lawyer

(

1

2

)

……………….. -

whizzkid001

this will be one to watch

(

1

2

3

4

5

)

………………………. -

calvi36

[aqua2]

I'm with this guy all the way (even if I question his motives)

 

The simple fact is, for years the banks have levied a higher rate of interest on unauthorised borrowing, which more than compensates them for the cost of sending an odd 50 pence letter out.

 

In fact scrolling back through my statements, one month I paid them £63.00 in interest, but only had a couple of letters. (Of course the penalties were on top of that. )

 

They continue to levy these charges and at some point, it simply has to stop, or at least be curtailed.

 

Now when the official regulators etc. wont act quickly , because they are scared the banks will levy disproportionate charges on everyday transactions, then it is time for someone with sufficient knowledge to go to a court and say...

 

Hey, this is unfair, it should never have happened, it needs to stop and someone somewhere has to do something.

 

Take a look at, for example, Tesco's profits, they are immense, but whenever I have been there, I feel as though I have had a really good service at a fair price.

 

I walk out with a smile on my face.

 

(No I dont work there, or have any interest in them, nor is this an advert)

 

Now look at the banks, when did you last go to a bank and think, yep, excellent service, fair price charged ?????

 

I for one feel stitched up every time I go near a bank, soon it will reach a point where you check your wallet, just passing their door. Ha Ha Ha.

 

In fact there's an idea, listen Mr Tesco, you have branches everywhere, which means you already have the infrastructure, you have money coming out of your ears, so there's no problem, ensuring the security of ours and think of all the extra customers through your door, to pay in cheques and withdraw cash etc..

 

If we are worth £250K each, to you in our lifetime, here is your chance to make it £350K and all you have to do is be fair and honest...

 

Or, Sir Branson, prove you are the consumer champion, I can see Virgin are listed on the front page, why don't you break ranks, suffer the intial loss, voluntarily pay back all the penalties you have taken and open up honest, fair banking.

 

I know, you probably rely on the banks money to fund your enterprises, but in fact, all they are doing is lending you our money, so there it is, cut the middle men out, you can have our money directly.

 

(Bet you never thought of that one did you????)

 

If we go overdrawn without authorisation, fine, charge us 29.8, but dont put penalties on top, you can still refuse payments if you dont want us to, hey, we accept that, in fact, why not charge us £2.50, that's five times the 50p I reckon it will cost you and me thinks you could just about handle a 500% profit margin.

 

So, finishing on my soapbox...

 

Go for it Tom...

 

All the best to you.

 

and to the other major institutions...

 

Start thinking... There's money in personal banking, shed loads of it....

 

and to the government...

 

Enough said.

[kippy2]

Tom Brennan v NatWest (postponed till 30th April)

 

 

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

(

1

2

) -

BankFodder

 

Nat West in the dock! Will this change things for all?

(

1

2

) -

freakyleaky

Good luck Tom

(

1

2

) -

crfx250

Natwest Finally In Courts On 13th Friday

(

1

2

) -

humbleman

The First Bank Charges Court Hearing

-

whizzkid001

Tom Brennan v NatWest -- This could have important consequences for you - BankFodder

 

Bank charges challenge by lawyer(12) - whizzkid001

 

this will be one to watch

(

1

2

3

4

5

) -

calvi36

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/radio4/aod.shtml?radio4/moneybox

-

Radio 4 interview of Tom & CAG

http://www.tombrennan.co.uk/

-- from the horse’s mouth

 

10 unecessary threads on tom? surely one will do?

[Guest NATTIE]

Kimmy, there are a good few more that have been missed.

[Mistermind]

Kimmy01,

 

2 of the links are outside of CAG. Who taught you these were threads?

2 of the threads are started by Bankfodder, the remaining 6 carried 300 postings within a few days.

 

Kimmy01, make your personal displeasure known to the authors.

[un1boy]

Guys- what happened today?

[progenic7]

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.

[indebtstudent]

I do have conerns about this case. Thought it is not about the charges per se (since Natwest have already refunded them) if Natwest win it will look to many as is the charges are in fact lawful.

 

It has been all over the media that this man is challenging the charges in court when he is in fact dealing with a different area of law.

 

I commend him on his bottle though.

[progenic7]

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..

[kippy2]

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.

 

you are absolutely right. i agree 100%.

[kippy2]

Kimmy01,

 

2 of the links are outside of CAG. Who taught you these were threads?

2 of the threads are started by Bankfodder, the remaining 6 carried 300 postings within a few days.

 

Kimmy01, make your personal displeasure known to the authors.

 

not displeasure but a rather tad too many threads on tom. even bookworm had to close 1 or 2 today as it was getting out of hand.

 

the two threads started by bankfodder yes of course.