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

[elizabeth1]

Mmmmm!!! Maybe so - the link is here for anyone interested

 

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT launches test case on unauthorised overdraft charges

[Shoestring]

Clearly, the OFT already know the result of Brennan's law case. He doesn't. But the banks do. Nice bit of justice that.

 

For the multiplicity of naysayers who do not yet understand how the world really works, just ponder that the timing of this OFT announcement is too precise for it to be otherwise.

 

This also means that a deal has already been cut between the banks and OFT, and the test case they are proposing is to validate that in the public eye.

 

I particularly liked the OFT Q & A page linked to the press release, that contained such jewels as this:

 

Quote

• The banks have undertaken to co-operate with the OFT in its conduct of the UTCCRs investigation and expeditiously to provide documents and information sought by the OFT in so far as practicable.
  
• If, in the light of the investigation, the OFT decides that the charges are unfair and, as a result, requires the Banks to do anything which they are not prepared to undertake to do in connection with the charges, then the OFT may amend its court documents so as to include a claim for a court ruling that the charges are unfair and for appropriate relief against the banks, such as a declaration or an undertaking to the Court or a final injunction or enforcement order.
  
• All the Parties are committed to progressing the court proceedings speedily and have agreed to seek a trial as soon as reasonably practicable. A timetable for the exchange of court documents has been agreed to help achieve this.
  
• The parties have agreed that each party is to pay its own costs of the court action.

Uquote

 

Very cosy and doubtless an amicable agreement that has been hammered out in between large bowls of excellent Cognac and hand-dipping into the Cuban humidor.

 

But the point to focus on particularly, I think, is the second bullet point. This demonstartes that the OFT have the proof they already need to force the issue, and are slyly threatening to use it if any bank (or banks) fall shy of the pre nuptials agreement currently in place.

 

And then we should focus our beady liuttle eyes on another gem.

 

Quote

 

4. What will the test case cover?

In assessing whether the charges are consistent with the UTCCRs:

• The first step is to assess whether the charges are subject to the test of unfairness,
  
• The second step is then to consider whether the amount of the charges is unfair.

Unquote

 

Which means, is you don't understand sly-speak, is that the amount the banks will be able to charge in the future, by law, has already been agreed in principle. Will this be the £12.00 per item discussed earlier in this thread, or something close to it? Let's face it, even if they only charge £8.00 per item, they and their international shareholders (the really important dudes in all this, btw) will still be quids in by, what, a multiple of 8x true cost? Maybe even a lot higher if the actual cost to process bounces is in the pence as has also been suggested earlier in this thread (and elsewhere). Let's not be unreasonable and say that the actual cost to the banks is 10p. nd for that they can charge you £8.00. You do the maths on the leverage ratio. Ceeeeegars all round. And lots of bottles of vintage Dom Perignon to wash down that Cuban smoke. And, while you're at we'll have several silver platters of smoked salmon sandwiches please... and some bliney's heaped that that god awful black fish roe which they call caviar (from Tehran, naturally).

 

Not being a betting man, I'm willing to bet that the Judge in the brennan case will call upon the OFT to establish the principal of what is a fair charge in law.

 

If this suspicion is correct -- and that is the impression I got during the trial from reading some of the reports when the judge was vigorously nodding his head about the banks submission that this is a case for the OFT to resolve.

 

This also solves the clogging up of the lower courts with thousands of cases of individuals claiming back the money that has been scammed from them over the past decade. And, as we know, these lower courts have been screaming for a remedy so they can get back to their nice afternoon naps, and then dip their Nice biscuits into their nice cups of nice tea, before wending their weary way home for the day to have their weary brows padded by a damp cloth by their other half. Such a relief.

 

And to think that you thought justice was being served.

 

Welcome to the real world.

 

Shoestring

[crfx250]

It will be very interesting to see what reference the judge makes to the OFT's test case in Mondays judgement.

 

TB said yesterday that he was ''very surprised'' that the judge has not issued him with a written summary of the judgement prior to Monday, as is the norm.

 

I also note with interest that the defendant in TB's case, Natwest, are not one of the seven banks in the OFT case.

[pford]

 

I also note with interest that the defendant in TB's case, NatWest, are not one of the seven banks in the OFT case.

 

 

NatWest are part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc they are taking part in the test case erm:o

[Dakota]

I can't help feeling the OFT case is the result of a "cosy" deal between the banks and the OFT. By using the Unfair Terms and Conditions Act it seems to me they will be able to sidestep how much it actually costs them. The contract law argument which CAG members have been using would force them to reveal their costs. How convenient for the banks. I wonder if this case rules under the UTC act whether CAG members could still persue the contract law angle. I would love to hear what a top class specialist lawyer would have to say on the matter.

[Parkvale]

Shoestring, ABSOLUTELY SPOT-ON. That is why sites like this exist and successfully scale the walls of injustice. The fight is not over yet and this is a bigger can of worms than even the OFT realise. The public will wake up to the banks if this goes against us and the backlash will be huge. There are still thousands of people out there who have not claimed, but will be watching this with great interest. The floating voters if you like. The banks will know the extent of the possible repayment of these charges and will try to limit there losses accordingly.

Fortune favours the Brave. So the fight must go on. Good luck Tom.

[vinegarvera]

Wow parkvale,

A ray of sunshine in all this doom and gloom!!

Thanks so much!!

[Shoestring]

Note the timing of all this, as I said above. The Judge decides to hand down his judgement on 30th July --- two business days after Parliament recesses for the summer hols. First rule of the political done deal is get the uncompromising political perceptions out of the way. That is why the OFT also announced their test case with the agreement of the banks yesterday, when all the Westminster children were excitedly packing their buckets and spades and exercising their hands so they can brush sand out of their jam sandwiches without getting wrist strain.

 

As I have said maybe a half a dozen times in this long thread, the sums of money involved - billions and billions - are not going to be left to some geriatric dribbling judge to rule on.

 

Me, being of sound cynical mind, would suggest that someone here, makes a diary note to check on Tom's career in three or four years time. If he's doing badly then he was an honest boy and bravo to him. What he did took guts. If, however, he's doing ever so well -- well, then it was all a fix from the very beginning. And Tom is not the hero boy but the villian.

 

But no one will be that patient, will they. It'll all be forgotten about in about... five days time.

 

Such is life in the world of big business. No quarter is left exposed for too long.

 

Shoestring

[photoman]

Anybody tuning in here at this point, might be interested to take a look at this thread by Zootscoot.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/107584-oft-test-case-what.html

 

PM

[photoman]

PS: Notice we've picked up a couple of "ghosties" on the way !!

[Shoestring]

Anybody tuning in here at this point, might be interested to take a look at this thread by Zootscoot.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/107584-oft-test-case-what.html

 

PM

 

In other words...a government printing office publication:

 

"How To Staunch The Banks Bleeding - A Step By Step Guide to OFT A & E Good Practise"

 

Shoestring

[Bookworm]

I do hope that you are not saying that that's what Zoot's post is!!!

[photoman]

I do hope that you are not saying that that's what Zoot's post is!!!

 

I believe that shoestrings criticism was directed at the OFT rather than Zoot.

FWIW. I think zoots post is excellent advice, and should help to quell the panic.

 

PM

[maybelline]

thanks Zoot, I have a hearing next week on unfair charges so will go along as prepared in the normal way ( not a high street bank but imagine will all be affected?)

[crfx250]

NatWest are part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc they are taking part in the test case erm:o

 

No. Natwest/RBS are not within the banks group litigation 'team' contrary

to what you may have read. They have a similar but distinctly separate agreement with the OFT.

[mailmannz]

Note the timing of all this, as I said above. The Judge decides to hand down his judgement on 30th July --- two business days after Parliament recesses for the summer hols. First rule of the political done deal is get the uncompromising political perceptions out of the way. That is why the OFT also announced their test case with the agreement of the banks yesterday, when all the Westminster children were excitedly packing their buckets and spades and exercising their hands so they can brush sand out of their jam sandwiches without getting wrist strain.

 

Oh for the love of allah...everything is a conspiracy isnt it?

 

Christ, if this case was to kick off on the 1st of April you would be here bleating about this being a aprils fools joke...or if it was 5th of November then no doubt you would be tieing this in to some kind of masonic symbolism and how this relates to bringing down big business (ie. blowing up parliament = bringing down big businesses!)

 

As I have said maybe a half a dozen times in this long thread, the sums of money involved - billions and billions - are not going to be left to some geriatric dribbling judge to rule on.

Gee, I dont know where your pessimism comes from BUT if nothing the judges have proven time and time again to be completely independent of Government and big business...but then I guess thats just part of the conspiracy isnt it?

 

Me, being of sound cynical mind, would suggest that someone here, makes a diary note to check on Tom's career in three or four years time. If he's doing badly then he was an honest boy and bravo to him. What he did took guts. If, however, he's doing ever so well -- well, then it was all a fix from the very beginning. And Tom is not the hero boy but the villian.

Aye? If he does well its because he is part of the conspiracy? And here I thought it came down to ones ability...how naieve of me! :grin:

 

But no one will be that patient, will they. It'll all be forgotten about in about... five days time.

Sorta like how everyone forgot so quickly about credit card charges.

 

Such is life in the world of big business. No quarter is left exposed for too long.

 

Shoestring

Crickey, I reckon you need to get out and smell the daisies my dear friend cause sooner or later you are going to start blaming this all on GW, Oil and the new world order! :grin:

 

Mailman

[noomill060]

Beware, mailman- the shape shifting alien reptiles are everywhere...

[Dangermouse]

It is very strange that Tom Brennan has not received notification of the result. Normally when Judgement is reserved an 'embargoed' decision is emailed/sent to both parties sometime before the result is handed down.

 

Tom states that he has nor received the decision yet, that I would say is very unusual.

 

Dangermouse

[noomill060]

If anyone spots Tom on the town tonight, with two big blondes on his arm, swilling champagne from a bottle, singing "Im the man who broke the bank of Monte Carlo", it would be a fair bet that he hasnt lost.

 

(Just assuming Tom doesnt do this every Friday night!)

 

 

Seriously though, its going to be long weekend for Tom.

[TideTurner]

If the FSA is to allow the banks to apply for a stay on any claims, surely they must not be allowed to make ANY charges until this matter is sorted out.

 

Tide

[TUTTSI]

If the FSA is to allow the banks to apply for a stay on any claims, surely they must not be allowed to make ANY charges until this matter is sorted out.

 

Tide

 

 

I think that is an excellent idea TideT, because if that were the case the banks would want this TEST CASE settled quicker rather than dragging it out.

 

In the mean time the interest is mounting on my claims whilst waiting for the court date and if they stay it the interest will mount up even more.

 

DS

[delboytrotter]

A conspiracy maybe, i for one will not trust big business, there are to many goverment officials working for these guys for it to be anything else, i usually will not be sitting with the conspiracy theory but it looks mighty suspicious.......

[TideTurner]

Don't know if you've seen this link, but quite revealing, this may affect Tom's case.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/107548-office-fair-trading-test-new-post.html

 

Tide

[conar686]

Good Luck today Tom

 

Maybe with the right result the OFT won't have to play the 'we're taking the nasty Bankers to court for a decision' game after all.

[stebiz]

Good Luck Tom. As a capitalist through and through I believe in all businesses making an 'honest dollar' - but what these banks are doing is immoral in my opinion and UNLAWFUL.

 

Stebiz