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

[The cobbett slayer]

Any way Cobbett slayer you set your own little precident. Whacking Cobblers into touch.

 

Thing is Parky, I didn't set precedent cos they bought me off before they disclosed. It was a great moment as it showed Cobbetts that they can be taken on and they can lose. If only that had been in a higher court..........

[Mistermind]

If NatWest pays up Exemplary Damages without contest to escape costings disclosure, that verdict trumpeted nationwide will encourage a million copycat lawsuits.

 

They are on a hiding both ways.

[progenic7]

cobbett slayer,

 

if a DJ had made a ruling, then surely the costs would have already been disclosed thus giving the judge the chance to make the ruling.

 

If you are suggesting that the defence would even dream of trying to take the subject to appeal and thus a higher court, and thus finally nailing them to the wall once and for all, then i really cant see them being so foolish can you ?

 

but for a judge to make judgement in the first place he must have had the chance to see the proof of the charges and the breakdown of said charges, personally if the bank ever let things go this far, IMHO i think they would leave very quietly by the back door, without a murmour.

[Guest bong]

Just to clear up earlier doubts on this thread - Tom is claiming back more than 6 years

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Cobbet slayer as you say a precedent would not be set by a County Court.

 

Nevertheless if & it's a big if a claimant did manage to go to a full hearing where the banks cost are revealed then claimants could use it in any subsequent claim too good effect. This as you will know happens frequently in other matters of litigation such as PI & this is why Tom Brennan's case is so important to us.

 

In order to counter his damages argument the bank will have to convince the court that their charges are lawful which is in essence the same argument for all other claimants.

 

The beauty of it is that should he win, or they concede, then we can all use the same argument to add value to our claims & cause the banks some real financial pain

[hopkinson]

Your website says Friday 30th April 2007. 30th April is Monday! please don't go on the wrong day.

[Mistermind]

NatWest charges £39, Dublin banks charge £3.

 

Of course NatWest are charging at cost,

of course Dublin banks are losing £36 every time.

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Mistermind can you provide a link?

 

Such info, if confirmed, should be included in claimants POC particularly those against NW

[Mistermind]

Dublin banks £3 charge - explicit Terms and Conditions -

 

ACC Bank

 

“REFERRED CHARGES…Cheque, direct debit or standing order presented which if paid would place your account in an unathorised position – Euro 4.44”

 

 

Allied Irish Banks

 

"3. Late Payment Charge

Should payments not be made in accordance with the Conditions of Use an administration charge of EUR 3.81 will be debited from the cards account.

 

4. Over Limit Charge

Should the account be operated in excess of the Credit Limit, an administration charge of EUR 2.54 may be debited from the cards account.

 

5. Returned Payment Charge

Should any payment either by cheque or direct debit be returned unpaid an administration charge of EUR 4.44 will be debited to the card account."

 

http://www.accbank.ie/content/accbank/cms.nsf/Files/CurrentAcFeesChargesJan20 06/$file/Current%20Ac%20Fees%20&%2 0Charges.pdf

 

http://www.aib.ie/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=RO IPersonalPortal/AIBContent_C/pp_article&c=AIBContent_C &cid=1136826345174&channe l=P004

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Pliny, this thread, 1 page back, post #146

 

Thanks for the link

 

Are claimants including this information in order to boost their POC's? & if not & there's a recommended court bundle on the site wouldn't it be a good idea to include it

[progenic7]

Bong,

 

how did you find that out ?

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Bong,

 

how did you find that out ?

 

He stated as much in his interview with fool

 

http://www.fool.co.uk/news/your-money/current-accounts/2007/04/20/the-fool-talks-to-bank-charges-crusader.aspx?source=ioowftxt0010011

[progenic7]

interesting read, like his views on damages lol

[Guest bong]

I have exchanged a couple of emails with him about it.

[Mistermind]

from the interview link above

 

"The Office of Fair Trading stated in April 2006 that, if credit-card companies don't reduce their charges for such things as late payments to less than £12, it will presume that the charge is unfair and that it is 'likely to challenge the charge unless there are limited, exceptional business factors in play'. However, Brennan said that Egg are still charging £16. The question is, why hasn't the Office of Fair Trading stepped in?"

 

Egg, of course, wrangled a special £16 dispensation from OFT as far back as last April -- there is firsthand material on the web covering this exception. Tom is one man with a case to prepare, a website to run, plus UK, Irish, and some European press to deal with. He appears to have a team of colleagues doing research for him, but no doubt supporters on CAG could be of assistance........

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Of course the OFT dispensation is meaningless to us. It only means that like their unfathomable £12 they will not take action against Egg. Not that they are doing it anyway as they threatened

[Shoestring]

See:

 

Customer takes NatWest to court over bank charges | Saving and banks | Guardian Unlimited Money

 

I wonder what the precedent would be be if Tom Brennan ultimately loses his case?

 

The cynic in me can help but ponder if that is the real intention -- launch a weak case, get beaten, get royally hired later on and meanwhile, the banks who must be very worried about other complainants seeking damages in the future, merely sit back in their leather fireside chairs dipping the ends of their smouldering romeo y julietta's in capacious crystal cognac bowls filled with comfy quantities of Remy Louis III - smiling quietly, always smiling. Like Cheshire cats.

 

Shoestring

[onthewings]

I would like to say Good Luck and I hope he wins on 30 /4/07;-)

 

 

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Court adjourns bank charges case

[crfx250]

It's on Monday

[indebtstudent]

Interesting to note his comments re any fees - he will not accept donations. I'm with the optimists on this one

[rockinrodders]

Ha ha!

 

That does sound very cynical, but what a set up that could be, the banks club together and pay somebody to 'lose' a case against them and suddenly the whole bank charges reclaim phenomenon comes to an end. Saving the bank potentially hundreds of millions!

 

Not even the banks would drop that low, or would they?!

[PPMAN159]

We only have until Monday to find out so not long to wait.

[Yaesu]

 

Not even the banks would drop that low, or would they?!

 

Yep, sure they would!

 

Y

[PPMAN159]

Have you not seem the Annual bankers limbo contest?

[Bookworm]

Merged umpteen threads all relating to same.