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

[einyuk]

joinin the queue lol........

[sallysas]

Blimey - what time does your postman deliver then. We get ours by 11:00. Nah, this is tooooo important to be left to the postal service.

 

Now if they had been required to deliver the CB information it would have got there safely I'm sure.

[smashedbobo]

18 members and 4 guests. Going up by the minute

[sallysas]

Who says it is going to be delivered today? Should it not be announced to the world by now? I am used to seeing lawyers standing outside the Old Bailey in the mornings (don't they)?

[vinegarvera]

Oh eck dont leave us hangin!!

[sallysas]

Oooh, you wag

[jclancy]

crfx250 said it would definitely be Tuesday.

[noomill060]

Thats what he said that the judge said it would be, as far as I can remember.

[smashedbobo]

Oh now please come on. Actually left my comp to do early doors. just got back and not a thing. pleeeeeeeeeeeeze. Anything.

[TANZARELLI]

Good luck from me also Tom.

 

I expect you have recieved it and are considering the judgement prior to posting your judgement up on here as well as your comments.

 

Not that i'm reading anything into that.

 

Tanz

[Edz11]

judgment here ;

 

Brennan v National Westminster Bank Plc [2007] EWHC 2759 (QB) (27 November 2007)

[ncf355]

Gutted

[smashedbobo]

B####r. So sorry Tom.

[sallysas]

It was a very brave try. Some of the judge's reasoning seemed baised/blinkered to me.

 

But if the judge thinks this is going to go away while we wait for the OFT to champion us he is wrong

[AuntiePink]

 

All good karma to you for trying, Tom.

[noomill060]

You're a brave man, Tom Brennan- good luck for your future.

[vinegarvera]

Well done anyway Tom, recharge your batteries and think of all the good you have done for others bringing this "bank charge" fiasco to the public eye!!

[Night Owl]

So gutted for you Tom, you put up a great fight.

Wishing you well.

Night Owl

[bainbridge]

Bad luck Tom

 

It seems very unjust that the banks have been able to get away with not only continuing to levy these charges, but not being made to reveal their true costs by the courts. My understanding of the OFT case is that the banks still wont have to do this, and until they do I dont see how this issue can be resolved. If the OFT is protecting our interests as the judge seems to believe then heaven help us as its done a rubbish job of it so far. I wouldnt put it past the OFT to manage to lose the case, but even if it does anyone with a brain can see these charges are unfair and this issue wont go away. Also, the judges assertion that the banks arent making additional profits off these charges seems incredibly naive.

[Gez]

The OFT is not protecting our interests, that is quite clear..

[rdobbie]

^^^ I'd concur with all today's posts.

 

The judge's constant postulation that the OFT is some kind of supreme court makes the whole judgement deeply flawed IMO.

[JGJ]

Tom, I have always felt you were fighting a battle against the tide of financial institutions and like minded fiduciaries.Ostriches and sand spring to mind with some of the decisions being returned from our C.Cs. With the continuing support of this most excellent C.A.G.and a little luck the tide may turn hopefully in our favour. You have given lots of people hope in your endeavour for a FAIR hearing.You have been very brave in the attempt and I am sure some good will come of it. However it is an uphill battle against very powerful forces. "EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[TideTurner]

Best Wishes Tom, a valiant attempt, I'm sure we haven't heard the last of Tom Brennan. Keep snapping at the monsters heels, eventually you will find the weakness, even if next time it is for a Client.

 

I take my hat off to you Sir (and bite my thumb at them).

 

All the very best.

 

Tide

[maybelline]

sorry to hear this news Tom, but it was a valiant attempt:)

[Mistermind]

A valiant try by Tom on behalf of the public interest, at substantial personal cost. I am sure his courage and effort is much appreciated by millions.

 

 

This court battle has always been fought between two unequal armies -- a phalanx of six NatWest barristers with legal fees no object, ranged against Tom himself plus an unpaid helper or three. Although this action failed to attain the holy grail, namely exposing in open court NatWest's £2 cost multiplied nineteen-fold into an extortionate £38 penalty charge, nevertheless this action brought before the gaze of millions something which UK banks are desperate to hush up. Irish Republic banks would not be embarassed by such exposure, as they levy an equitable £3 penalty charge, whereas across the border Northern Ireland banks (owned by UK banks) would be, as they too charge extortionate UK-level penalties.

 

Both judges would not accept Tom volunteering to speak for the public interest. This was not completely surprising as Tom did not walk into court with explicit endorsements from, for instance, the 140,000 members of CAG, or from MoneySavingExpert.co.uk, PenaltyCharges.co.uk, WhichMagazine.co.uk, etc.

 

The OFT was recognised by both judges as defender of the public interest. Within six short weeks, if the OFT were to press for lowering bank penalty charges to £12, this would still remain a painfully high figure, because of the clustering of penalty charges which characteristically terrorise any bank accounts falling into cashflow difficulty with no way out. Any account which, for being overdrawn £5 could previously have been punished with £600 penalties within a month made up of £35 charges, could still be punished with repeated new charges of £12 adding up to £200. In the case of Lloyds Bank since 1st November 2007, I understand their new rules stipulate the levy of penalty charges up to a maximum of £400 per month.

 

Time to awake, the Great British Public, from John O'Groats to Lands End.