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

[Sparkie1723]

Mistermind

Answer to your second question ......maybe with a pre marital contract to some good terms & conditions... :D sparkie1723

[Shoestring]

They don't appear to be the sharpest tools in the box as they don't seem, like their current penalty charges, to have considered that.

 

Perhaps they are smarter than you give them credit for. I alluded in my earlier post about an exercise they almost certainly would have undertaken - perhaps years ago - where they would have had either internal or external number-crunchers estimate the cost of paying out claimants in a worst case scenario, versus revenue they have gained and used over the six odd years to date. The exercise I am talking about is known as actuarial risk assessment. It is common usage in moth big business sectors.

 

It was made famous by one of the American car giants who manufactured a faulty car that under certain circumstances (when the winker was engaged to turn right and the car was hit in the rear -- I think this was how it happened), then the petrol tank exploded. The actuarial assessment looked at the total cost of the product recall to fix the flaw versus the cost of paying out damages in court cases at some future date. It proved cheaper, by a fairly large margin, to let people die or suffer severe injuries as a result of the design flaw, rather than recall the product range for (fairly simple and cheap) modification. And so the car was not recalled.

 

I am no expert on the law (as is fairly obvious, I think) but in the US it is quite usual for situations where there are numerous litigants, for a sharp law firm to establish itself as the lead firm in a class action lawsuit where they ultimately represent all litigants. This allows all sorts of "accomodations" between the lead law firm and the defendants where an acceptable minimum sum is paid to each claimant, while the law firm walks away with a fortune...

 

I have no idea if class action lawsuits can (or even do) occur in the UK but I sincerely hope not!

 

Shoestring

[setmefree]

Well shoestring you have some valid points there.

So would the same conditions apply to an overdraft i.e no CCA applicable ,the case could be argued that the bank placed the money into an account as a goodwill gesture. no signature no proof.

[Shoestring]

Sorry, setmefree, but I don't really follow the point you're making?

 

Shoestring

[Mistermind]

Sparkie, essential no unlawful penalties in the Pre-Nup contract.

[setmefree]

Quite simple banks aint that clever,if a bank took you to court over an overdraft ,where would their proof come from in the first place that they loaned you the extra money in your account on an overdraft situation. no signature or agreement ??

[joneshousehold]

Shoestring, do you think the banks would have estimated such a lot of interest in the charges scenario. I had always thought that such estimates would have been based on quite a minimal take up which may prove to be a woeful underestimate. If Tom Brennan is victorious and the OFT give a damming report, the Govt may be forced to take firm action. I know that pigs are more likely to fly but it could happen. There must be a break even point in this number crunching that the banks would have done.

I do agree that they must have known and they must have weighed up the costs of being found out. What we really need is a way of proving they knew, then the whole thing becomes a different matter. I realise that this is another pig flying situation but really it must be becoming more and more difficult for the banks to hold the line they are doing because there may eventually come along a judge who pushes them to the limit and beyond.

[joneshousehold]

Setmefree, many of the court actions by banks to recover debts simply adopt the approach of pursuading the debtor to admit the debt. In the past most debtors have done so and the lenders have not had to produce any proof. There may be a sea change on here but I suspect it is only a trickle compared to the full number of such court actions. In the same way as Shoestring suggests a costing will be undertaken for those not prepared to admit the debt, the banks will have identified that the cost to them of that happening is not as high as the cost of keeping or at times putting into place all the relevant documentation. Let's hope we can help more and more helpless debtors forced into this endless spiral by excessive charges into fighting the might of the creditors and a good way to start is the force them to prove the debt in court. This in tandem with a claim for refund of charges will put the creditors in a very difficult if not impossible position.

[delboytrotter]

I believe the banks will start charging for there services, e.g direct debits etc etc, and by doing so they will undue the goverments hard work in persuading everyone to pay electronically, i would be happy to go to the bank once a week and withdraw my wages and pay my bills the old fashioned way but in doing so i feel i would have to be paid on a weekly basis as the charges for bacs payments etc would be back.....

I think the banks have had their day, now that they have let this go on they are up paddle creak without a s&*%. If the banks are found to be unlawfully charging then i think it would only be a matter of time until they were forced to automatically hand back all the charges and if they are found to be as the OFT has already said still making unlawful charges then the issue would not be time barred either so in time the banks may need to pay back a long way!

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

The statement that the banks must have costed being found out ignores one very important point. That is that they are unbelievably arrogant. I suspect they probably thought they would never be caught

[joneshousehold]

They may not yet, to be caught there would have to be proof they knew, until that happens each claim is still on the assumption of innocence

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

For criminal yes (beyond doubt) for civil no (probabilities). If there is a judgment against them then that would be the next question "Did you know what you were doing when you imposed these unlawful charges" "In other words did you take legal advice" You claim you didn't! then don't you think you may have failed in your fudiciary duty to your shareholders"?

 

Or "you did take legal advice". "From whom & what did they advise"?

[joneshousehold]

It's just that it is a big leap for any judge to look at the next question. The bank would say that the legal advice they received told them it was OK to impose these charges. Without proof otherwise that statement would likely be accepted.

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

In the face of all the overwhelming evidence including their failure to defend, & the circumstances it wouldn't.

 

They could & probably would be required to produce it and/or the source of that advice to the court.

 

If they claimed such a defence in their evidence then it would not be privileged

[joneshousehold]

Wouldn't the advice be privileged though and so the courts would be prevented from ordering disclosure?

 

D'Oh just read your post again - not sure now!!!

[pugsley]

Perhaps they are smarter than you give them credit for. I alluded in my earlier post about an exercise they almost certainly would have undertaken - perhaps years ago - where they would have had either internal or external number-crunchers estimate the cost of paying out claimants in a worst case scenario, versus revenue they have gained and used over the six odd years to date. The exercise I am talking about is known as actuarial risk assessment. It is common usage in moth big business sectors.

 

It was made famous by one of the American car giants who manufactured a faulty car that under certain circumstances (when the winker was engaged to turn right and the car was hit in the rear -- I think this was how it happened), then the petrol tank exploded. The actuarial assessment looked at the total cost of the product recall to fix the flaw versus the cost of paying out damages in court cases at some future date. It proved cheaper, by a fairly large margin, to let people die or suffer severe injuries as a result of the design flaw, rather than recall the product range for (fairly simple and cheap) modification. And so the car was not recalled.

 

I am no expert on the law (as is fairly obvious, I think) but in the US it is quite usual for situations where there are numerous litigants, for a sharp law firm to establish itself as the lead firm in a class action lawsuit where they ultimately represent all litigants. This allows all sorts of "accomodations" between the lead law firm and the defendants where an acceptable minimum sum is paid to each claimant, while the law firm walks away with a fortune...

 

I have no idea if class action lawsuits can (or even do) occur in the UK but I sincerely hope not!

 

Shoestring

 

 

 

As far as I aware there is no class action available in the UK although it has been debated for the future, Some European countries now allow class action, like the film you are talking of. I actually think class action would be a great development in this country.

[Shoestring]

Quite simple banks aint that clever,if a bank took you to court over an overdraft ,where would their proof come from in the first place that they loaned you the extra money in your account on an overdraft situation. no signature or agreement ??

 

I understand only from reading various items on this site that a signed agreement must be provided in order to pursue the matter legally. This agreement (overdraft interest) I would hazard, would form part of the documents you signed when originally setting up the account. However, I am also aware that a lot of these hard copy agreements aren't properly kept and I presume it is this that you are referring to?

 

If that is the point you're making, I'm afraid I can't answer for you on that. Also, don't get me wrong -- banks like any large organisation has an infinite ability to cock things up but saying that is not the same as saying they are fools (their immense wealth and asset bas proves you wrong). They operate on the law of returns rather than on the law of record keeping.

 

Hope this helps

 

Shoestring

 

PS, btw I'm not here to defend them...just in case you thought that was the case? But don't underestimate thy enemy eh. In general I am a firm believer that banks opeate disgracefully, sometimes unlawfully, sometimes illegally and sometimes even bordering on treason. "Profit above all other things" is what makes them tick.

[Shoestring]

Shoestring, do you think the banks would have estimated such a lot of interest in the charges scenario. I had always thought that such estimates would have been based on quite a minimal take up which may prove to be a woeful underestimate. If Tom Brennan is victorious and the OFT give a damming report, the Govt may be forced to take firm action. I know that pigs are more likely to fly but it could happen. There must be a break even point in this number crunching that the banks would have done.

I do agree that they must have known and they must have weighed up the costs of being found out. What we really need is a way of proving they knew, then the whole thing becomes a different matter. I realise that this is another pig flying situation but really it must be becoming more and more difficult for the banks to hold the line they are doing because there may eventually come along a judge who pushes them to the limit and beyond.

 

Very intersting points you raise joneshousehold. The brief answer is I don't know. But I can make some educated guesses. The first thing to bear in mind is that bankers are the ones who make the decision what interest rates will be in the future, so I suspect that they can "project" a band of interest rates to some future date quite simply. Also, how they might "utilise" the money made available to them is quite likely to have borne a much higher return than LIBOR plus a few ticks or so. For example, look at the very high returns generated by the credit card industry. But overseas business can generate far higher returns also. There are infinite ways to increase revenue. Some of which are not very nice but are quite profitable.

 

Personally I doubt you will ever found out what they actually knew. Bankers keep secrets far better than governments do, in my opinion. Being domiciled in multiple jurisdictions around the world has its uses, I think.

 

I am not quite so sanguine as you and others are that things will eventually be sorted out fairly. I do not believe that history reflects this hope. Rather history suggests the opposite. But then what we believe to be history and what actually happened in the past are very often two entirely different things.

 

Shoestring

[setmefree]

Just a little thought if the Banks loose can i also claim back my income tax,after all tax was deducted from my wages and the bank took part of that money, so why should i pay tax on money i aint had.

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Their are Group Actions which the courts are now more prone to accept as being a right of mutltiple ordinary litigants to share the cost.

 

There is now a hedge fund offering funding to claimants for group actions Although it has yet to include action against them the banks better watch out as someone with bigger pockets who they won't be able to intimidate now could be knocking on their door.

[Shoestring]

As far as I aware there is no class action available in the UK although it has been debated for the future, Some European countries now allow class action, like the film you are talking of. I actually think class action would be a great development in this country.

 

In which case how do you oblige the lawfirm who have the class, to proceed in the best interests of their collective clients rather than in the best interests of themselves? The awful excesses in the "no win no fee" sector could well be an ominous foretatse of what might be?

 

The more we follow the American model of government and jurisprudence the more peril we are in when it comes to justice.

 

Shoestring

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

shoestring 'awful excesses' what awful excesses perhaps you would like to give some examples

[Shoestring]

There is now a hedge fund offering funding to claimants for group actions

 

God help us!

 

Anyone here ever read the background to the hedge fund debacle of Long Term Capital Management? It makes salutary reading? Ditto Tiger Fund. PLEASE don't go down this road...

 

Shoestring

[Shoestring]

shoestring 'awful excesses' what awful excesses perhaps you would like to give some examples

 

Grabbing up to 40% of the award is awfully excessive wouldn't you say?

 

Also, I can't quote chapter and verse but there was a doco on British TV some years back that covered the dangers of this sector that, if memory serves, went along similar lines to what I have written earlier on class action.

 

As I'm sure you know, the introduction of no win no fee was a "stealthy" benefit to the government as it was intended to markedly reduce it legal aid payout.

 

Shoestring

 

See following representative cases by following these links (there are a great many cases of abuse of the no win no fee system, in fact):

 

Saratoga News | Lawsuit Abuse

 

 

Contingency fee abuses, ethical mandates, and the disciplinary system: The case against case-by-case enforcement Washington and Lee Law Review - Find Articles

 

 

"'Sue City: The Case Against the Contingency Fee', part 1 (Policy Review, Winter 1991)"

 

 

"'Sue City: The Case Against the Contingency Fee', part 2 (Policy Review, Winter 1991)"

 

 

attorneys and the unwritten law, frivolous lawsuits, stop lawsuit abuse, tort reform

[mailmannz]

If he loses he could be de-barred and face bancrupcy.

 

I think you are being overly dramatic here.

 

If this were truely the case then we would have very few people in the legal profession simply because they all would have been debarred after losing a court case.

 

The only way I could ever see him being debarred is if his defence was so inadequate or he introduced a lot of evidence that he made up?

 

Mailman