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

[Isiris]

For fear of going against the grain here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/27030-harsh-letter-received-kensington-17.html

 

This woman took on Kensington for something that alot of us have won without court. She lost. She was ordered to pay the other sides costs.

We are not allowed to donate through CAG for her sever costs.

 

Now again, dont shoot me but I think her claim for assistance is greater than his. As far as I am aware, he is not a memebr of CAG (if he is I appologies) and he has been offered far in excess of his charges.

 

While what he is doing can be admired by some, I can imagine his actions are also doubted by others.

 

I dont seem to recall seeing a moderators comments on such a massive issue.

[Isiris]

If it were money he were after he would have accepted the offer already. He is trying to expose the banks and their unfair charges - basically force them to admit they are wrong. He's putting his career on the line to do this which is why people here are so thankful and willing to help

 

Or that is how it would appear.

 

As has being discussed on a thread in Banks in Print, there are holes in the story. There is no such thing as a Trainee Barrister and a Bankrupt barrister can still practice, contrary to what the chap has said.

Like I said, it may all be true but I cannot just believe what I see in the news and if there is a case for our financial support, it is Jamorgans

[Isiris]

He's actually a newly qualified barrister, and as I understand it, you cannot practise as a barrister whilst you are an undischarged bankcrupt.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-print/80097-bank-charges-challenge-lawyer-2.html

 

The quote from Advot8 indicates that you can still practise. The quote he uses from the head of the Bar Council

 

There is nothing in the rules to prevent a bankrupt barrister from practising provided that the facts leading up to the bankruptcy are not dishonest or discreditable.

[Isiris]

Its just something doesnt seem right to me. I may be wrong and if I am, as Im sure we all have been,I will appologies.

[Isiris]

Whether he has an alterior motive or not is irrelevant. The fact is that a legal challenge has been mounted in an attempy to force banks into disclosure of their charges. Would you rather sit on the fence and do nothing at all or support this guy? The choice is yours but am certain that I will not ever again sit on the fence when it comes to major corporations screwing joe public into the ground, acting outwith the law and basically stealing from those in society who can least afford it. I lost my home, car etc due to these illegal charges and YES I for one will support any action that is taken via the courts to stop these B******* from doing the same to anyone else.

 

Who am I? a working class guy, had my own business, worked my butt off. Through no fault of my own whilst away with work there was a fire at my home. I lost my wife and two children. Did the bank care that I could not work through grieving, NO THEY DID NOT. Their charges mounted and mounted and as I was self employed I ended up losing not just my family but a roof over my head. If I could claim against the bank my mortgage was with then I would but the statute of time is against me or I would take the bank all the way for £48k plus interest yes thats not a typo it's £48,000.

 

So while you sit there pontificating on the rights and wrongs and motives of Tom Brennan, remember that we are here for one reason and that is to stop the banks and building societies from financially raping those that are most at risk. Apologies but we must remind ourselves why we are here and stop getting involved in petty issues and second guessing instead look at facts. Fact is Brennan is trying to force the issue, fact is nobody has been able to get a bank to disclose in court nor by select parlimentary committee. So we deal in facts not here-say and so do the courts. the banks will just love reading the previous posts and will be scoffing at the fact that members of CAG are doubting the morals of this man. Wake up and smell the coffee, to quote an old adage.

 

Maybe you would like my log in details and password and the you can post my opinions for me and I then wont have to bother coming on the site. If you think everyone on here is 100% genuine you are dellusional.

 

Why do you think every month we have an email reminding people to donate? it because people come on here, bleed the information, get their refunds and then go off into the night with their payout and sod to the site that helped us.

 

Not saying you are one of these but that is fact.

 

Yes the fact is he is trying to force the issue in court BUT WHY. It COULD be a double bluff. We DO NOT know. So no actual facts have come around apart from someone who has been offered 60% above the value of his claim has decided he does not see that as enough

[Isiris]

Is nobody even slighty concerned by this chaps apparent lack of knowledge of the Statute of Limitations? he was alleged to have said that this is all working in the banks favour as you are only allowed to claim back 6 years worth and he seems to think that the delay will reduce his claim.

 

Smelling a rat here

 

 

He even makes a comment of

 

It should be noted that any delays is going to assist the defendants because only six years of charges can be made.

 

I know I have posted doubts on this and been shot down (And assisted)but why make a statement like that? We have a young barrister here who is taking the banks on in such a public and media conscious case and comes out with such a demanding statement.

 

Alot of people will see that and go Ah, Tom says 6 years maximum so 6 years it is.

 

What i also struggle with is why start a web site totally dedicated to this. It has lots of web exposure as it is.

 

Right, off to the Grand National.

[Isiris]

Nice to see that when the BBC run the story - BBC NEWS | Business | Man recovers £35,988 from NatWest - they post a link to CAG !

 

 

35k and they settled to save their costs. WHAT A LOAD OF BOL***

[Isiris]

case adjourned until a date yet to be decided

 

Bank fights to halt test case | This is Money

 

 

 

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