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

[PPMAN159]

There seems to be an ever growing line of people who do not agree with what Tom is attempting to achieve but I bet that thew same people will be first in line should there be any chance of a handout!!!

[jules1973]

There seems to be an ever growing line of people who do not agree with what Tom is attempting to achieve but I bet that thew same people will be first in line should there be any chance of a handout!!!

 

PPMan I agree with you completely, I have everything crossed for him, he obviously knows what he is doing,

 

Just a thought though, maybe people are not agreeing with Tom because they are so scared that the outcome will go against him that all the hard work they have put in wont pay off, and they wont get their money.

 

I take my hat of to him to have the courage to stand up to the banks, and hope that if it goes well for him today, that he becomes very successfull. In my opinion, he will deserve it

 

Good luck everyone with your claims.

[kippy2]

PPMan I agree with you completely, I have everything crossed for him, he obviously knows what he is doing,

 

Just a thought though, maybe people are not agreeing with Tom because they are so scared that the outcome will go against him that all the hard work they have put in wont pay off, and they wont get their money.

 

 

wont make any difference today in our claims as its in small claims court and precedent cannot be set. if the case today gets moved to high court then everyone will be watching with baited breath. (but i seriously doubt it will get there! the banks will do their utmost to make sure it doesnt!)

 

so for the moment it DOES NOT affect our claims ongoing now.

[skyrocket123]

Incidentally, I merely wondered if he was perhaps a stooge. Anything is possible, certainly where the banks are concerned.

 

And my worries were for what would happen should it all go wrong.

 

I am entitled to my worries the same as eveyone else without being shot down in flames.

[PPMAN159]

PPMAN sits back to reflect and can hear in the background someone singing 'always look on the bright side of life

[bed32]

There seems to be an ever growing line of people who do not agree with what Tom is attempting to achieve but I bet that thew same people will be first in line should there be any chance of a handout!!!

The issue is that at the moment the Banks are not defending people's claims - everyone seems to get whatever they claim although they do have to jump through several hoops to do so.

 

To that extent nothing TB does can do any good for people seeking reclaim (it is not possible that we will all suddenly be liable for exemplary damages).

 

The potential downside is that the banks may be backed into a corner where they are forced to quantify the real costs - in which case it will certainly be more than the £0.00 they are effectively getting by not defending any of the charges.

 

Once they do that then they will no longer have a reason NOT to defend any charges and things might get a whole lot more difficult for the individual.

 

That is not to knock TB in any way - if he thinks he as a case in law then he is within his rights to pursue it and no one should criticise him for that.

 

However the prudent person will notice that this case is far more likely to do harm than good to the average contributor to this forum.

[adarling2006]

well said, after all this is what we are after, a ruling against the banks, i'm one for it and support those who take a stand for it too. i'm not all that confident about it myself but i do get the help and support and advice from those who have. this back stabbing and knocking down isn't what we need, but we certainly need more people to force the banks into court.

[jules1973]

Does anyone have a view on the following?

 

If the court does rule that the banks have to disclose the true cost of charges and then Abbey do decide to start actually going into the courtroom to defend, will the courts not then decide that abbey have to pay us the difference between the true cost and what they charged us?

[johno1066]

PPMAN sits back to reflect and can hear in the background someone singing 'always look on the bright side of life

 

 

[johno1066]

Does anyone have a view on the following?

 

If the court does rule that the banks have to disclose the true cost of charges and then Abbey do decide to start actually going into the courtroom to defend, will the courts not then decide that abbey have to pay us the difference between the true cost and what they charged us?

 

 

Again, this case wouldn't set a precident however this case forces the agenda. In other words Natwest would have to disclose to the Court (truthfully I might add), exactly how much it costs them when making these charges. Such charges would only be applicable to Natwest however it will provide many of us (including the OFT I might add) with a great deal of insight into exactly how much it costs, and how the banks arrive at the aforsaid costs. This should provide for a similar amount with regards to other banks etc.

 

The simplistic answer to your question would be a yes the balance of charges - costs would be applicable, however it may take more complex arithmetic in applying those costs over a six year period, especially whilst taking inflation into consideration.

[bed32]

Does anyone have a view on the following?

 

If the court does rule that the banks have to disclose the true cost of charges and then Abbey do decide to start actually going into the courtroom to defend, will the courts not then decide that abbey have to pay us the difference between the true cost and what they charged us?

I fear you are correct on that one. Once the taboo on the banks actually defending anything is broken then I'm sure they will start defending claims and that is likely to put off many people from claiming in the first place and reduce the payout to those who do go to court.

[johno1066]

I fear you are correct on that one. Once the taboo on the banks actually defending anything is broken then I'm sure they will start defending claims and that is likely to put off many people from claiming in the first place and reduce the payout to those who do go to court.

 

 

Ahh but that's where this site comes back into the fray! The banks will still need to justify their charges truthfully before a Court and it would be like the domino effect, once one does it, they may as well all do it. If we look at at other countries charges and from information provided by friendly bank staff, then those actual charges are likely to be under a fiver. It is much less likely too, that the banks would put up a fight for each claim, the Courts would most likely take a very dim view of repeated defences as they appear to be already. I would certainly rather lose a fiver per claim, than to have to hours and hours having to write letters and face the prospect of Court etc.

[aqua2]

Hi all...

 

I've been following the last couple of pages with interest (thankfully not the unauthorised 29.8%).

 

If my understanding of this case is correct, he has already been refunded his charges and this case is now more about whether the banks should face 'exemplary' damages.

 

These are rarely ever awarded as they are not compensating your losses, but are punishing the defendant for their actions.

 

On that basis...

 

1) If he wins, then the court are punishing the bank on top of him having recovered his losses.

 

The way I can see that affecting ordinary claims, is that we could try and ask for the same exemplary damages, on top of our claims.

 

It would also set a precedent that the bank have acted wrongfully, simplifying our claims.

 

It would also assist those claiming over 6 years, if the case confirms that the banks have hidden the nature of their charges.

 

However, if we then set about claiming exemplary, the courts may just say no, they have already been punished and it wouldn't be fair to punish them seperately for every occurrence.

 

 

2) If he loses, so what?

 

The charges haven't been ruled upon, the bank have already more than settled his complaint in that respect.

 

The only decision, as I can see it, is whether the banks should be punished because of their actions.

 

 

I'm in support of the guy, even if deep down, in respect of the benefit to others, I believe he is doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

 

i.e. It is portrayed that he is acting for everyone else, but I believe his primary motive is his own interests.

 

There we are chill out everyone, don't panic, just follow with interest..

 

LOL.

[Guest bong]

Even if the bank was to come up with a calculation of its true costs, if it wasn't a calculation (pre-estimate) made at the time (ie before the charges were implemented) it will have no retrospective effect.

[bed32]

Even if the bank was to come up with a calculation of its true costs, if it wasn't a calculation (pre-estimate) made at the time (ie before the charges were implemented) it will have no retrospective effect.

I think it will. Even though the basis of the charges will still be unlawful all you can claim for are the damages - which is the difference between what they charged and what it really cost them.

[Guest bong]

A pre-estimate has to be just that - it cannot be a figure calculated after the charge has been made.

 

we are not claiming damages.

[taff-p]

There seems to be a lot of Ifs..Buts..and Whats surounding the TB case,my advise for what its worth would be sit back and wait for the outcome.whatever will be will be.

[PPMAN159]

True-there is nothiung that we can do know.

 

It is all down to the good old legal system-lets hope the judge is not a West Ham or Leeds fan!!

[Guest bong]

Even if the bank was to come up with a calculation of its true costs, if it wasn't a calculation (pre-estimate) made at the time (ie before the charges were implemented) it will have no retrospective effect.

 

further info on this in this link to the OFT report on default charges in credit card contracts, at para 3.21 page 15 www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft842.pdf

[PPMAN159]

So are we saying here that the banks will never be able to justify the charges levied to our accounts due to the fact that no pre estimate of these was made or given at the time that they were charged to us?

[Guest bong]

So are we saying here that the banks will never be able to justify the charges levied to our accounts due to the fact that no pre estimate of these was made or given at the time that they were charged to us?

 

If the charges were based on a genuine pre-estimate of loss, then, assuming that the courts found that the charges were not unconscionable, the banks would win in court.

 

BUT it doesn't look likely that any of them did actually follow this procedure, or maybe the pre-estimates were so low that they bore no relation at all to the charges, otherwise the "pre-estimates" would have been produced long before now, and they wouldn't be settling claims out of court.

[Don4071]

subscribe

[PPMAN159]

If

[PPMAN159]

If that is the case Bong, and I am very sure that it is, then the banks do not stand a chance unless they have managed to concot some last minute wonder defence.

[Guest bong]

quite!