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

[dave]

Just saw it in BBC news 24.

 

They are saying this will have been a bitter blow for bank charges recaiming.

 

More in a couple of mins tune it, From what I saw the BBC have got the whole thing wrong.

 

The BBC are starting to annoy me with this sort of rubbish.

 

How can a case that hasn't been heard, and was on different grounds (i.e. for damages caused by the banks unlawful charging, NOT punitive v liquidated) be a bitter blow for people reclaiming bank charges?

 

Utter rubbish.

[Andy9012]

The BBC are starting to annoy me with this sort of rubbish.

 

How can a case that hasn't been heard, and was on different grounds (i.e. for damages caused by the banks unlawful charging, NOT punitive v liquidated) be a bitter blow for people reclaiming bank charges?

 

Utter rubbish.

 

Yeah it's ridiculous, it will be seen now as a bitter blow by those who don't know the full story simply becuase the beeb et al are reporting it as a bitter blow..

[HighgateLad]

Is there an email address or telephone number to contact at BBC News in order that accurate information can be provided to the public?

[Lula]

they also described Tom as a "legal expert" he has only just qualified as a planning lawyer, how the hell can he be an expert, I would expect this from Sky but not the Beeb, I have to say however that the outcome is not unexpected.

[NitrousOxide]

The BBC are starting to annoy me with this sort of rubbish.

 

How can a case that hasn't been heard, and was on different grounds (i.e. for damages caused by the banks unlawful charging, NOT punitive v liquidated) be a bitter blow for people reclaiming bank charges?

 

Utter rubbish.

Clarify for me Dave, as far as I was aware this doesn't really affect us. The BBC have this ability to scaremonger. It will put people off with, yet shouldn't as the case was for damages.

[photoman]

Can someone (ie a Mod) please clarify how our current actions could be affected under the Statute of Limitations act in light of the ongoing OFT case?

 

Many of us are claiming that section 32 of the act should be invoked, under the contention that the charges were paid due to the concealment of the true nature of the charges by the Banks, and/or that they were conceded under mistake.

 

Now, if the OFT case does finally come up with the ruling that the charges are/were unlawful then surely this still provides scope (in fact further confirms) our rights to contend any 6 year limitation under this act ?

 

So why now all the advice on site to act quickly in an urgency to beat the 6 year limitation ?

 

I can appreciate the wisdom of still getting claims in as usual, in order that they get dealt with first after the results of the case are declared...... but I don't see that this is going to have any detrimental effect on our right under section 32 anyhow ?

 

 

Someone please clarify, whether or not the results of this ruling when it arrives, would be likely to change those rights ??

[dave]

You are correct. Business as usual.

[forestrich]

Can't believe NatWest haven't asked for costs though. That would have been fair.

 

The cognitive dissonance on here is amazing!

 

It was only a few months ago that the 'TB case will mean we can all claim loads when he wins', which has now changed to 'TB's case doesn't affect our claims'

 

The quote from Martin Lewis shows him for what he is 'I always questioned the wisdom of the claim'. Yes Martin, the word sycophant comes to mind.

 

Would Martin Lewis be questioning the validity should it have won? I think he attaches retrospective thoughts to a lot of his wisdom.

 

I think Tom Brennan's greed and self indulgence has been spotted. This case collapsing will be the beginning (well, not really the beginning, that happened a few months ago) of the end for bank charge claims.

[crfx250]

I've now got some clarity on the appeal confusion. He asked the judge for

leave to appeal which was refused but that does not prevent him from

requesting an appeal at either the high court or court of appeal and he has 21 days to do this.

 

Natwest's costs were not awarded against him as his case was not deemed 'unreasonable' although the details of the judgement, in his view,

seemed to suggest otherwise.

 

Judge Simpkins, who hasn't given an inch to TB throughout, couldn't even

be bothered to give him a written copy of the judgement and Tom now

has to apply to the court for a transcrpt - which he has to pay for - and

get it typed up himself.

 

He said he's definitely very confident of his chances of an appeal not least becuase of the poor quality of the judgement which he described

as 'rubbish'. So much so in fact that he sat through the reading with a barrister freind and on occasion ''it was difficult for us not laugh''.

[forestrich]

I've now got some clarity on the appeal confusion. He asked the judge for

leave to appeal which was refused but that does not prevent him from

requesting an appeal at either the high court or court of appeal and he has 21 days to do this.

 

NatWest's costs were not awarded against him as his case was not deemed 'unreasonable' although the details of the judgement, in his view,

seemed to suggest otherwise.

 

Judge Simpkins, who hasn't given an inch to TB throughout, couldn't even

be bothered to give him a written copy of the judgement and Tom now

has to apply to the court for a transcrpt - which he has to pay for - and

get it typed up himself.

 

He said he's definitely very confident of his chances of an appeal not least becuase of the poor quality of the judgement which he described

as 'rubbish'. So much so in fact that he sat through the reading with a barrister freind and on occasion ''it was difficult for us not laugh''.

 

I think TB's comments regarding the judgement are similar in kind to watching your football team get beat (as a Forest fan I'm used to the feeling) and blaming the ref.

 

TB should be well aware that the majority of the legal profession will be scrutinising his comments, and saying things like 'it was difficult not to alugh' are rude and offensive to the Judge. They will not be taken lightly, nor easily forgotten.

 

It's important to remember that withut new evidence an appeal will fail.

 

If TB had any evidence, as he claimed at the start, it would have figured in this case.

 

I don't believe in the conspiracy theories, and I don't believe this Judge treat Brenna unfairly. I think he lost the case as the merit of it was poor and self serving. The legal profession has long held low tolerances of those that are self serving and sees compensation culture as the lowest form of the law. I personally think TB is looked upon as driving the compensation culture that is pushing this country towards american standards.

 

Its a side point but I heard a great joke t'other day, it was to do with compensation claims. There was an impresion of a guy on a 'No win no fee', and the story went:

 

'I was carrying a bucket of boiling tar on a building dite when I tripped over a piece of wood that shuldn't have been there'

 

The comedian in question mocked the fact that 'bits of wood belonged on a building site, and that if he'd tripped over something like a Lucien Freud painting there may well have been reason to say it didn't belong there'

 

He also said that the word boiling gave way to thinking that he should be careful with it!

 

He did admit to having never carried boiling tar, but he had boiled a kettle or two, and they were 'bloody hot'!

 

Made me laugh anyway

[mailmannz]

Actually having worked with a number of barristers I doubt they will consider his comments rude...more likely they will nod knowingly in agreement with him.

 

Also I think people should keep in mind that EVERY lawyer, solicitor, barrister has lost cases during their careers. Just because he has lost this one (at this point) does not mean the end of his legal career. If anything this will be water off a ducks.

 

I think in reality the only place where loses are held against barristers is on tv.

 

Mailman

[forestrich]

I think you're right, losses aren't held against barristers, as they are merely mouthpieces for clients.

 

In this case, TB was the client and litigant in person, so he didn't merely lose a case as a barrister, he lost his own case. somthing that will not be forgotten.

 

I didn't mean it would harm his career as a barrister, in fact it may do it some good, but his comments will do his appeal no favours. THe fact that he has inferred that a Judge is 'laughable' will make any other judge, who, as both trials are in a similar vicintiy, probably know ech other, apprehensive about overturning a decision.

[brokenbybanks]

"Low tolerances of those that are self-serving" - Sounds like the banks could be in trouble then?

 

Also, I'd like to say that in my opinion, the legal profession has more to worry about than TB - The courts rely on public confidence to operate, and as far as I'm concerned, any Judge who awards in favour of the banks is damaging confidence - If believing that justice is governed not by the strength of your arguement, but by how much money and influence you have, makes me a conspiracy theorist then so be it.

 

Last week I had a cheque on it's third day of clearing in my account - on the same day a smaller payment was due out of said account - Lloyds bounced the payment and charged me £30 for the "service" then paid in the cheque - Is that "Just" forestrich?

[angry cat]

earlier this year, I was in my local county court, re: an application to amend my claim. I endeavoured to put my case forward to the district judge, who apparently had already made up his mind!

My argument was related to the principle of mutuality & recipriocity. I argued and I argued, but even though the district judge told me that he could understnd the point that I was attempting to convey! he would not allow it. However, as previously stated I was of the opinion that he had already made his decision and...he (the district judge) informed me that I could appeal, but if he was the judge that my appeal came up in front of, then he would not uphold my appeal!!!

 

I left the court feeling that there was no real justice for an LIP. Also I felt that in my particular case the district judge treated me unfairly.

 

I sincerely hope that TB will go to appeal and that as he is trained in law, as opposed to an LIP, that he will obtain the justice that he deserves.

 

AC

[crfx250]

It's important to remember that withut new evidence an appeal will fail.

 

You can't use new evidence in an appeal like this. It will be a review of

Judge Simpson's interpretation of the evidence he had to form his Judgement.

 

And I wouldn't be too quick to dimiss his case on merit unless of course

you were there to hear it. But a court hack who was may disagree with

you:

 

“…I can’t believe the judge. He refuses to accept any of Tom’s statements of common sense or his reasonable assumptions, but he accepts without question everything NatWest’s barrister says. The judge seems determined to tear and tear at Tom’s arguments in different ways until he can force a hole. And how can the judge possibly think it’s right to treat Tom as equal to NatWest? If anything, the judge seems to be treating NatWest’s barrister as a litigant-in-person and Tom as a six-person legal team.”

[forestrich]

You can't use new evidence in an appeal like this. It will be a review of

Judge Simpson's interpretation of the evidence he had to form his Judgement.

 

I know, thats my point, without new evidence, it will fail,and there will no newevidence

[delboytrotter]

I have taken a company to court once, and when it finally came to the crunch i had all the evidence etc and the judge turned round and said theres your money now what else do you think you want, i replied a judgement against the company as i did not come here for money, his reply! well your not getting that the defendant has paid you XXXX, case closed.....

Not exactly fair....but my only court experience....and no i was not after the money i wanted the judgement....

[TideTurner]

I think Tom Brennan's greed and self indulgence has been spotted. This case collapsing will be the beginning (well, not really the beginning, that happened a few months ago) of the end for bank charge claims.

 

Forestrich 'greed and self indulgence'?

 

I am sure Tom was not concerned with money or his career, as he would not have risked so much.

 

I have a similar case, but have done things a bit differently than Tom with the initial claim.

 

Money is not my primary motivator, moreso the fact that these thieving bustards took everything from me and expected to walk away with it.

 

I wouldn't let a thief in the street get away with it, and I'll be damned if I'll let these low life's get away with it either.

 

I want back what I consider has been stolen from me, and I will get it, now matter how much bullying and intimidation I have to tolerate.

 

Claimants should be compensated for the effect decisions made by these pond life have on their lives. I lost everything.

 

Tom has several points to make I am sure he will indeed make them.

 

We ain't seen the last of Tom.

 

Tell my kids I'm being greedy - ding, ding, round two.

 

Keep going Tom.

 

Tide

[shane5408]

damn, so he lost then? Can someone fill me in on what happened?

 

 

 

cheers,

shane

[j.barton1]

Lawyer Loses Bank Charges Challenge |Sky News|Business

 

Just read this on sky news, Its a shame but by the look of it it was expected.

[Dougal16T]

Tom you have my VERY best wishes for an appeal...you will win!!!!

 

Kind regards

Dougal

 

COME ON TEAM LET'S SHOW OUR SUPPORT FOR TOM........

[calvi36]

it was a tough call Tommy boy and you were going for it big time. Oh those that cast the first stone Forestrich. Like tideturner I was also taken for everything by these bar stewards to the tune of 3200k without damages, you do realise thieves also wear suits? I for one will not give up and good luck at appeal Tom.

[TANZARELLI]

You are correct. Business as usual.

 

Can we have some better responses as this is just a bit vauge. No disrespect.

 

Tanz

[barracad]

Can we have some better responses as this is just a bit vauge. No disrespect.

 

Carry on making claims as normal. No changes.

[maybelline]

barracad, or anyone? 6+ claims, ok? hearing this week so need urgent reply.