Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • as this situation has now come up again for you, how confident are you that if you get on the straight and narrow with having a respite of 60days (Options for dealing with your debts: Breathing Space (Debt Respite Scheme) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)... would you then be able to resume ok? if not quite honestly, the very best thing you can do is to get ALL your debts defaulted by the issuance of and the registering of a Default Notice from each creditor. this is done by stopping ALL PAYMENTS, it wont hurt you short term, esp as all the debts are still with the Original Creditors. this of course will kill credit for 6yrs, but, will cause the debts to vanish from your file (paid or not, paying or not) on the DN's 6th B'day, but of course that wont mean the debts are not still owed, legally, just your file will be clear of them all. if you read a good 10-20 of the stories in this very same forum you found to start yours, you'll soon get the idea behind the advice given. as for things like IVA/BK etc NEVER EVER do those, that secures unsecured debt. just contact one of the free DMP providers and get breathing space implemented, that gives you a 60 day buffer to firm up your future actions. but DO NOT enter into a DMP, do one yourself. they can be a bit pushy, but simply insist you just want breathing space invoked, i would only be giving them enough info to achieve BS too, don't give them anything you don't need too, they are funded by the banks and debt collectors and can sometimes be over intrusive and nosy wanting info that is better not revealed. dx    
    • “Not realising it was a no parking zone” doesn’t help you if the timing is correct, as (at least, on Google Maps / View) there is clear signage ('7am to midnight', parked at 15:22) What might be worth pursuing is the "ticket handed to driver" aspect : do you have any view on why they would be  stating that?
    • it's 85k of turnover (well, now £90k). However, you're digging yourself into another hole here. That ship has probably long since sailed. Is it worth pursuing this? You're not going to get anything back from it either way.
    • Hi,   A few pointers from yesterday to take note of evris cpr 27.9 failed again so we should really make issue of this also their WX fail to comply with CPR so again we should take issue with their statement of truth  you cant get tort if you get damages under subsection 7 of CRA because its double recovery  - not sure what we think of this? however its the first time i saw the judges make reference to your non automatic rights from s49 which s54 and 57 assist with. We should start stating this specifically for claims as I think its much better than just 49 and 57 as we need to make it clear where our non automatic rights come from as 54 automatic frankly dont help  I have sent the claim form and defences to the admin email because I can’t upload them for some reason as it wont let me but thought this may help as its the first time we’ve taken tort to trial. although i think the DDJ was honestly struggling to understand some parts of the law because he was asking me about them and how he should interpret them, especially for the automatic. Will apply for transcript if you want it?
  • 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

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 5945 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

Seriously though folks, does anyone feel that the bank's

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),
might play to our advantage if this hypocrisy was pointed out to a judge in an ERC action?
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

In terms of the whole "taking a full day and we're still not done", does anyone else get the sense the NatWest barrister may have been filibustering?

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Because the SCC (no precedent set) is only the first step, hopefully so that case can then be transferred to a High Court (precedent).

Link to post
Share on other sites

GO GET THEM TOM....i wish him luck but i am unsure how he is going to break his way thru what may be seen as a corupt old boys club, every bank in the country will be right behind Nastywest and we all know what will happen if he starts to win, someone will pay for a judgement against him and that will be the end of it, Coruption is every where and i doubt he will be protected by the courts, the banks have a lot of money to buy their way through this....

Long time ago in a galaxy FAR FAR AWAY, there lived an elf who shot banks for a living.........

Now through the power of the internet there is the CONSUMER ACTION GROUP,

 

Watch out they are getting crafty those pesky CRITTERS!

 

Banks will tell you their charges are transparent!

So is the invisible man but that does not mean he is fair or lawful.

 

DONT GIVE UP! FOLLOW THE CAG ADVICE AND RECLAIM YOUR CHARGES.

CAPITAL BANK! YOU ARE NEXT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What will it mean if Tom is succesful, will people who have already claimed back their charges be entitled to compensation? or will not have any meaning, and what if he lost, does that mena the end of reclaiming,

Long time ago in a galaxy FAR FAR AWAY, there lived an elf who shot banks for a living.........

Now through the power of the internet there is the CONSUMER ACTION GROUP,

 

Watch out they are getting crafty those pesky CRITTERS!

 

Banks will tell you their charges are transparent!

So is the invisible man but that does not mean he is fair or lawful.

 

DONT GIVE UP! FOLLOW THE CAG ADVICE AND RECLAIM YOUR CHARGES.

CAPITAL BANK! YOU ARE NEXT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he wins I dont think that people who have already claimed will be entitled to any comensation, but people who star their after the ruling will be able to claim.

Personally I think he may win his case over the legality of the bank charges but not his claim for damages, He'll end up like me in my 50% win against the RBOS and he will be liable for 50% of the Banks costs still a lot of money.

 

Thats only my view from a distance no one really knows what sreally being argued in court.

 

All I can say I'm behind him every step " you've gone this far Tom ..Catch em with a "sucker punch" and I hope he does.

sparkie1723

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice for the little man to win in this case, i feel the british public have been taken for a ride by the banks and it is time for us to stand up and be counted....GOOD LUCK TOM, i hope he has a few tricks up his sleeve.

Long time ago in a galaxy FAR FAR AWAY, there lived an elf who shot banks for a living.........

Now through the power of the internet there is the CONSUMER ACTION GROUP,

 

Watch out they are getting crafty those pesky CRITTERS!

 

Banks will tell you their charges are transparent!

So is the invisible man but that does not mean he is fair or lawful.

 

DONT GIVE UP! FOLLOW THE CAG ADVICE AND RECLAIM YOUR CHARGES.

CAPITAL BANK! YOU ARE NEXT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think he may win his case over the legality of the bank charges but not his claim for damages, He'll end up like me in my 50% win against the RBOS and he will be liable for 50% of the Banks costs still a lot of money.

But surely if he loses the claim that aggravated/exemplary damages applies the courts will not be asked to rule on the legality of the bank charges?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No not really his case is primarly for the legality of the bank charges to then get his damages he must first get this ruling (in his favour).

 

My case heard in the High Court was brought by me under the data protection Act I won that I then had to prove my damage claims, but because I was not a barrister and able to quote all the precedents etc etc because I didnt have the knowledge to search in the right places for them,

I could not convince the judge fully, he said he could see "where I was coming from" but had not FULLY convinced him,

 

the point here is he must get his ruling on the Bank charges FIRST before he can progress to his damage claim.

 

sparkie1723

Link to post
Share on other sites

But can't NatWest take the point of view that they have offered more than the damages - so that if aggravated/exemplary damages were not applicable then there is no need to rule on the legality issue at all

Link to post
Share on other sites

The court MUST hear the First part of his claim which I believe is the legality of the charges, it MUST be heard ( thats if the court rules there is a case to be heard)..........unless the bank caves in and admits they are unlawful...that is the only way the bank can stop the damage charges suit being heard .......which there is no chance of that happening, because then he can hit them with his damage claims this is only my personal view based on my own personal experience last month.

sparkie1723

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just about to file my MBNA claim (N1) for a case of charges and mis-sold PPI, which totals about £3000, though with the CI, costs, aggravated, exemplory damages and costs it comes in at about £12500 :-o

 

Lets see how MBNA take this news :p

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

Just about to file my MBNA claim (N1) for a case of charges and mis-sold PPI, which totals about £3000, though with the CI, costs, aggravated, exemplory damages and costs it comes in at about £12500 :-o

Do you have a thread on this anywhere?

 

I would like to know what basis you have used for putting a figure on the exemplary and aggravated damages

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any advice given is purely my opinion and not based on any legal fact unless referenced with a case. Follow my advice at your own risk. Although the fact may be correct, my interpretation and therefore findings may not

 

Barclays - £391 Just getting started

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/144290-chris-barclays-take-2-a.html

 

Barclays - £760 Settled in full

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/17995-chris-barclays-bank.html

 

Barclaycard - £100 settled in full

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/17996-chris-barclaycard.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daily Mail article Tuesday May 1st. quote "the bank forced him to accept almost £4,000 in repayment by transferring the money into his account 'without my permission, without any explanation and against my express wishes'.Mr Brennan said "The defendant is not entitled to force money into an account and then to use that as a basis to strike out a claim. It is an abuse of the bank's power". Now I am in this situation whereby cap one have paid off my credit card in order to wiggle out of paying contractual interest, has anyone got any ideas, can they really not legally do this and would a judge find this unacceptable?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they have paid the charges back to your card, if (and only if!), your particulars of claim contain contractual interest you proceed with the claim to retrieve the amount you have claimed

 

I'm assuming here you already entered the POC prior to the refund?

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

Yep, N1 filed, POC v.clearly states contractual interest and this has been claimed from the outset (preliminary letter). Cap One regularly pay out on contractual - am annoyed today as have made it v.clear to cap one I do not accept their payment either verbally or written and that if they have credited this account to now take it back, have also sent the cheque back which they have received. Am continuing my claim but they have this morning stated in their allocation questionnaire that they have paid this claim in full. Just wondered if they could actually try a put money in your account, it seems Tom Brennan doesn't think so, ordinarily when accepting an offer you have to sign an acceptance form from them.:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem then mate!

 

They can put down what they like, you just make it clear to the court that as far as you are concerned the claim is still valid

 

Theyll soon write to you with the offer for the contractual

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

Hello. Cap 1 owe me quite a large amount and sent me a very small cheque along with a form to sign and say I accepted. I wrote back and said I would accept the amount towards the total and deduct it from the court total but said I would not be signing the form and although I accepted the cheque it was in no way to be construed that I had accepted this as a full and final settlement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously accepted as a partial settlement, I did not accept as partial as I wanted my claim to stay intact because of the contractual element of the claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

 

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

.........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's submission that

the court should defer to the OFT

is a mischievous diversion -- the OFT having already pronounced on 5th April 2006 that

the OFT defers to the court.

 

Nor has Mr Pilling's client in May 2007 complied with the £12 OFT intervention threshold, deadline 31st May 2006.

 

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

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2006/68-06

“The OFT now expects all credit card issuers to recalculate their default charges in line with the principles set out in a statement published today and to take urgent action where needed to reduce the level of credit card default fees. The industry has until 31 May (2006) to respond to the statement. These principles also apply to default charges in other consumer contracts such as those for bank overdrafts, store cards and mortgages…..

 

Only a court can finally decide whether a charge is unfair or not……

John Fingleton, OFT Chief Executive, 5th April 2006

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

That is an interesting interpretation, because the bank responded the OFT report by that date that it would lower the charges on credit cards which is what it did, the OFT did not state that they must lower to that threshold by that date. It says the principal applies not that they had looked into it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...