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

[jules1973]

I'm getting sick of the BBC's reporting on this matter. In every story, they now refer to last weeks Lloyds case as though it has some impact on ongoing claims. It was one judge in one court!

 

I totally agree, if they keep refering to it, it is just going to make people even more nervous than they already are, and could put people off claiming money back that is rightfully theirs.

[justwon]

Jarvis v Swan tours was not an aggravated damages claim. It was a claim for disappointment and is available only where the purpose of the contract is to confer pleasure.

 

Aggravated damages are available in tort law not contract.

 

 

However, Brennan's case isn't a simple breach of contract case.

[RGS1]

its nail biting now, the problem with this case is that most people are not claim for Damages etc. but he is so if he loses on this basis it will hinder everyone else he would have been better to take the settlement for his bank charges and then raise a case for damages.

he has linked the two which means the legality of the charges might be overshadowed by the damages.

[mrsfoot]

If the damages claim is unsuccessful this will not shadow the claims for the return of charges. It will attempt to stop others claiming damages. However, Toms action is surrounded by a good case and has some excellent points to rely on. The hard part is convincing the Judge that he was damaged by the effect of the charges whereas regular claims are based on the fact the charges are excessive, which are proven by the lack of defence evidence and not from a bank actually turning up and defending the claim giving strict proof that the charge of £30 - £39 actually is the loss incurred by the breach.

[RGS1]

It does seem like he has a sound case, just dont think this case has as much bearing on other bank charge cases because of the damages.

the story about llyods is driving me nuts, many people have turned up in court and won now due to the banks not showing up. i dont see why the BBC keep bringing this back up.

[1970]

If Tom doesn't win it will mean that banks will try and use it to put us off.

 

Lloyds called me today chasing an account which is £30 over it's limit.

 

I said I was claiming unlawful charges to which the operator said:

 

"But it's been proven now, we won a case last week, the charges are not unlawful"

 

It just shows they are running in circles and have no idea what they are talking about.

 

1970.

[noomill060]

BBC NEWS | Business | Judge warns 'unreasonable' banks

 

In my view, the verdict in Tom's case has already been decided by judges, much further up the food chain than the District Judge that Tom and NatWest have been putting their cases to...

 

A High Court judge has warned banks to stop behaving unreasonably when customers accuse them of levying unlawful overdraft charges.

 

Judge David Mackie QC issued the warning at the London Mercantile Court, in the Royal Courts of Justice.

He said some banks were wasting the time of claimants and the courts by pretending they would defend claims when they had no intention of doing so.

He added if banks continued to do this he might award damages against them.

About 300 claims for refunds of allegedly unlawful charges have been lodged at the London Mercantile Court this year.

Typically these have been referred from County Courts in the hope that one might be heard in the High Court and produce a test decision.

"If the banks had won, many fewer customers would have sued," said Judge Mackie.

"If the banks had lost, the claims would have been much easier to sort out than they are now," he added.

Fantasy

In such cases banks have so far settled out of court, usually a few days before their case is due to be heard.

This is fantasy because, at least for the moment, we all know that there will be no trial

 

 

Judge David Mackie QC

 

 

Expressing some frustration at this situation, Judge Mackie said: "On the face of things each case raises serious issues which the court would permit to proceed to trial.

"But this is fantasy because, at least for the moment, we all know that there will be no trial."

Brian Capon, of the British Bankers Association, defended the stance taken by banks saying they were confident their fees are legal.

"They take the court process very seriously, but ultimately they would prefer to settle disputes with their customers outside the court process," he said.

"Where a customer's complaint dates back over a long period or is complex the bank will need longer to investigate the complaint properly."

The consumers association Which? rejected this.

"It seems that the banks are deliberately dragging their feet in the hope that their customers will either give up or accept part of the money they are owed," said a spokeswoman.

Unreasonable behaviour

Judge Mackie pointed out that in some cases bank customers had tried to claim damages for stress and inconvenience.

Such claims have been unsuccessful so far, but he warned he would award damages in future if banks and their lawyers continued to:

• fail to respond to some claimants letters
  
• fail to negotiate for months and until a hearing date is set
  
• demand extra information from the claimants, knowing they had no intention letting a court hear the matter
  
• settle the case without telling the claimants they need not attend court
  
• fail to show up in court

"Looked at in the real world where there will be no trial these steps, which place completely pointless work and some anxiety on litigants in person, constitute unreasonable behaviour," said Judge Mackie.

"From now on we will generally be treating such conduct as unreasonable behaviour thus enabling any claimant who has been put to unnecessary work and inconvenience to be compensated for this."

Frustration

Judge Mackie's comments appear to reflect growing judicial annoyance at the banks' attempts to avoid a test case at all costs.

It would be helpful if there was a decision taken at High Court level to clarify the situation Nationwide

 

 

Judge Roger Kaye QC

 

 

Last month, Leeds Mercantile Court listed 77 cases in one day, all of which were settled out of court.

Afterwards, Judge Roger Kaye QC said "it would be helpful if there was a decision taken at High Court level to clarify the situation nationwide".

In Bristol County Court a successful claimant was recently awarded £84.41 in costs as the judge ruled Lloyds TSB wasted the court's time because it had had no intention of defending the claim.

In January, a Judge at Lincoln County Court threatened to strike out some banks' defences for abusing the legal process for the same reason.

At the time Judge Paul Collins, speaking on behalf of county court judges in London, said: "It would be very desirable to have a test case to see whether the arguments being put forward by the banks are sustainable or not," he said.

The latest warning from Judge Mackie left the banks with what sounded like a final warning. "There may be a need for a more radical approach if the number of cases continues to grow," he said.

[RGS1]

does anyone have any idea of how the it might take to reach a judgement on his case?

[mrsfoot]

If Tom doesn't win it will mean that banks will try and use it to put us off.

They have been trying to put us off claiming for a lot longer than Toms case has been around and used many different tactics, another wont stop us!!

Lloyds called me today chasing an account which is £30 over it's limit.

 

I said I was claiming unlawful charges to which the operator said:

 

"But it's been proven now, we won a case last week, the charges are not unlawful"

Continue with the claim and forget what they said. The fact of the mater is 1000's of claims continue to be settled.

 

It just shows they are running in circles and have no idea what they are talking about.

Very true!!!

 

1970.

It really is important that we get this matter into perspective. Toms claim is for damages. It is not going to make anything different for claimants like ourselves unless the Natwest turn up and provide evidence of the charges being reasonable and that will not happen as we all know they cannot justify charging that amount of money.

If i can offer any advice to anyone reading this thread is to also read Toms site for a true view of what he is doing. It was never about how much he lost....he was offered a lot more than the charges he was claiming (does that not tell you something)....it is about the damage he suffered due to the loss. Please please read the whole story.....its a true insight into a very interesting case and one that could shape the future for claimants who lost a lot more than a few quid in charges....people who lost homes through repossession after extortionate chartges were applied (see the mortgages forum for many stories)....people who lost faith and committed suicide through the banks extortionate charges (I am personally unfortunately aware of one case of this)......people who had nothing to feed their children with due to banks taking benefits for charges and not understanding the legalities behind it (a lot of banks do not understand the right of appropriation or the facts of the Social Security Adimistration Act

Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c. 5)

So by all means post queries, thoughts and questions on the case but please lets stop the scare mongerering and focus on the real issue

[RGS1]

you make a very good point

[joemarket]

Hi everyone,

Still waiting to receive my 6 years statment from Halifax but cant wait to read the latest on Tom Brennan's case. The preliminary hearing was on the 21st of May 2007. Any news on this yet? please help.

[RGS1]

waiting for a verdict now

[Mistermind]

Mrsfoot put her finger on the hub of the wheel -- aggravated damages for aggravated injury.

 

Persons financially put in extremis by unlawful charges will have had their confidence drained away over a prolonged period. Everybody has a breakingpoint, best not to find out where.

 

The last straw breaks the camel's back. But in the rational exchanges of a lawcourt will the claimant be pressed to prove that the camel's back was broken exclusively by straws?

[photoman]

Mrs Foot

 

At last a voice of reason amongst all the panic !!

 

I clicked you for you earlier post, and would click you again for the one you've just posted (if the system would let me) !!

 

Anyhow, all of you that are overly concerned, do read her post, and also the link to Tom's site. You need to understand what is, and what isn't at stake here;

 

In short:

1/ Best outcome.

Tom wins his case and gets right to go for damages.

This then opens the options for the rest of claimants to do the same.

 

2/ Worst outcome.

Tom loses, and it will make no difference to our own basis in law, so it's business as usual.

[delboytrotter]

At the end of the day even though Tom's case is very exciting it does not detract from what we are all trying to do

CLAIM BACK OUR UNLAWFUL CHARGES

Only once Tom has been succesful and then gone on to prove the charges are unlawful will it have any effect on future claims, at this moment he is only trying to get permission to do just that and claim damages.

It will take sometime for the actual case to be heard afterwards ayway so dont worry, just follow the advice and get on with the claims for charges, remember your basis for this is the charges are unlawful and that is it, as long as you carry on with it that way then the bank would have to prove otherwise and i doubt they can do that as it is pretty clear that it does not cost £30 to bounce a direct debit.

[crfx250]

Another BBC update but no news yet on a verdict, although this quote

with regard to breach of contract, is quite interesting.

 

"There is no sustainable claim for causing loss or for breach of duty - the only sustainable claim is for breach of contract - thus no exemplary or aggravated damages are applicable," said the NatWest's barrister.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Barrister fights Natwest charges

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

BBC NEWS | Business | Barrister fights NatWest charges

 

Really!

 

Didn't Lloyds argue there was NO breach of contract hence their 'win' in Birmingham

[crfx250]

well that's what I thought

[DorsetStrider]

Anyone got any ideas when we can expect a verdict on this?

[un1boy]

BBC NEWS | Business | Barrister fights NatWest charges

 

Really!

 

Didn't Lloyds argue there was NO breach of contract hence their 'win' in Birmingham

 

 

To be honest, it's irrelevant whether they won or not - it was in the County (Small) Claims court and therefore another Judge could rule differently so they will still be reluctant to let these go to court!!!

[RGS1]

he goes on to say this which could put people minds at rest.

"The interests of the consumer will not be damaged if the case is struck out."

[samzgaastra]

Tom Brennan, People's Champion!

[pward33]

I'm starting to wonder if this is one of those cases in which the judge has decided to reserve judgment? If so, we may not know the outcome for some days.

[halibut]

Tom says on his website that he's not expecting a verdict til later in the week

[Shoestring]

Based on the defences arguments as reported by the BBC website update at 13:23 today, the banks strategy is to repay the unlawful charges (Pilling states: "He [brennan] is asserting his continuing loss by refusing the money he is claiming" and "there is no practical remedy for Mr Brennan to claim, as he has already been paid more than he can legitimately claim," said Mr Pilling"

 

Based on the foregoing it is my sense is that the banks are content - for the time being - to step up and repay unlawful charges on a case by case basis, but are waiting the outcome of the OFT to set a ruling. As the OFT have already indicated, this is likely to be a maximum charge of £12.00 per item -- still way above what it costs them to bounce payments etc and thus still wildly, handsomely profitable.

 

Is this is remotely a realistic assessment then I wonder if after the OFT ruling (supposing it is along the lines as above?) then the banks thereafter will repay unlawful charges on a case by case basis for all charged amounts over the "new" £12.00 benchmark?

 

Just a few thoughts from reading Pillings comments.

 

Always a suspicious mind, I know...

 

Shoestring