Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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 5894 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

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.

As I understand it, Brennan is only seeking agreement in principle that damages should be paid - does anyone have a view on what he will realistically be able to get if he wins ? Under English Law does he have to prove a loss which is then used to calculate the damages figure ?

All comments are my personal views - if in doubt then seek professional advice. If you think i've helped then please tip my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE

 

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:

 

ADVOC8 has some interesting comment on another thread regarding Mr Brennan's possible motives - as a barrister without a barrister's job (see his website) he also potentially has a lot to win if he manages to succeed with this case and thus gains a lot of positive publicity.

All comments are my personal views - if in doubt then seek professional advice. If you think i've helped then please tip my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

sarcasm filter on: Likes hits on his website, maybe a new charges website. Sarcasm filter now switched off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

mtamu- i am skeptical on the case but i am not a legal expert. I am a little skeptical he chose to speak to the media prior to the case going to court. Sometimes it is better to wait until you have the green light and then speak out on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i've spent my bank holiday weekend preparing 5 Money Claims - I'm now not sure whether to lodge them or wait until Friday. Anybody have any views ?

 

Entirely up to you.

Remember that there is a character limit on the POC for moneyclaim.Personally I would go the N1 route and if a more detailed POC needs submitting following a good result then you might be forced to use an N1 !!

All comments are my personal views - if in doubt then seek professional advice. If you think i've helped then please tip my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE

 

ADVOC8 has some interesting comment on another thread regarding Mr Brennan's possible motives - as a barrister without a barrister's job (see his website) he also potentially has a lot to win if he manages to succeed with this case and thus gains a lot of positive publicity.

 

Could be win or loose too, there is no such thing as bad publicity and a trier will always do well, especially of the play the game well.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

NATTIE says

 

"I am a little skeptical he chose to speak to the media prior to the case going to court."

 

My take

I don't think that will have any remification

 

If anything, this is a very high profile case and am sure the Judge in question is aware of It:

 

The populace (Claimants) as an audience, would prefer the whole litigation to be promulgated: well, for the obvious reasons which I don't want to go into at this moment of time, but anyway:-

 

Remember the old proverb, there is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.

 

To sum up, I believe and hope that any foreseen media circus as regards the case, should be curtailed: One would strongly detest, a mediocre Yankee like, Hollywood court case fiasco... media circus as my friend Philip would put It:

 

We all want a fair system, and the sooner the media joins in, the better It is for all consumers

 

(mtamu is not a lawyer, am just a poor Graduate Engineer who has suffered a great deal - Financially that Is - as a result of unfair Bank Charges) lol

 

And on a sombre note, I also hope that a non compos mentis is entered against one of the majority shareholders of NATTER WEST bank ... hehehe: That would spice up this whole issue of Bank charges: Its time for some senior heads to roll .. but do I say? hehehe

mtamu- i am skeptical on the case but i am not a legal expert. I am a little skeptical he chose to speak to the media prior to the case going to court. Sometimes it is better to wait until you have the green light and then speak out on it.

C-L-A-I-M-E-D £1000 W-O-N £1000

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

Ok, the first question that was asked to me was "what side am I on?" On this specific case it is NatWest Bank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To succeed in life, one must have the courage to pursue what he wants - so the saying goes

 

Kudos to Mr Brennan

@NATTIE

 

I remember George Bush once said - after the September 11 bombings

 

"Either they are with us, or with them" to mean - 'If you are not on our side as regards war on terror, then you must be on their side' (their) referring to the bad guys with long beards, Kalashnikov weapons, radicalized views and a different way of lifestyle

 

Hehehe - off course I don't buy in to that: Literally, that Is ... hehehe

 

@Fendy

 

Hello there

C-L-A-I-M-E-D £1000 W-O-N £1000

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, the first question that was asked to me was "what side am I on?" On this specific case it is NatWest Bank.

Much as it would be nice to get some huge damages, on balance I'm with Nattie. I think Mr Brennan is opening a huge can of worms. If the damages claims are large then there is surely a risk of the government stepping in to protect the banks (through OFT decisions, new legislation or whatever). We shouldnt under estimate the political lobbying power the banks have and cant also forget how integral their financial stability is to the wider economy. I'd be very happy winning my numerous claims on the basis of charge refund + interest refund + contractual interest. :-D

All comments are my personal views - if in doubt then seek professional advice. If you think i've helped then please tip my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aqua,

Very many thanks. I've succeeded down the contractural route though the cases were settled before any court action and, given much of what I've read, that might be just as well.

However this "So, I would like the judge under equitable principals to order their profits, on my money, be taken from them as well" I will watch with great interest.

May all our Gods go with you.

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

And lets not forget that some recent claims which have included compound and contractual interest have been viewed by the Judges as Punitive,showing that they have taken a close look at the case and offered only the alternative 8%.

Will be very interesting.

Whatever the result its probably true to say that Tom will be the most famous Solicitor in the land.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if anyone else has set up a thread for this-if so then apologies.

 

I read on CEEFAX and saw on the BBC news on Friday that a newly qualified barrister was taking Nat West to court this week in order to get them to justify and explain thier current level of charges.

 

I could not see anything in the papers over the weekend about this and jus wondered if anyone else has spotted it.

 

If they do go to court and he wins then he will be a hero but if loses I suggest that he emigrates.

PPMAN159

 

If this comment has helped please click on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i've spent my bank holiday weekend preparing 5 Money Claims - I'm now not sure whether to lodge them or wait until Friday. Anybody have any views ?

 

Entirely up to you.

Remember that there is a character limit on the POC for moneyclaim.Personally I would go the N1 route and if a more detailed POC needs submitting following a good result then you might be forced to use an N1 !!

Thanks Martin, if i go down the N1 route, can I lodge it now and amend the particulars of claim later on to incorporate any issues that arise from friday ?

All comments are my personal views - if in doubt then seek professional advice. If you think i've helped then please tip my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really intersted in this case, I not only believed I had a strong case aginst the RBOS .....I did ....15 breaches of the Data Protection Act .....Theft of my credit file by the Nat West,.... wrongful pursuit of a debt ( it wasn't my account number the RBOS had entered on my credit file) a VERY strong case for false accounting) all this was within my claim.

The Bank denied everyone one of theses claims ....UNTIL 10 mins before the hearing ..............When the Bank admitted one breach of the Data Protection Act and said, they admitted that should not have entered the default on my credit file...........That meant with this DIRTY, but... quite legal trick, the judge said it was now not required to hear my case as the Bank had admitted to the one beach and my full case did not get heard, I WON but I lost.

I hope Tom Brennan doesn't get a last minute dirty trick pulled on him like I did.

My case was heard in the HIgh Court I am liable for 50% of the Banks costs,

the Judge did say after judgement to the Barrisster frm Cobbetts that "Quote" Under the circumstances he hoped that he would advise the RBOS not to pursue me for these costs, and thanked me for my presetation of my case and my conduct in court ...not that that was any consolation to me.

 

Sparkie1723

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...