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

[PPMAN159]

I love the way that Cobbetts say that their cleint is confident that it will be successful in the final hearing and then they cave in and pay up.

 

If they are that confident then why do they not take the case to its conclusion?

 

The reason is that they know that they will lose

[The cobbett slayer]

It's nice to see that they are being consistant.

 

The wording quoted from Cobbetts letter is identical to the letter they sent me with my cheque for £17000.

 

It proves that they are determined not to disclose actual costs. I had an order for disclosure but they settled on the day it was due.

[PPMAN159]

If they do ever disclose the actual cost then their whole case will be blown apart.

[Guest bong]

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

 

I agree. If bank won they would recover their costs from the claimant anyway and save themselves further litigation costs and settlement payouts 'cos people would think twice about claiming!!

[PPMAN159]

The relevant words there are 'If bank won'

 

How can they win?

[mlloyd]

Check out the interview with Tom on the BBC's Money Box programme on the day of adjourned:

 

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Moneybox | Bank charges challenge

[Guest bong]

I'd like to see the courts striking out all bank defences on the grounds of abuse of process and being branded vexatious litigants. It can't be far off after a year of claims, surely?

[PPMAN159]

Is there a judge brave enough to be the first to do this?

[The cobbett slayer]

If (as we all know to be the case) bank charges are unlawful penalties, bravery doesn't come into it. The judge has to make his ruling according to the law. The problem is getting the banks to actually stand before a judge.

[Mistermind]

Yes.

 

How can Cobbets decline defending against £35,988 and £17,000 claims, and in the next breath trumpet their determination to defend against £100 claim?

 

NatWest is laughing at the law of England.

 

[Guest bong]

Is there a judge brave enough to be the first to do this?

 

there have been a couple of courts sriking out on the abuse of process order on the judges own initiative but I dont know if courts operate in such a way as to make a uniform approach across all courts a possibility.

[PPMAN159]

So can a judge rule that a bank is wasting court time?

 

I assume that each case is allocated a time slot on a particular day and yet prior to that the banks tends to settle the claim.

 

My view is that there must be more important cases that need the courts attention so to have these cases allocated and then in effect cancelled at the last minute seems to be an abuse of the courts time.

[Guest bong]

I've even seen a few cases where the court has allocated a 1 minute hearing because they know what will happen!

[PPMAN159]

Nat West is laughing at the law of England.

 

 

And Cobbetts are laughing all the way to the bank

[Mistermind]

Those who shy away from county court cannot escape from the court of public opinion.

 

After Diana's death tabloid journalists were regarded like lepers. Now politicians are persons from whom you would not buy a used car.

 

Bankers cannot see they are becoming a public laughing stock.

[PPMAN159]

The banks know that even though they are having to pay back millions they will still be able to find ways to get this back and more on top.

 

There was a post on CAG yesterday saying that some one had just joined Barclays and that for every new account that they opended they were to be paid £400!!!

 

So bank clerks are now no more than salesman hiding under a different name.

[Mistermind]

bong,

 

Is it possible to collate a list of dates and courts which dished out strikeouts for abuse of legal process?

 

While county courts cannot establish binding precedents, judges would understandably take an interest in other judgments.

 

[Guest bong]

It is possible by searching threads but I'm not sure if individual judges are that interested in the odd quirk here and there to be honest. It would be nice to think otherwise but I suspect that it would require a directive from a senior judge before there would be any change on a global scale.

[PPMAN159]

I know that the Brennan case it not specifically about the charges that have been levied but if he wins(or should that be when he wins) what are the implications not just for Nat West claiments but the market as a whole?

[Guest bong]

My guess is that they are piling money into defending this because they know that if they lose it will open the floodgates to similar damages claims. I don't think it would only affect Natwest either.

 

I wonder if they would take it to appeal if they lose. I think court of appeal is precedent setting.

[The cobbett slayer]

Bong - were they strike outs for abuse of process or was it that the defence was flawed under part 16 CPR.

 

I know that Boston CC threw a few out and there was almost certainly an element of judges chatting in chambers involved there.

 

I agree with the comment by PPman. Cobbetts must be raking it in. They sent a barrister to Mansfield CC to defend my application for an order under Part 18 and lost. Must have cost Natwest a fortune!

[PPMAN159]

If they feel that confident that they are able to defend this case why have they not defended others-they could have put a stop to this months ago.

 

I suppose that the feel that they have as Brennan has them by the short and curlies and has given them no alternative but to attend.

[PPMAN159]

Anoither point if they win then it will be our money that they have used to defend against us

[Guest bong]

Bong - were they strike outs for abuse of process or was it that the defence was flawed under part 16 CPR.

 

I know that Boston CC threw a few out and there was almost certainly an element of judges chatting in chambers involved there.

 

 

I think Lincoln was one of the courts. they were strike outs for abuse of process because no defence had actually been taken as far as a hearing.

[Mistermind]

RBS-NatWest are the biggest retail bank group in the world, and I believe now the biggest earning group in UK private sector. Lets say they have a ballpark 25% share of the 4.5 billion per annum unlawful charges, if so Cobbetts are defending a billionpound per annum income stream against Tom Brennan.

 

God knows what a battalion of lawyers RBS-NatWest have deployed against Tom, burning the midnight candle looking for loopholes.

 

Tom said in his Radio 4 interview he has a team of colleagues working with him -- I hope so. But this 30-year-old has been short of the readies within the past 6 years, and is currently not earning. Battle will be joined in 13 days, and I do not believe we should take Tom's victory for granted.

 

For Bankfodder (I would PM if only your mailbox were not overflowing):

 

I have 2 cheques burning a hole in my pocket -- £10 for CAG, £10 for Tom Brennan. Please tell me where to send them.