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

[PPMAN159]

Don

 

Are you telling us that you have subscribed to something or do you want us to subscribe?

[humbleman]

NatWest Try To Get Charges Case Thrown Out - UK News Headlines

 

 

At the Mayor and City of London County Court today, Ben Pilling, counsel for NatWest, said: "Mr Brennan bought a claim to recover bank charges which had been applied to his current account, and which he believes are unfair.

 

"The defendant [NatWest] does not accept that its charges are unfair.

 

"The amount of money that has been repaid to Mr Brennan is well in excess of the amount of money claimed.

 

"Mr Brennan wants the case to go to trial because he sees it as a test case and want to establish a principle. To that aim, he wants to introduce a number of elements, namely exemplary and aggravated damages.

 

"In my submission these elements of Mr Brennan's claim are contrived. The court ought not to entertain his proposition that this case ought to continue as a test case.

 

"It is not for Mr Brennan to set himself up as a consumer champion. Parliament has created a statutory body to safeguard the interests of consumers.

 

"Of critical relevance is that the OFT is engaged at the moment in an investigation of the charges that Mr Brennan finds exceptional.

 

"It would serve no useful purpose either for Mr Brennan or other consumers for Mr Brennan's case to be allowed to continue. In fact it would be a very expensive waste of time and resources."

 

Mr Pilling argued there was no legal basis to support Mr Brennan's assertion that the bank should pay exemplary damages, which are payable when one party deliberately inflicts harm on another, or aggravated damages, which relate to the manner in which harm is done.

 

Mr Brennan will put his side of the argument this afternoon.

 

The hearing continues

[Shoestring]

Ladies and gentlemen, no "bashing" of Brennan intended. For me he is an unknown quantity. I don't know if he is as the media portray him or not. But it does no harm to raise theoretical possibilities since forewarned is forearmed. Admittedly, and for my sins, I have a very active imagination but, then again, this acuity has been honed by many years in the wilderness.

 

As I said earlier, I hope Brennan is on the level and that he does win. But with the massive sums at stake I wouldn't put a legal stitch up being enacted. England's Establishment (of which the legal profession sits at the epicentre) is extremely adept at such tricks, having had hundreds of years to perfect them.

 

Anyway, time will be the arbiter. Meanwhile, hope springs eternal.

 

Shoestring

[PPMAN159]

Interesting defence from Nasty Vest.

 

If they do not feel that the charges that Tom,or anyone else, has paid are not unfair I hope that the judge feels fit to ask them to justify this thinking.

[crfx250]

Just done a google search on Ben Pilling, Brennans opponent in court. I think it's this guy http://www.4pumpcourt.com/Default.aspx?sID=797&cID=72&ctID=36

 

His chums seem to rate him if you look at the bottom

[PPMAN159]

Certainly is well qualified and well liked by his peers.

 

Could be an interesting battle between Ben and Tom

[crfx250]

He looks a bit shifty to me...would'nt buy a used car from him

[Lula]

Certainly is well qualified and well liked by his peers.

 

Could be an interesting battle between Ben and Tom

 

 

not bad looking either

 

and I thought that alot of this consumer stuff was actually started by one person not necessarily setting himself up as a consumer champion, but by trying to redress a percieved wrong, so I would imagine first blood to our Tom

[Lula]

I rather think that our Tom's court battle is going to be overshadowed somewhat by todays events

[Guest bong]

I think its been adjourned again for later in the week

[Bookworm]

Does anyone have a view on the following?

 

If the court does rule that the banks have to disclose the true cost of charges and then Abbey do decide to start actually going into the courtroom to defend, will the courts not then decide that abbey have to pay us the difference between the true cost and what they charged us?

 

No. A penalty clause is non-enforceable in its entirety.

[Lula]

why?

[Bookworm]

Because the UTCCR say so.

[crfx250]

BBC NEWS | Business | Bank charges case goes to court

[Lula]

Because the UTCCR say so.

 

 

noooo Doofus, i meant why has it been postponed again:D

[Lula]

BBC NEWS | Business | Bank charges case goes to court

 

I dont think that this has been updated from last week:rolleyes:

[Bookworm]

@ me and doofus.

[Lula]

@ me and doofus.

 

 

PMSL

[crfx250]

I dont think that this has been updated from last week:rolleyes:

 

yep...false start

[Shoestring]

From the BBC news link posted above:

 

Quote:

 

Last week, the Office of Fair Trading said it would review the UK current account market to establish whether the industry's claim that it offers free banking is in fact correct.

 

Unquote

 

Watch as another two years meander by while OFT try to find their ass with both hands -- and predictably fail - higher bank charges all round for having an account.

 

Shoestring

[Sparkie1723]

With reference to what the guy from the Nat West said about deliberate harm to someone .

It could be argued that by penlising someone by forcing them to pay a "punishing penalty" charge thats what a penalty is, and penalise comes from the word "penal".

So loss of use of the penalty fee money harms the persons pocket and the ability to have the use of it, this type of punishment does cause harm to someone it does not have to be phsysical harm like a smack in the face. does it, or does it? Just my penneth for what its worth I'm no lawyer just a "Joe Bloggs"

sparkie1723

[angry cat]

I have just been reading Ceefax and...

after a day of Arguments the case has been adjourned!

 

Very Good Luck to you Tom Brennan.

 

AC

[ncf355]

NatWest Try To Get Charges Case Thrown Out - UK News Headlines

 

"It is not for Mr Brennan to set himself up as a consumer champion. Parliament has created a statutory body to safeguard the interests of consumers.

 

"Of critical relevance is that the OFT is engaged at the moment in an investigation of the charges that Mr Brennan finds exceptional.

 

 

Yes, we all know what a good job the statutory body are doing

 

Limit of £12 on card charges (before we intervene) anyone?

 

 

Good on TB I say, good luck that man!

 

 

:evil: P.S: dont even get me started on Trading Standards! :evil:

[Mistermind]

".........

Mr Brennan wants the case to go to trial because he sees it as a test case and want to establish a principle. To that aim, he wants to introduce a number of elements, namely exemplary and aggravated damages.

 

"In my submission these elements of Mr Brennan's claim are contrived. The court ought not to entertain his proposition that this case ought to continue as a test case.

 

"It is not for Mr Brennan to set himself up as a consumer champion. Parliament has created a statutory body to safeguard the interests of consumers.

 

"Of critical relevance is that the OFT is engaged at the moment in an investigation of the charges that Mr Brennan finds exceptional.

 

"It would serve no useful purpose either for Mr Brennan or other consumers for Mr Brennan's case to be allowed to continue. In fact it would be a very expensive waste of time and resources."

 

 

Mr Pilling rather cleverly tried to typecast Tom in a role which Tom even more intelligently anticipated and sidestepped. Thus far

 

(1) Tom totally refused financial and other help from members of the public who might perceive agreement or common interest arising from Tom's action. On his website he declared that should the worst come to the worst and he loses with costs awarded against him, he will go bankrupt rather than accept donations from the public, in order to pay NatWest's costs.

 

(2) Tom totally abstained from public posting on CAG Forum or any other website or media, or engaging in dialogue with the public via essays in the press as spokesman of a common cause, despite a substantial press corp following him.

 

(3) However the public might view his case, by his conduct and restraint Tom has shown he is conducting his private case for private reasons without consultation with the public or with CAG. There is no evidence of Tom arrogating to himself the role of public spokesman. There is clear blue water between Tom's private case and any public campaign. Mr Pilling's suggestion that the existence of the OFT ought to inhibit the continuance of Tom's private case is therefore irrelevant and mischievous.

 

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

 

My respect and regard to Tom.

[johno1066]

From the BBC news link posted above:

 

Quote:

 

Last week, the Office of Fair Trading said it would review the UK current account market to establish whether the industry's claim that it offers free banking is in fact correct.

 

Unquote

 

Watch as another two years meander by while OFT try to find their ass with both hands -- and predictably fail - higher bank charges all round for having an account.

 

Shoestring

 

 

I have to agree with you here Shoestring, and it does appear rather timely of the OFT to make such a promulgation. In fact I find their interference in full knowledge of the impending Court case quite disgusting, clearly Mr Pilling has capitalised from the statement so draw from that what you will, there is no proof of foul play so we can argue the toss forever. The banks are powerful organisations, with friends in High places, I do not believe however, that the Judiary or this young man has been 'got at'. The Government and the banks may be twisted and immoral but we should not jump to conclusions until proceedings have drawn to a close.