Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • worthy to not forget Just to let you know this bunch Kensington have been fined £1.225m by the financial regulator for treating borrowers who were in arrears unfairly. Claim those charges back plus the interest and tell them not to add any more to the account. There are a few news stories here you can get the info for a letter to send to them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8615870.stm  
    • Hi All. I went to visit a family friend in Rochdale on a new housing estate opposite a old row of houses. The location is Royle Road, Postcode OL11 3PE. I was originally parked in parking bays outside the old houses, then moved the car, when I noticed my tyre was flat, so parked on what looked like double yellows to use his air pump to check and inflate the tyres before we left the house.   In the time i went inside to sort the pump and power supply i got a PCN.  The tyre then got changed (has a puncture) and we left. PCN Number:         RE######## Date:             04/05/2024 Time:             20:36 Observation:         20:34 to 20:36 Reported location:     Royle Park Road Reason:        Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours (Code: 01) I believe this PCN is not correct and has grounds to appeal: 1. My friend who moved into the property around 6 months ago, swears that even though it has old double yellows marked, they are not current or council marked.   He said the property development company had said they had marked them for ease of access during development. 2. The road i was parked on was Royle Road.  The PCN was issued for Royle Park Road, which is about 400 yards up the road. 3. There are no sign posts or marking showing parking  restriction hours in the entire area (there maybe on Royle park Road). I have attached a map of the Location where i parked as a red dot. I have 2 questions: a.  Is there a way to check where double yellow lines are marked on some register to check if they are current? b. Can my grounds of appeal simply be, wrong location, wrong offence? Thanks in advance. Map_20240505.pdf
    • you made it very confusing, though i doubt any of it was ever read by the delivery franchise for DPD. your saving grace might well be you didn't select your own address (though if you are all the same postcode..??) and neither mentioned a safe space other than another neighbour. but with the actual delivery address on the parcel, it appears the driver had a choice of 3 addresses, all under the same post code with differing house numbers. so chose the label one but left it on your doorstep. play it carefully and along with the photo and the retailers requirement you should be ok.   dx  
    • Are Resident car parks subject to Planning permission under Town and Country Planning {control of Advertisements ] Regulations? SCHEDULE 1CLASSES OF ADVERTISEMENT TO WHICH PARTS 2 AND 3 DO NOT APPLY Class A "1.  The advertisement is not readily visible from outside the enclosed land or from any place to which the public have a right of access." As a private residential site does the public have a right of access? This particular Act has so many caveats that even many Councils do not understand it and that includes me. Though I do understand it better than many council planning departments.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

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 5903 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

Jones, there is nothing suspicious at all about what I what have posted. We all accepted the bank charges at face value thinking they had the right to charge us. I will do my uptmost to make sure my posts are relevant and friendly at all times and even when another member puts a post in that I find offensive, I always bite my tongue. I have a message and have conveyed that msg in my posts on this thread, do I expect you all to agree or disagree? That is not my choice, that is yours!

 

Just to remind u all, this thread is about Tom Brennan and HIS case, let's support him. I gave my story to show the lengths the banks go to. If it happened to you would you be fighting? Yes you would and that's why u are on this site!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote=calvi36;716664

At no point have i ever shouted at ayone on this forum, shouting involves CAPS,

I know it is usually written in CAPs but it was the tone

 

As to more to this case than has been revealed, ofcourse there is, i gave a brief outline, however am not prepared to divulge to all and sundry what happened, why it happened, this is none of your concern

Calvi, I wasn't referring to your particular circumstances, I wouldn't even go there. I was referring to the topic of the thread ie the barrister in question. I think there is more to his case than has been revealed. I'm sorry if you read it to mean i was referring to you - I guess I didn't make it clear in my post.

 

Breezy

Breezy v Halifax

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

I just wanted to add to the debate that on Friday costings will not be revealed but whether the case will move forward which would then deal with the true costs of it.

I am sure we are all calm on this beautiful bank holiday. I think we should all wait and see as to what will happen on Friday but the result could crack the safe so to speak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes I did breezy, I thought you were referring to me and I apologise for any misunderstanding. If there is more to this as you state regarding the barrister then that is his business however my interest is in the facts as per my previos posts. I so hope he manages to get this into court, so that actual bank costs can finally be transparent.

 

 

[quote=calvi36;716664

 

I know it is usually written in CAPs but it was the tone

 

 

Calvi, I wasn't referring to your particular circumstances, I wouldn't even go there. I was referring to the topic of the thread ie the barrister in question. I think there is more to his case than has been revealed. I'm sorry if you read it to mean i was referring to you - I guess I didn't make it clear in my post.

 

Breezy

Breezy v Halifax

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes I did breezy, I thought you were referring to me and I apologise for any misunderstanding.

No problem, just relieved you don't think I was prying into your own life - which I wouldn't even contemplate.

 

Regarding barrister, I may wake up tomorrow morning and have a totally different view. I am a woman and change like the weather!!!

 

I may post tomorrow and thereagain I may not, who knows....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

This gives a rough explanation of the basis behind Tom's action:-

 

My own view is that the contract action is not the correct action. The money has not been taken in breach of any contract. It has been taken on the basis of an invalid term. An invalid term in a contract tends to mean that the term never existed. This means that the money which was taken was yours - and in fact remains yours. It is has merely been "converted" by the person who has taken it. Conversion really means a civil form of theft. (It lacks the dishonesty). It indicates that someone else is now excercising rights of ownership over something which is really yours.

 

There is an action for Conversion. However, it has a short limitation period but also money is specifically excluded as a form of property which can be converted. The law of conversion refers only to conversion of "goods".

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/1338-charges-account-previous-bank.html?highlight=conversion#post8696

 

 

Also:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/80803-contract-correct-basis-charges.html

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

well just saw the infamous mr brennan on gmtv this morning! gorgeous i might add and if he does lose his case he could always take up modelling!! lol

he's only just qualified as a barrister so i really hope that he doesn't get disbarred before he even starts. fingers crossed for him.

If i've been helpful in any way....then tip my scales over there!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a really interesting one in his text, which says..

 

"Natwest is arguing that this case involves a breach of contract and should therefore be dismissed"

 

Which side do the banks want to argue, in my response from Lloyds, they say the charges..

 

"...are not default charges because you haven't broken your agreement"

 

Presumably, that's what NatWest have said in their letters too.

 

Perhaps all the Natwest claimants should send him copies of their letters to assist him. :D

Read, Read and Read some more.

 

The answers are all out there...

 

By the way, it's your claim. I only offer an opinion as another reader. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are saying this because presumably he hasn't claimed in the alternative.

He has claimed merely on the basis of tort - so they are saying that the tort action is the incorrect way to go and so his claim is flawed.

 

Whatever, they are frightened enough to have offered him extra money to drop it.

 

Typical of the banks isn't it. They have allowed money to buy them out of their own morality. Now they think that they can do the same with everyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, if Tom gets the go ahead this Friday then will very likley be recommending that everyone here sues in tort and asks for exemplary and aggravated damages as well.

 

I think that if this case goes ahead then the banks will be in real trouble.

 

The extent of their liability will be in the many billions.

 

In my view this is not a time to be buying shares in the banks.

 

This could lead to a very serious dip in share prices.

 

People who buy during the dip could do well.

 

I think that the recommendation now is sell - don't buy.

See what happens later on this year when the full extent of bank liability is totted up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Careful Bankfodder, me thinks there could be some insider trading going on. ROFL.

 

I wish him all the luck in the world, i'm asking for equitable remedy of 'account for profits' on top, judge might laugh, but hey, if you dont ask you dont get. :D

  • Haha 1

Read, Read and Read some more.

 

The answers are all out there...

 

By the way, it's your claim. I only offer an opinion as another reader. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I first heard about this on the BBC and then read in greater detail what Tom wants to do.

 

Dose anyone know the particulars of his claim or what legal argument he is using???

 

It will be very interesting to see what happens, if judgment goes in his favour people can use his case as a template for their claims.

 

hondamad

__________________

EGG CC Default Removal: Have reported Egg to Trading Standards, Summery Claim - 2nd Hearing Date 09/10/07. Click here to read posts

Monument CC: received statements, now need to send letters. . . !

BoS Current Account: Settled

Citi Cards: Hhmm seems like I have sued the wrong “entity”. Aaaaahhhhh . . .. oh well back to court I go, and they have settled in full!!!

 

:-D:p:D

This is just advice from me. If you are not sure please seek legal advice. However if what I have said has been helpful, than please add to my reputation by clicking on the scales :D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking to a friend today and she told me that she briefly seen a news item on the goggle box regarding a solicitor/lawyer who is forcing his bank into court.....possibly this week.

 

All she could remember is that this chap is taking his bank to court over unlawful charges applied to his account when he was a student. Anyway when he went to claim them back they inititally offered £400, then the full amount of £2000. He turned that down and said that he wanted the whole lot plus interest (contractual and investment interest from the charges). The bank in question then offerred him £4000, double what the charges were.

 

It appears that he has turned that down as well and is forcing them to attend court, with a view to them disclosing their charging policy. The down side apparantly is that if he loses he will incur the banks costs, will end up bankrupt and be disbarred. Seams a lot to lose, so he must be pretty sure of his case.

 

I was wondering if anyone had heard anything about this case or any of the details.....as I say this was relayed to me by a friend so I do not know how accurate this is.

 

Any information would be good.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely - Lord Acton.

 

Advice offered by MattyH is without predjudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt. Please research any information I have offered, as I will not be held liable for any incorrect advice i've given you.

 

<--------- If my advice has helped, please tip my scales. 8)

 

For Further advice come into the Chat Room: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/chat/flashchat.php

FAQ's : http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/

Step By Step Instructions ; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/31460-example-step-step-instructions.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

i think bump for those who have not read this and a no comment more on this one from me. Think of the workload that i will have, oh bloomin heck!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kenny,

 

I will give you my understanding, note my understanding, I could be wrong and be eaten alive.

 

Also, at this point in time, my advice, dont bother going down that road.

 

It is extremely complicated.

 

Essentially, there is a branch of law, "Equitable Law" which rather than a set of actual laws, is decided case by case, by courts sitting in equity, the rules of equity are usually all set by precedence and effectively look at what is fair.

 

"No one should profit from his own wrongdoing" is one of the equitable principles. It is not a specific law, just a principal.

 

So to test the water, in my case, I am saying to the judge, OK, repaying my charges and the interest levied upon them compensates me for my losses, BUT, the equitable principles say, no one should profit... Blah de Blah.

 

So, I would like the judge under equitable principals to order their profits, on my money, be taken from them as well. (As I said, Judge might laugh, but hey it has to be tried)

 

An account for profits is an equitable remedy, which forces someone in a position of trust to pay back any profit they made through their breach of that trust.

 

It's similar, but in a different field to what Tom Brennan is asking exemplary damages, i.e special damages.

 

As you read the FAQ's etc, you will see that the site has a tried and tested route to get your charges back, with templates to guide you all the way. If you need to issue a court claim, you can get 8% statutory interest added as well.

 

If you feel really confident and want to do lots more research, you could even try for contractual interest rates (plenty of threads on that).

 

So there it is...

 

Equity - A branch of law founded on principles and case law.

 

Account for Profits - One of the remedies under equitable rules.

Read, Read and Read some more.

 

The answers are all out there...

 

By the way, it's your claim. I only offer an opinion as another reader. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha .. thats a funny one

 

On a serious note

 

Mr Brennan is really a tough dude, One can not imagine how nerve recking It is for him right now: I personally wish him all the best:

 

Question/s for Nattie

 

Has his action (Mr Brennman) caused some stir within Natwest? Are your bosses running scared?

 

at least you will have job security Nattie ;)

C-L-A-I-M-E-D £1000 W-O-N £1000

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

No to be honest his case came to light over the Easter Bank Holiday and so, i am certain that if he does win the right to challenge the case then the consequences would be HUGE. To be honest once the verdict of that case is known will be when something may hit the fan. I would say that is when i can comment more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...