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

[Mistermind]

"The industry has until 31 May 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.

Where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair, and is likely to challenge the charge unless there are limited, exceptional business factors in play."

 

Are you acting as spokesman for NatWest with inside information?

 

In the light of the OFT quote 11 months after the deadline,

NatWest Bank appears to have responded with no action.

OFT seems to have responded with no action.

[Guest NATTIE]

“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."

That bit is on your signature which the banks had to respond to and did by the timescale mentioned stating they would drop their charges to the £12 threshold set out even though they may have disagreed with the OFT.

I have to make a big confession to yourself most people on the thread already know that I DO work for NatWest as a paid employee,(if you have visited the NatWest forum i am sure you may have spotted this already---just so you are aware).

[Mistermind]

This thread is about Tom Brennan's case against unfair NatWest Bank charges, not card charges.

 

Unless you know better, NatWest Bank current charge 11 months after deadline date 31st May 2006 remains unchanged at £38 -- in contrast to £3 for Dublin banks, and £2 as costed by Cynthesys Northern Bank group in evidence obtained firsthand by CAG.

 

"The defendant [NatWest] does not accept that its charges are unfair." Unless you know better, Mr Pilling acted as spokesman for NatWest Bank's position 11 months after the deadline date.

[Guest NATTIE]

Post 574 last sentence made reference to deadline set by oft on credit card charges of 31st May 2006 which the bank did respond to and lowered charges. which is what i was responding to.

 

EDIT: it did state that the principles should apply to other charges ie bank accounts but did not set any level that it would take action on nor did it state that banks should lower those charges

[Mistermind]

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

 

John Fingleton, OFT Chief Executive, 5th April 2006

Unless you know better, this is the OFT position.

[setmefree]

Has anyone gained a contact email for Tom Brennan

[PPMAN159]

I think that there is one on his website

[chrismc]

Has anyone gained a contact email for Tom Brennan

 

There used to be one on his website, not sure if it is still available?

[freakyleaky]

I have just checked and the email add is not their now!

[PPMAN159]

I would assume from this that he was receiving too much e mail traffic and as such it has either crashed or he taken in down in order to clear it out.

[crfx250]

PPMAN159 is right. He was getting too many e-mails. He has his case to worry about and a full time job. We have exchanged a few e-mails re my offer of funding should his case fold (for which he was very grateful) but

it would'nt be fair to pass on his address

[setmefree]

Many thanks for trying, i respect tom for wanting privacy and wish him all the success in the world.

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Will be in Central London on 21st. Will try & attend hearing

[delboytrotter]

Does Tom know what this will cost if it fails

[crfx250]

Does Tom know what this will cost if it fails

 

 

Yes, nothing. He'll file for bankruptcy and natwest wo'nt get a penny in costs. And rather amusingly, there are also other financial implications for

the bank if they win, which will no doubt become apparent should this be the case. But do'nt worry, I'll make sure the lad dos'nt go hungry. Anyone

who has the single-minded ruthlessness to stick it to the bank and twist

the knife gets my unerring support.

[delboytrotter]

Good for you, i reckon there are a few people who would help put food on his table if required, i for one would not turn him away

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

If the worst happens & NW apply for costs I'll donate to any support fund for the guy. He's very brave & has got more guts than me that's for sure.

 

Perhaps if he wins he could start a whole new career acting for claimants. Methinks the banks would very concerned be if he did

[delboytrotter]

I think if he wins the banks will be panic anyway as all there hard earned profits for the last 6 yeas will disappear and they will have to explain it to their shareholders Boo Hoo I think if tom needs money for the costs there will be plenty left over...

[Shoestring]

I think if he wins the banks will be panic anyway as all there hard earned profits for the last 6 yeas will disappear and they will have to explain it to their shareholders Boo Hoo I think if tom needs money for the costs there will be plenty left over...

 

No disrespect intended, Delboy, but there is no way in the world that the banks will lose six years income as you hope. In the worst case scenario, assuming that they are all forced to pay back all their customer fees plus interest - which I absolutely doubt, as each single customer will need to engage in court action to achieve this and the probable numbers involved and likely estimated payout would have already been number-crunched with the result that they are quids in anyway - then the banks will merely switch to another dubious "earner" to boost profits to cover any large forced payouts. In other words, we the customers will be paying for it in one way or another.

 

But stick it to them anyway, I say...

 

Shoestring.

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

If Tom gets the judgment he want's the banks won't be able to force each claimant to issue proceeding to get their money & if they did the courts would soon put a stop to that, as they are beginning to now, by declaring them vexatious litigants

[Sparkie1723]

Maybe people wont have to issue proceedings but they will still have to write their clam in writing to the Banks, they will then just slow the whole process down by saying they have been overwhelmed in claims, while they think of other ways as shoestring said ,to make their money another way , they have started already.

Morgan Stanley are now going to charge a fee for having their card & they have just put their interest rate up to 17.5%.

 

They'll find another way you can be sure of that.

 

sparkie1723

[PPMAN159]

True-you will never see a poor banker.

 

I also see that before balance transfers on Credit Crads were free but now Capital One are charging 3% upfront-how do they justify this!

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

The problem for the CC's & Banks is that the Genie is now out of the bottle & there's no putting it back.

 

Once it becomes apparent that they are substituting one exorbitant charge or charges for another & no matter what they call it it will be subject to challenge as an unlawful penalty charge.

 

They don't appear to be the sharpest tools in the box as they don't seem, like their current penalty charges, to have considered that.

 

Oh I almost forgot if they claim it's a service charge we now all know they have gone to great lengths to reduce their costs via automation to almost zero so how are they going to justify the enormous mark up on their charges without the consumer being able to argue they are to compensate for the loss of profit form their unlawful charges & are therefore a penalty

 

Also I believe the OFT have stated as much

[Mistermind]

Yes, what they did they did by stealth. From here on the public will be watching their every move. Bankers are shortsighted in their stubborn defence of a lost cause, provoking incalculable damage to their good name. The longer the tussle goes on, the more they will be exposed as stealthy oppressors of the poor and weak.

 

Would you buy a used car from a banker?

Would you let your daughter marry a banker?

[Shoestring]

If Tom gets the judgment he want's the banks won't be able to force each claimant to issue proceeding to get their money & if they did the courts would soon put a stop to that, as they are beginning to now, by declaring them vexatious litigants

 

In which case all power to his elbow and...hurrah!

 

But the point still stands that the banks will not let somewhere in the region of £22 billion (an estimate I saw on TV somewhile back) in revenue slip by the wayside. Other ways and means will be found to recoup, I am sure.

 

Shoestring