Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
  • 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 5941 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

Agreed and I have said on another thread Tom is either very confident or extremely foolish.

 

I still feel that if Nasty Vest fel that they can justify the charges, which is not the sole issue with Toms case, then why have they not do so up to now?

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

If as MisterMind has said Tom has only recently qualified and as such must be short of the readies and if Nasty Vest offer him a vast sum of cash then would he be tempted to accept it?

 

Whichever way it goes on the 30th someone is going to be leaving court with a bloody nose.

PPMAN159

 

If this comment has helped please click on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much would Natwest pay to end this case with a Confidentiality clause?

Everyone has a price, I hope Tom will continue in his beliefs and carry on.

 

I think we're into blank cheque territory there.

 

At the end of the day, Natwest is responsible to it's shareholders. How long before they rebel over the cost of unnecessarily defending these claims?

Advice given is either my experience or my opinion and is given without liability. If in doubt, consult a qualified professional.

If you PM me for advice I will only reply in your own thread

 

Never under estimate your ability. I won over £17,000!

For the full story - look here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/NatWest-bank/17630-thecobbettslayer-NatWest.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, Natwest is responsible to it's shareholders. How long before they rebel over the cost of unnecessarily defending these claims?

 

I have thought this all along, it costs them to drag it out to court rather than settle at the beginning.

I suppose until the balance swings that more people go all the way than setle early this parctice will continue

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also at this late stage Nasty Vest cannot be seen to back down.

 

As such I feel they will keep fighting each case, no matter how small

PPMAN159

 

If this comment has helped please click on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is too late for NatWest, what Tom discovered cannot now be undiscovered. If NatWest were to outdo the Abbey in placating Stephen with fivefold payment, the whole world will deduce what has happened, confidentiality clause or not.

 

If one litigant bows out, a hundred can take his place. The idea of uncovering unlawful charges by suing for exemplary damages cannot be patented.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read my thread, I have made it very clear that what I got was a buy off. There was no mathematical basis to the settlement. It was a calculated risk on Natwests part. Had I refused they would have had to disclose or ask a judge to consider the offer as reasonable and enforce it. Neither of us could take the risk of pushing it any further.

 

I should also reiterate that I am totally against the idea of exemplary damages in bank charges cases. Once you have the money back with interest you have suffered no loss.

Advice given is either my experience or my opinion and is given without liability. If in doubt, consult a qualified professional.

If you PM me for advice I will only reply in your own thread

 

Never under estimate your ability. I won over £17,000!

For the full story - look here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/NatWest-bank/17630-thecobbettslayer-NatWest.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just noticed this and its very interesting, I havent actually read Tom's original thread and i've had to skim this, so can someone tell me why he got 4k when his claim was actually for 2.5k?

 

This can go 2 ways, somewhere someone said it could cause the government to implement a new clause because of this, which is true but @ the same time if he wins....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also reiterate that I am totally against the idea of exemplary damages in bank charges cases. Once you have the money back with interest you have suffered no loss.

 

exemplary damages are not designed to compensate for loss; they are punative and designed to "punish" the wrongdoer.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

90 minutes, and I have caught up with all postings on Paul's 8-month war with NatWest, ending in £17K victory. With so much time, effort, risk and emotion invested in the fight celebrations are well merited, very well done to Paul and Mrs for the staying power and for sidestepping traps.

 

Has anyone kept a diary of the man-hours invested in tussles with bankers and lawyers? Hours spent fighting the Dark Side are hours taken away from other activities. Sure, great victories have been won, but at great cost. I am not sure an objective audit would conclude "Once you have the money back with interest you have suffered no loss."

 

If I had spent 8 months in an all-engrossing tussle then won £17K, I would have made a loss on the deal. Questionable if I can afford such a win.

 

Twelve months after the OFT pronouncement of 5th April 2006, how goes the war? Are banks winning, or are claimants winning? Less than 1% of unlawful charges have been refunded in 12 months. Unless Tom Brennan wins a watershed victory for the public, 100,000 separate tug-of-wars will continue indefinitely the same way they have done for 12 months. A penetrating analysis of the Dark Side's War Plan is quoted below.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/42507-cprs-time-delays.html

 

The courts are ultra conservative and always will be. You file for a judgement; they file for a set aside. You obtain a judgement and file for a warrant of execution; they file for a stay of execution.

 

You have to play the long game, civil law is very civilised and breaching an order like this will not mean a great deal, Cobbetts know this which is why they do it with impunity.

 

Exercise patience, do not get emotionally involved and keep playing the game. Nat West have the money, they can afford this, but they can also afford to tie you up in court until you get bored if they so wish - and if it did not go their way and it looked like they might lose, they'd pay up and not feel a thing.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that exemplary damages should be awarded for the very actions pward 33 states ....to punish the wrongdoer.....it is abundantly clear that the Banks have been "doing wrongs" for a considerable amount of time by making these excessive charges ....but if the they were punished for it they would think again. if tey were punished financially for them they would quit very fast because the shareholders would not like their return in their investmenst hit.

Sparkie1723

Link to post
Share on other sites

also on the point of damages and who and what has been lost, well i can ony speak for myself but at the time the halifax and MBNA together decided to make my life a misery it brought me to my knees, and to be honest i lost alot more than anyone would ever know. (and dont want to dwell on right now TBH)

 

but i dont think the court would be able to repay me for what was cused as a direct result of what they did.

 

IMHO

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

Exemplary damages. Nat West ruined my business, my marriage and my life. Where would i start ? My business was decimated in the Foot and Mouth epidemic. We pumped thousands and thousands of pounds to pay their charges and keep afloat.

All i can say is if this guy Brennan,( whatever his motiffs are.) can just scare the pants off Nat West and force them into a corner. He's alright by me.

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

Parkvale,

 

Shylock Bank did all this while wearing the righteous cloak of the law.

 

Their six-figure-salaried lawyers will have known for decades they were quietly getting away with the unlawful, and on this very day openly getting away with the unlawful.

 

A chapter in the history of this green and pleasant land that needs to be cleansed.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are reaping what they have sowed. You are quite right my freind. action-smiley-033.gif

PPman you are also spot - on.

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

For those (and me included) who were wondering why this case is reported to hold such significance if successfull, when it's being heard in the lowly non-precedent setting county court, here's how the lad himself see's it:

 

''Given the number of issues in this case, the detail of evidence, and the importance of the case, it is likely to moved onto the multi-track, so it may well be listed in the High Court. In any event, a ruling on the lawfulness of the charges by a judge is binding until it is over-turned. This case will probably go to appeal, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords eventually ruled on it.''

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also he said..

 

Speaking after the session, Mr Brennan said he was "massively disappointed".

He added: "It should be noted that any delay is going to assist the defendants because only six years of charges can be made.

He wants to come on and have a read of this thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/announcement.php?f=22&a=80

 

:p:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...