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

[ncf355]

Fair point well made there sir!

[Sparkie1723]

nfc255

Limit on bank charges, I don't know how everyone else feels but I reckon £5 should be tops....and should be made law not just "suggested" as by the OFT...anyone disagree?

Back to Tom Brennan ...I tip my hat to him... I'll open his car door for him and give up my seat to him on the bus or train.

I wish him the more than I wish myself and .....thats a lot!!!!!!..

 

sparkie1723

[un1boy]

What date is it adjourned til?

[elizabeth1]

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

 

 

Well - I hope Tom Brennan wins his case!! Good Luck to him.

 

It takes a very strong man to stand up for something like this - I really wish more people were as strong.

[matt_smith2000]

Latest from the BBC Website:

 

BBC NEWS | Business | NatWest 'abused' overdraft fees

[crfx250]

Latest from the BBC Website:

 

BBC NEWS | Business | NatWest 'abused' overdraft fees

 

 

Yeah that fooled me earlier. It's not updated yet

[kennyh]

Johno,

The Government and the banks may be twisted and immoral but....

Wots this 'may'!!!

[Bookworm]

Johno,

 

Wots this 'may'!!!

 

It's a wise precaution so that this site can not be done for libel.

[Mistermind]

BBC NEWS | Business | Judge attacks 'time-wasting' bank

 

Last Updated: Friday, 27 April 2007, 11:31 GMT 12:31 UK

 

Judge attacks 'time-wasting' bank

By Ian Pollock

Personal finance reporter, BBC News

 

Vivien Lloyd is ecstatic at winning her case - and costs as well

 

A judge has ordered Lloyds TSB to pay the costs of a customer who sued for the return of overdraft fees, because the bank had wasted the court's time.

 

Judge Andrew Kearney, at Bristol County Court, ordered the bank to pay £85.41 for "acting unreasonably".

He said the bank had had no intention of defending in court the claim, by Vivien Lloyd, for the refund of £655.

It is thought to be only the second time that a court has awarded costs in these circumstances.

 

Vivien, who lives in Bristol, had been outraged that her bank had procrastinated for nearly a year before offering to pay her, so she wrote to Judge Andrew Kearney to complain.

 

The defendant acted unreasonably in defending the claim without any intention of allowing the matter to trial

Judge Andrew Kearney

 

He agreed and awarded her some of her costs for preparing her case.

"The terrible stress it put me through - it was driving me mad," said Vivien.

"I'm absolutely ecstatic - it was our living money, our food money," she added.

 

Costs

 

The costs were mainly run up by Vivien's son Gary, who spent many hours in the past year writing to Lloyds TSB, researching the law in his spare time using the internet, and preparing to sue the bank in Bristol County Court.

 

The court order said Lloyds bank had behaved "unreasonably".

 

His mother had first written to the bank in March 2006, simply asking for her money back. It refused, arguing all along that its overdraft charges were fair and transparent, and in line with the standard agreement it has with its customers for running their current accounts.

 

But in February this year, with one week to go before the scheduled court hearing, Lloyds bank caved in and paid the £655 that Vivien was claiming.

"It was very daunting - but perseverance and encouragement has made it all worthwhile," said Gary.

"It is such a step in the right direction."

Vivien and Gary then claimed for 30 hours of preparatory work, but in the end the judge allowed them just five hours costs, amounting to £85.41.

......

 

Leeds

 

It has become standard practice for banks to cave in and settle any legal claims for the refund of excessive overdraft charges, just days before the claims are due to be heard in court.

 

A spectacular example of this came on Thursday of this week at the Leeds Mercantile Court.

Originally, 77 claims were listed for trial, all involving people reclaiming overdraft charges from their banks.

By the start of the day some had been settled, with 43 remaining to be heard.

 

But as the day wore on, and with the judge being forced to announce several adjournments, all the cases were eventually settled in favour of the claimants - including one for £12,000.

 

Wasted costs order

 

All this has been annoying some members of the judiciary.

In January, a district judge in Lincoln threatened to strike out the defences put forward by banks in the future, unless they could prove they would actually turn up to contest the cases.

The judge said at the time that he thought some banks were abusing the legal process.

 

The Consumer Action Group, which has been leading the campaign against the banks' overdraft fees, has now posted Vivien and Gary Lloyd's costs claim on its website to encourage other successful claimants to gain a court order for wasted time as well.

 

In March, a 37-year-old man from Norfolk, Andrew Banner, had to threaten to call in bailiffs before the Abbey bank would pay him £30 in court costs. He had run up the expense because he had been forced to go to court just to make the bank supply him with account statements going back over 18 months, so he could then calculate exactly how much the Abbey had been over charging him.

[kennyh]

Sorry Booky - I is suitably chastened!

[Guest bong]

deleted - sorry its already been posted above

[Guest bong]

case adjourned until a date yet to be decided

 

Bank fights to halt test case | This is Money

[Shoestring]

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.

 

I entirely agree with you except for the bit about the judiciary being got at -- easiest thing in the world to do at that level is to elicit a favour in return for a favour. One needs only look at the chaos of finding a Coroner to sit and stay at the Princess Di inquest to have glimpses of what goes on behind the scenes with our esteemed legal system.

 

No jumping to conclusions on my part re Brennan, merely raising the spectre of what could be - in this dirty old business world of ours.

 

Meanwhile, the comments made by NatWest in the story linked above bear a telling mark. For me at least. NatWest's statement:

 

Quote

 

Instead, the bank says, the issue of penalty charges, which critics say do not reflect the true cost to banks, should be left to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), which recently announced a probe.

 

Unquote

 

Makes me feel warm all over to know that NatWest trust the OFT to reach an impartial decision - only the dregs of society would see this as a collusive nod and a wink between the banks and the "I am not persuaded" regulatory mob.

 

Yours in dregs...

 

Shoestring

[jules1973]

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

 

 

Thanks Bookworm,

 

I would LOVE to get to the court stage and get my money back, but cannot seem to get to first base with Abbey. I have emailed them and threatend to report them to the ICO as I am still waiting on 3yrs worth of statements.

 

Re Tom Brennan - I hope he wins - have we had a date of when the case is being heard again?

[Isiris]

case adjourned until a date yet to be decided

 

Bank fights to halt test case | This is Money

 

 

 

Why do they say High Court and Legal precedent then in the same paragraph say it was in County Court?

[johno1066]

Johno,

 

Wots this 'may'!!!

 

 

Good point, i'm too polite for my own good

[johno1066]

I entirely agree with you except for the bit about the judiciary being got at -- easiest thing in the world to do at that level is to elicit a favour in return for a favour. One needs only look at the chaos of finding a Coroner to sit and stay at the Princess Di inquest to have glimpses of what goes on behind the scenes with our esteemed legal system.

 

I know Shoestring, I just can't/don't want to believe that our judiciary can be so easily got at. They are at the moment, our only bastion against the ever domineering state and we have to have faith in something. Some of the decisions have gone in our favour to be fair. I just wish there were more Judges like John Deed personally.

[meagain]

Instead, the bank says, the issue of penalty charges, which critics say do not reflect the true cost to banks, should be left to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), which recently announced a probe.

 

They can't have it both ways. They can't say "let's leave this to the OFT" and then refuse to acknowledge its findings when they are published.

[PPMAN159]

Bet they try!!!

[johno1066]

The OFT are a Quango, they have to operate within the law, it is for the Court to decide whether the Banks penalties are lawful. IMO, I detect a hint of despartion on the banks' part.

[Guest bong]

another report

 

Banks 'above the law', says NatWest claimant | Saving and banks | Guardian Unlimited Money

[johno1066]

'Our' Mr Brennan made some very good points in reply.

[kennyh]

Instead, the bank says, the issue of penalty charges, which critics say do not reflect the true cost to banks, should be left to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), which recently announced a probe.

Errrr - wot about the banks et al abiding by the OFT ruling on ERCs!!!!

Is this a case of 'having ones cake and....'

[bennyowen]

'Our' Mr Brennan made some very good points in reply.

 

Any sane human being will understand that the banks are fighting a lossing game.

 

Mr Brennan has done a good job, the Judge has some decision to make. In reality, I think the bank is putting up a desperate fight.

 

Whether he wins or not, it will not stop the onslot that has been unleashed on the banks.

[meagain]

Errrr - wot about the banks et al abiding by the OFT ruling on ERCs!!!!

Is this a case of 'having ones cake and....'

 

No, it's a cake of the banks wanting to eat their cake and have it still.(?)