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

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

I'm not able at this point to detail my thinking on this having not yet digested it but after a cusory glance I can say that I think the banks would be very foolish to rely on this judgement as a means of defeating claims

[Sparkie1723]

I agree with calvi36,

 

If only Kev had had a penalty claim as his primary issue I think it would have ended in a different outcome, I also believe that by not attending the Bank did not expect to win, and as precedents are not set in the small claims court the Bank were not particulary worried if they lost,...

thats only my view I could ....AND am most likely wrong.

 

 

sparkie1723

[Mistermind]

Nevertheless a myth will spread from this defeat.

Laymen among the public who do not know the details,

laymen who are nervous of legal procedure will be more scared than ever.

 

Banks will be rubbing their hands with glee this morning, and their telephone monkeys will quote this verdict when they try to browbeat unknowlegeable claimants. Not a good day for the movement.

[Parkvale]

When the banks look at this result. They won't be that overjoyed. If Kev appeals the hearing will be in a precedent setting higher court. If the appeal is presented correctly. The banks will have to reveal the true costs of their charges, and we know they won't do that. They won this case by default and offered a full settlement. Which the judge chose to ignore. So the bank had already thrown in the towel. They will not relish an appeal. I don't know what legal ways they have of stopping an appeal. Even if they try to settle with Kev. Watch this space.

[cg35]

HI EVERYONE

 

i HAVE BEEN READING VARIOUS THREADS FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS NOW , AND HAVE RECEIVED ALL MY STATEMENTS FROM HALIFAX/BANK OF SCOTLAND .

 

THE CHARGES TOTAL AROUND £10000 , PROBLEM IS I AM NOW IN AN IVA AND WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW THIS AFFECTS ME,

 

CAN I HAVE THE CHARGES BACK

WILL IT ALL GO TO THE IVA

WILL I RECEIVE SOME OF THE CHARGES IF I WIN

 

THE BANK IS INCLUDED IN MY IVA TO THE SUM OF ABOUT £4000 SO IM ASSUMING THIS WOULD BE TAKEN FROM ANY CLAIM I GET.

 

THESE CHARGES ARE ONE OF THE REASONS I AM IN AN IVA AS OVER THREE MONTHS I WAS HIT WITH £2500 BANK CHARGES WHICH SNOWBALLED FROM THERE .

 

I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF SOMEONE COULD GIVE ME SOME ADVICE.

[PPMAN159]

CG35

 

Please repost under the Halifax/Bank of Scotland Section.

 

That way you will stand m,ore chance of getting a reply to your questions

[cg35]

Thank You

[gwildfire]

I personally am not to worried about this having considered all the factors.

 

As many people here have statement the judge ruled that the charges were for a service and not a breach fee.

 

However I sent my court bundle off yesterday and am staying on course!

 

MY claim I included copies of the terms and conditions at account opening and current T&C's, which clearly state that it is a breach of agreement and a fee is leveid for this.

 

 

The legal argument is not that the fee's levied are for breach of an agreement which are disprapotionatley high!, which is covered under the UFCA. I have also included the listing which states that Unathorised overdraft inccurs and increased APR to cover Admin costs - so in iffect double whammy! which one covers the admin costs them?.

 

My Advice is to stay on course here, dont let the banks bully you into to settlement (if indeed they offer settlements in the future)

 

Include as much as you can, I also included transcripts of a phone conversation where a bank agent confirmed in my case they send no letters, or make phone calls and that the charging system is automatic! so how can they charge £xx for an automatic systems.

 

As a shareholder of what was formerly Abbey I also made a request for a breakdown off how the set the rates and fee's and what the actually cost to the company is! No surprise they have not responded!

 

Sorry if this reply is got a little of topic, but I just wanted to reinforce that this changes nothing! infact if anything it showed us where the holes were in the legal argument and now we can try to plug them.

[Mistermind]

quote=gwildfire;831405]

 

I personally am not to worried about this having considered all the factors.

 

...........

 

The legal argument is not that the fee's levied are for breach of an agreement which are disprapotionatley

high

!, which is covered under the UFCA.

 

............

 

 

The full 23-page ruling is on the other thread.

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

"Clause 6.2. in so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of the term shall not relate...

(b) to the

adequacy

of the price of remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange."

Whatever anybody thinks how the regulation is trying to say or ought to say, this is how this Regulation is at present worded. In para 43 District Judge Cooke said the (para 43) wording used "might itself be criticised for deficiencies of intelligibility", but as it stands the wording (para 44) "prevents the court from making any determination that they are unfair." -- the word

"adequate"

empowers the court to rule the price as unfair for being too low, but not as unfair for being too high.

On both counts filed by Lloyds TSB (no breach of contract, no unfairness re UTCCR), the judge found in favour of the defendant in this one particular case. A fair summary I hope, of 23 pages.

[Cpt Black]

When is Tom's next hearing scheduled for?

[Guest bong]

Monday 21st May

[photoman]

When is Tom's next hearing scheduled for?

 

I thinks it's Monday !!!

[Cpt Black]

Ooh, cheers - will look out for reports, or news of another delay

[Bilgeman]

There seems to be a current rash of bad news washing over us at the moment which isn't quite so bad once we know more detail. Let's hope it's all just glitches (God forbid otherwise) and that while we're all waiting for outcomes we can keep sight of the whole picture and not begin to panic. Every case I've begun has been successful so far, all except for my Barclays one which is ongoing. There are always going to be 'days like this'.

[Parkvale]

Bilgeman, There are always going to be difficult situations in this fight for justice, but if you notice the banks are still settling and even the Lloyds case shows that they do not want to step into a court room and defend their charges. All the banks have huge legal backup to pull on. Yet they still settle cases without full disclosure of their true costs. So have no fear its business as usual.

[Bilgeman]

Quite agree, and that's really what I was trying to say although you've put it better.

[dj9928]

Whens is this all going to be finished as a Judge in N.I has suspended all bank charge cases until he sees the outcome of this apparantly

[c_allen]

there is a sticky somewhere on this forum, about asking for stays to be lifted, i'll try to find the link for you

[c_allen]

Application for removal of a stay

here it is

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

I hope the MODs will forgive me posting this AGAIN but it's an important topic I think ALL info should shared.

 

Have just watched BBC1 Breakfast when their guy from Money Box stated that although very surprisingly this DJ had found in the banks favour it did NOT set a precedent He also said ANOTHER DJ who obviously new of DJ Cookes ruling still found for the claimant AGAINST the bank.

 

The guy was spot on & I shall be listening to Money Box on Radio 4 at 12noon today when it will again be spoken about

 

Perhaps the mods could use there powers to let everyone know about this

 

[delboytrotter]

Once you have ruled out the impossible only the truth is left......this is why the banks still pay out

[Sparkie1723]

Precedents are never set in a county court,

They can only be set in the High Courts and above.

Anyone who tries to rely on a County Court ruling is on a loser.

 

 

sparkie1723

[TANZARELLI]

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Moneybox | Lloyds bank charges victory

 

Heres the link to the sound clip referred to in a post above.

[Celicaman]

I hope the MODs will forgive me posting this AGAIN but it's an important topic I think ALL info should shared.

 

Have just watched BBC1 Breakfast when their guy from Money Box stated that although very surprisingly this DJ had found in the banks favour it did NOT set a precedent He also said ANOTHER DJ who obviously new of DJ Cookes ruling still found for the claimant AGAINST the bank.

 

The guy was spot on & I shall be listening to Money Box on Radio 4 at 12noon today when it will again be spoken about

 

Perhaps the mods could use there powers to let everyone know about this

 

 

 

And why dont the media grab this one with the same Gusto as they did with the one case that went in favour of the defendant.

Because the claimant winning against the banks IS NOT NEWS ANYMORE

its normal, keep the faith, claim away

 

CM

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

For the same reason they haven't picked up on the bailiffs bill going through now & they won't until a debtor is either seriously injured or God forbid killed by these thugs