Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I disagree with the charge and also the statements sent. Firstly I have not received any correspondence from DVLA especially a statutory notice dated 2/5/2024 or a notice 16/5/2024 voiding my licence if I had I would have responded within this timeframe. The only letter received was the single justice procedure notice dated the 29.5.2024 this was received on 4.6.2024. I also disagree with the statement that tax was dishonoured through invalid indemnity claim. I disagree that the licence be voided I purchased the vehicle in Jan 2024 from RDA car sales Pontefract with agreement to collect the car on the 28.1.2024. The garage taxed the vehicle on the 25.1.24 for eleven payments on direct debit  using my debit card on my behalf. £62.18 was the initial payment on 8.2.24  and £31 per month thereafter the second payment was 1.3.24.This would run from Jan 24 to Dec 24 and a total of £372.75, therefore the car was clearly taxed before  I took the car away After checking one of my vehicle apps  I could see the vehicle was showing as untaxed it later transpired that DVLA had cancelled my tax , without reason and I did not receive any correspondence from DVLA to state why it was cancelled or when. The original payment of £62.18 had gone through and verified by my bank Lloyds so this payment was not declined. I then set up the direct debit again straight away at my local post office branch on 15.2.2024 the first payment was £31 on 1.3.2024 and subsequent payments up to Feb 2025 with a total of £372.75 which was the same total as the original DD that was set up in Jan, Therefore I claimed the £62.18 back from my bank as an indemnity claim as this payment was from the original cancelled tax from DVLA and had been cancelled . I have checked my bank account at Lloyds and every payment since Jan 24  up to date has been taken with none rejected as follows: 8.2.24 - £62.15 1.3.24 - £31.09 2.4.24 - £31.06 1.5.24 - £31.06 3.6.23-£31.06 I have paper copies of the original DD set up conformation plus a breakdown of payments per month , and a paper copy of the second DD setup with breakdown of payments plus a receipt from the post office.I can also provide bank statements showing each payment to DVLA I also ask that my licence be reinstated due to the above  
    • You know hes had it when they call out those willing to say anything even claiming tories have reduced taxes on live tv AS Salmonella says: The Conservative Party must embrace Nigel Farage to “unite the right”, Suella Braverman has urged, following a disastrous few days for Rishi Sunak. The former home secretary told The Times there was “not much difference” between the new Reform UK leader’s policies and those of the Tories, as senior Conservatives start debating the future of the party. hers.   AND Goves replacement gets caught booking in an airbnb to claim he lives locally .. as of yesterday you can rent it yourself in late July - as he'll either be gone or claiming taxpayer funded expenses for a house Alongside pictures of himself entering a house, Mr McGuinness said Surrey Heath residents “rightly expect their MP to be a part of their community”. - So whens farage getting around to renting (and subletting) a clacton beach hut?   Gove’s replacement caught out on constituency house claim as home found on Airbnb WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Social media users quickly pointed out house Ed McGuinness had posted photos in was available to rent     As Douglas Ross says he'll stand down in scotland - if he wins a Westminster seat - such devotion.
    • I've completed a draft copy to defend and will post up here for review.  Looking over the dates and payments this all stemmed from DVLA cancelling in Feb , whereby I set up a new DD in Feb hence the overlap, why they cancelled when I paid originally in Jan I have no idea. Anyway now stuck with pending court action and a suspended licence . I am also firing off a letter to DVLa recorded disputing the licence revoke
    • Thank you both for your expert knowledge and understanding. You're fighting the good fight by standing up for people like me and others with limited knowledge of this stuff. I thank you. I know all my DVLA details are good. I recently (last year) renewed my license, and my car's V5 is current with the correct details; the same is valid for my partner. I'll continue to ignore the love letters 😂 and won't let it bother either me or my partner.  I'll revisit this post if/when I get a letter of claim.  F**k ém.
    • Please check back later on today for a fuller response and some edits
  • 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 5940 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

Is nobody even slighty concerned by this chaps apparent lack of knowledge of the Statute of Limitations? he was alleged to have said that this is all working in the banks favour as you are only allowed to claim back 6 years worth and he seems to think that the delay will reduce his claim.

 

Smelling a rat here

  • Haha 1

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Is nobody even slighty concerned by this chaps apparent lack of knowledge of the Statute of Limitations? he was alleged to have said that this is all working in the banks favour as you are only allowed to claim back 6 years worth and he seems to think that the delay will reduce his claim.

 

Smelling a rat here

 

 

He even makes a comment of

 

It should be noted that any delays is going to assist the defendants because only six years of charges can be made.

 

I know I have posted doubts on this and been shot down (And assisted)but why make a statement like that? We have a young barrister here who is taking the banks on in such a public and media conscious case and comes out with such a demanding statement.

 

Alot of people will see that and go Ah, Tom says 6 years maximum so 6 years it is.

 

What i also struggle with is why start a web site totally dedicated to this. It has lots of web exposure as it is.

 

Right, off to the Grand National.

Whatever I post is my opinion and should be taken as such, an opinion. While it is what I believe and is offered in good faith, it should not be taken as a statement of truth

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

:)

Dont Rush - Take Your Time - Dont always take me seriously

:p

 

If you feel i have helped you then click

Here, if you feel i have not helped you then click Here, if you want to complain about this go Here, if you would like bank secrets then go Here.

 

MBNA - Case Charges+PPI+CI+LA+Damages+costs

RBS Credit Card - Case Charges+CI+LA+Costs

Barclays - Case Charges+CI+LA+Damages+costs

Halifax - Case Charges+CI+Damages+costs

Online Finance - Case Charge+CI+Damages+costs

Link to post
Share on other sites

The case is for compensation - but, read on......

 

If the court rules in Tom's favour and he is allowed to proceed with a compensation claim, based on the case being that the banks are profitting through illegal means, then it is as good as a direct declaration that bank charges as they stand are also illegal - and I would expect that the case would ultimately produce such a statement.

 

Additionally - from what I've read, NatWest actually refunded Tom's charges and put them into his bank account without his permission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The case is for compensation - but, read on......

 

If the court rules in Tom's favour and he is allowed to proceed with a compensation claim, based on the case being that the banks are profitting through illegal means, then it is as good as a direct declaration that bank charges as they stand are also illegal - and I would expect that the case would ultimately produce such a statement.

 

Additionally - from what I've read, NatWest actually refunded Tom's charges and put them into his bank account without his permission.

 

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.

Dont Rush - Take Your Time - Dont always take me seriously

:p

 

If you feel i have helped you then click

Here, if you feel i have not helped you then click Here, if you want to complain about this go Here, if you would like bank secrets then go Here.

 

MBNA - Case Charges+PPI+CI+LA+Damages+costs

RBS Credit Card - Case Charges+CI+LA+Costs

Barclays - Case Charges+CI+LA+Damages+costs

Halifax - Case Charges+CI+Damages+costs

Online Finance - Case Charge+CI+Damages+costs

Link to post
Share on other sites

i hope that Tom Brennan wins his case, i think he is a brave man, he is helping all people,hopefully what he will do will be a wonderful thing for all people.

i am telling as many people i can that bank charges are illigial and directing them to this site,i have had so many charges taken from me, bank accounts morgage and credit cards, i am going to be able to clear my credit cards off and pay off my overdraf, i am going to be able to fund my self through medical school.which is wonderful

i have got frineds who havent got internet and am printing out the forms and givving it to them.

i believe that the banks charge the poorest people so many charges so they take out credit cards and loans, to push them further into dept.

there is somthing wrong with a banking society like this,

i hope the flood gates open for the banks, hopefully many unfortunate people will have charges back, and banks bank fairly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mistermind wouldnt be Tom himself would it?;)

 

i am pretty sure that he is on here as he has a link to CAG on his home page

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

no case in the natwest forum, i did wonder myself as well lula so i had a good check of his claims. Sorry mistermind but i think you are not Tom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mistermind, I too love a good filing system LOL, it is essential, otherwise the world would be in chaos ;)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sensational Brennan showdown broke from nowhere 10 days ago, and threads exploded spontaneously in numerous forums all over the site.

 

Without a site map for these threads it would be impossible to keep up with all the exciting developments. There is going to be another huge surge of postings around 30th April, but Bookworm said no more duplicate new threads please. So here we are, one quick index to ten links.

 

By coincidence The Brennan sensation broke around the First Anniversary of the OFT pronouncement, for which I wrote a piece The First Anniversary.

 

Latest links found from Google:

 

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=448336&in_page_id=1770

 

http://news.sky.com/skynews/xml/article/0,,91070-1176387979,00.html?f=mf

 

BBC website - lawyer trying to force banks to reveal costs - Page ...

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2447665.ece

 

http://www.ifsconline.ie/reuters/full_story.html?story=MTFH18783_2007-04-11_16-28-38_L11657678&picture=

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=420655&page=4

12-04-2007, 9:23 AM #80

Dangle_kt

 

My Sister lives in Dublin and they only get charged £3.50.

Do you think the banks over there LOOSE money??? Of Course not!

They have just made the decision NOT to milk people who can least afford it!

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Radio 4 audio interview on the doorsteps of Guildhall last Friday described how Tom went alone into court to face 3 NatWest barristers ("a lot more than that" said Tom).

 

So that this courageous 30-year-old from Lewisham (in difficulties within the past 6 years) lacks nothing in backup, research, and counsel, is it time on D-Day minus 15 for CAG to open a Brennan Fighting Fund to help him in his and our battle against sophisticated NatWest battalions?

 

Tom has my £10 this day without hesitation.

 

But Bankfodder, where should I send it?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you terry1!

 

Though be careful - the charges are unlawful, not illegal (yet!) - there is a difference

 

Best of luck to you and your friends

 

:)

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

If you missed our Tom on the radio at the weekend, the most interesting thing he said about last week's court appearance was that Natwest's big bucks legal suits applied to have the case thrown out as the claim had been settled in full (forced into his account and then promptly closed down).

 

Brennan then entered a late deposition showing that there was 3 months interest still outstanding, which kept the case alive. Just how bright are these lawyers? Well at a reputed £1200 an hour, you can't expect them to everything right can you.

 

 

 

BBC Radio Player

Link to post
Share on other sites

have nat west settled?? just caught tail end of something on bbc, did anyone hear anything?

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybelline,

 

No news yet from the 2 hot sources:

 

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

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

 

 

However, another case (not Tom) came to a head at 3:30 pm today:

 

record settlement by NatWest at £35,988

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6559673.stm

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybelline,

 

No news yet from the 2 hot sources:

 

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

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

 

 

However, another case (not Tom) came to a head at 3:30 pm today:

 

record settlement by NatWest at £35,988

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6559673.stm

 

whoops, must have caught the end of the other case, anyway, best of luck to Tom!

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see that when the BBC run the story - BBC NEWS | Business | Man recovers £35,988 from NatWest - they post a link to CAG !

 

 

35k and they settled to save their costs. WHAT A LOAD OF BOL***

Whatever I post is my opinion and should be taken as such, an opinion. While it is what I believe and is offered in good faith, it should not be taken as a statement of truth

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...