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

[kennyh]

Seriously though folks, does anyone feel that the bank's

the issue of penalty charges, which critics say do not reflect the true cost to banks, should be left to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT),

might play to our advantage if this hypocrisy was pointed out to a judge in an ERC action?

[meagain]

In terms of the whole "taking a full day and we're still not done", does anyone else get the sense the NatWest barrister may have been filibustering?

[Bookworm]

Why do they say High Court and Legal precedent then in the same paragraph say it was in County Court?

Because the SCC (no precedent set) is only the first step, hopefully so that case can then be transferred to a High Court (precedent).

[delboytrotter]

GO GET THEM TOM....i wish him luck but i am unsure how he is going to break his way thru what may be seen as a corupt old boys club, every bank in the country will be right behind Nastywest and we all know what will happen if he starts to win, someone will pay for a judgement against him and that will be the end of it, Coruption is every where and i doubt he will be protected by the courts, the banks have a lot of money to buy their way through this....

[crfx250]

It appears we won't have to wait long for the next hearing. Although no

date has been fixed it will be some time next week.

[delboytrotter]

What will it mean if Tom is succesful, will people who have already claimed back their charges be entitled to compensation? or will not have any meaning, and what if he lost, does that mena the end of reclaiming,

[Sparkie1723]

If he wins I dont think that people who have already claimed will be entitled to any comensation, but people who star their after the ruling will be able to claim.

Personally I think he may win his case over the legality of the bank charges but not his claim for damages, He'll end up like me in my 50% win against the RBOS and he will be liable for 50% of the Banks costs still a lot of money.

 

Thats only my view from a distance no one really knows what sreally being argued in court.

 

All I can say I'm behind him every step " you've gone this far Tom ..Catch em with a "sucker punch" and I hope he does.

sparkie1723

[delboytrotter]

It would be nice for the little man to win in this case, i feel the british public have been taken for a ride by the banks and it is time for us to stand up and be counted....GOOD LUCK TOM, i hope he has a few tricks up his sleeve.

[bed32]

Personally I think he may win his case over the legality of the bank charges but not his claim for damages, He'll end up like me in my 50% win against the RBOS and he will be liable for 50% of the Banks costs still a lot of money.

But surely if he loses the claim that aggravated/exemplary damages applies the courts will not be asked to rule on the legality of the bank charges?

[Sparkie1723]

No not really his case is primarly for the legality of the bank charges to then get his damages he must first get this ruling (in his favour).

 

My case heard in the High Court was brought by me under the data protection Act I won that I then had to prove my damage claims, but because I was not a barrister and able to quote all the precedents etc etc because I didnt have the knowledge to search in the right places for them,

I could not convince the judge fully, he said he could see "where I was coming from" but had not FULLY convinced him,

 

the point here is he must get his ruling on the Bank charges FIRST before he can progress to his damage claim.

 

sparkie1723

[bed32]

But can't NatWest take the point of view that they have offered more than the damages - so that if aggravated/exemplary damages were not applicable then there is no need to rule on the legality issue at all

[Sparkie1723]

The court MUST hear the First part of his claim which I believe is the legality of the charges, it MUST be heard ( thats if the court rules there is a case to be heard)..........unless the bank caves in and admits they are unlawful...that is the only way the bank can stop the damage charges suit being heard .......which there is no chance of that happening, because then he can hit them with his damage claims this is only my personal view based on my own personal experience last month.

sparkie1723

[jules1973]

Court date for Tom Brennan is now 21st May @ 10:30

 

 

Go get them TOM............

[Rhia]

Tom if you read this ...all the best. I admire your attempts in the face of some formidable odds.

[progenic7]

Just about to file my MBNA claim (N1) for a case of charges and mis-sold PPI, which totals about £3000, though with the CI, costs, aggravated, exemplory damages and costs it comes in at about £12500

 

Lets see how MBNA take this news

[bed32]

Just about to file my MBNA claim (N1) for a case of charges and mis-sold PPI, which totals about £3000, though with the CI, costs, aggravated, exemplory damages and costs it comes in at about £12500

Do you have a thread on this anywhere?

 

I would like to know what basis you have used for putting a figure on the exemplary and aggravated damages

[Cpt Black]

try this one:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/59101-progenic-mbna.html

[doo]

Daily Mail article Tuesday May 1st. quote "the bank forced him to accept almost £4,000 in repayment by transferring the money into his account 'without my permission, without any explanation and against my express wishes'.Mr Brennan said "The defendant is not entitled to force money into an account and then to use that as a basis to strike out a claim. It is an abuse of the bank's power". Now I am in this situation whereby cap one have paid off my credit card in order to wiggle out of paying contractual interest, has anyone got any ideas, can they really not legally do this and would a judge find this unacceptable?

[ncf355]

Even if they have paid the charges back to your card, if (and only if!), your particulars of claim contain contractual interest you proceed with the claim to retrieve the amount you have claimed

 

I'm assuming here you already entered the POC prior to the refund?

[doo]

Yep, N1 filed, POC v.clearly states contractual interest and this has been claimed from the outset (preliminary letter). Cap One regularly pay out on contractual - am annoyed today as have made it v.clear to cap one I do not accept their payment either verbally or written and that if they have credited this account to now take it back, have also sent the cheque back which they have received. Am continuing my claim but they have this morning stated in their allocation questionnaire that they have paid this claim in full. Just wondered if they could actually try a put money in your account, it seems Tom Brennan doesn't think so, ordinarily when accepting an offer you have to sign an acceptance form from them.

[ncf355]

No problem then mate!

 

They can put down what they like, you just make it clear to the court that as far as you are concerned the claim is still valid

 

Theyll soon write to you with the offer for the contractual

[Rhia]

Hello. Cap 1 owe me quite a large amount and sent me a very small cheque along with a form to sign and say I accepted. I wrote back and said I would accept the amount towards the total and deduct it from the court total but said I would not be signing the form and although I accepted the cheque it was in no way to be construed that I had accepted this as a full and final settlement.

[doo]

You obviously accepted as a partial settlement, I did not accept as partial as I wanted my claim to stay intact because of the contractual element of the claim.

[Mistermind]

NatWest Try To Get Charges Case Thrown Out - UK News Headlines

 

At the Mayor and City of London County Court today, Ben Pilling, counsel for NatWest, said:

 

"The defendant [NatWest] does not accept that its charges are unfair.

.........Of critical relevance is that the OFT is engaged at the moment in an investigation of the charges that Mr Brennan finds exceptional.

 

It would serve no useful purpose either for Mr Brennan or other consumers for Mr Brennan's case to be allowed to continue. In fact it would be a very expensive waste of time and resources........"

 

Mr Pilling's submission that

the court should defer to the OFT

is a mischievous diversion -- the OFT having already pronounced on 5th April 2006 that

the OFT defers to the court.

 

Nor has Mr Pilling's client in May 2007 complied with the £12 OFT intervention threshold, deadline 31st May 2006.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2006/68-06

“The OFT now expects all credit card issuers to recalculate their default charges in line with the principles set out in a statement published today and to take urgent action where needed to reduce the level of credit card default fees. The industry has until 31 May (2006) to respond to the statement. These principles also apply to default charges in other consumer contracts such as those for bank overdrafts, store cards and mortgages…..

 

Only a court can finally decide whether a charge is unfair or not……

John Fingleton, OFT Chief Executive, 5th April 2006

[Guest NATTIE]

That is an interesting interpretation, because the bank responded the OFT report by that date that it would lower the charges on credit cards which is what it did, the OFT did not state that they must lower to that threshold by that date. It says the principal applies not that they had looked into it.