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

[calvi36]

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!

[BreezyDay]

[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

[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.

[calvi36]

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

[BreezyDay]

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....

[BankFodder]

http://www.tombrennan.co.uk/

[BankFodder]

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

 

 

 

[BankFodder]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/80802-tom-brennan-natwest-could.html

[nettyg]

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.

[aqua2]

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.

[BankFodder]

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.

[BankFodder]

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.

[aqua2]

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.

[hondamad21]

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

[fendyweather]

This is a mega must read............ v.v.v.v. interesting. Watch this thread with mega mucho gusto............ Fendy xxx

[Kandinsky873]

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

[Guest bong]

quite a few posts on this in general forum

[MattyH]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/80804-tom-brennan-natwest-must.html?highlight=brennan

[Guest bong]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/80802-tom-brennan-natwest-could.html#post716992

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/80364-will-one-watch.html#post711453

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-print/80097-bank-charges-challenge-lawyer.html#post708351

[kennyh]

Hi aqua,

For an old 'thicky' like me can you elaborate on 'account for profits'; please assume 'I know nothing' (ain't it the truth Zoot)

Ken

[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!!!

[morteee]

at least you will have job security Nattie

[aqua2]

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.

[mtamu]

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

[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.