Bank charges waiver direction - monthly reporting Bank charges waiver direction - monthly reporting Thank you to everyone for your input so far. If you have registered your interest, I will have sent you a PM for further information about your claim. If you haven't already issued your claim, then I do not need to approach you at this stage, so please do not issue your claim simply for the benefit of these proposed GLOs. We are still at an early stage with these proposed GLOs, although I am expecting to make some real progress in the near future. In principle, I am looking for claimants who are eligible for Legal Aid so that we can get proper funding for the proposed GLOs. We need this funding so that we can get a dedicated legal team in place, including solicitors and barristers. As you may appreciate, these proposed GLOs would be a substantial undertaking that could not be pursued by a lone individual, even an experienced lawyer. Getting legal aid funding is therefore vital if these GLOs are to proceed. Whilst I appreciate Ragtaggeorge's sentiments about keeping lawyers in employment, please note that I am not getting paid for this work, and there is no guarantee that I will even be part of the GLO legal team, assuming that we can get Legal Aid Funding. My primary concern is that consumers are properly represented and that they are able to get back every penny that they are owed. I must stress at this stage that I am not offering anyone legal advice on their claim; I am merely gathering information with a view to submitting legal aid applications for the GLOs and for gathering numbers for those solicitor firms that have expressed an interest in the GLOs. If anyone with a claim still wishes to register their interest, please PM me, and I will do my best to respond as soon as I can. Thomas Brennan

Dear all, Thank you for your discussion of the issues raised by my original post. I will endeavour to answer some of these questions when I have an opportunity to do so at the end of next week. Thomas Brennan

Proposed Group Litigation Orders (GLOs) Important: If you are interested in becoming involved in a Group Litigation Order, please reply to this post stating: · which bank (or banks) you have a claim against · whether you are eligible for legal aid (see below) Please do not post any additional information at this stage, as you may be contacted later by private message for any additional information. Please note there is a separate post for general discussion of the proposed GLOs: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/173394-discussion-proposed-group-litigation.html#post1870703 The issue of bank charges, their lawfulness and their continued use has been completely overtaken by the OFT test case proceedings. Attempts by individual consumers to find redress, either through the banks’ own complaints procedures, or through the courts, have now ground to a halt whilst the test case continues and whilst the FSA waiver remains in place. Although the OFT and the FSA are undertaking serious and much needed work through the test-case and the PCA market study, there are legitimate concerns within consumer circles that the interests of the consumer are not being adequately represented or protected. The judgment of Smith J. makes it clear that bank charges are subject to the requirement of fairness, and the OFT has now written to the banks with their preliminary conclusion that these charges are unfair. Nevertheless the banks are still imposing these charges with impunity and routinely ignoring consumer complaints, citing the FSA waiver and the test case as justification. Without any proper redress through the court system, consumers are becoming increasingly frustrated by this apparent unequal treatment, particularly those consumers suffering from financial hardship. Given the current financial crises affecting the UK banking industry, it is unsurprising that the banks are not seeking a quick resolution to the issue of bank charges. There are already in excess of 65,000 “bank charge” claims in the court system, and OFT figures suggest that in excess of 12 million people could have a claim against their bank; the final compensation figure could be well in excess of £10billion. Even when the test case is fully resolved some time in late 2009 or early 2010, there will remain a number of outstanding legal issues, since neither the OFT nor the FSA have any statutory powers to bring proceedings on behalf of consumers. These issues include, but are not limited to: What can be recovered by consumers? The full charges, the interest on those charges? What about any consequential losses, such as a resulting bankruptcy or the repossession of a family home? What rate of interest can consumers reclaim: the statutory 8%, compound interest or the contractual interest that the banks have imposed? Does the Statute of Limitations and the 6-year rule apply to bank-charge claims? And whilst the test case continues, there are pressing concerns for many claimants: Can consumers facing financial difficulty bring an injunction to stop these charges? Can all consumers? Can the stays on cases involving financial hardship be challenged? Can the ongoing FSA waiver be challenged in light of recent developments? With legitimate concerns that the consumer’s interests are not being properly advanced or protected, it is essential for consumers to be properly represented. Whilst no individual could be expected to have the resources to fund their own legal team, collectively consumers could have a much greater say in how their interests are protected through the use of Group Litigation Orders. A Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’) is an order made by a Court to manage claims which give rise to common or related issues of fact or law (the ‘GLO issues’). Essentially, one claim is used as a test case to deal with the GLO issues, and all claims which are proceeding on related issues of fact or law are attached to that claim by way of a Group Register. Any ruling that is made in respect of the test case will be binding on all other cases on the Group Register. This is sometimes referred to as a “class action”. The benefits of GLOs in these cases against the banks are substantial: a GLO claim is automatically assigned to the multi-track, and so funding can be obtained from the Legal Services Commission if a sufficient number of claimants are eligible for Legal Aid. This would allow for proper representation by solicitors and enable a litigation team to be put together for consumers. Preliminary discussions have taken place with the Legal Services Commission and funding could, in principle, be granted for such GLOs. This would allow consumers to have their own interest advanced properly by a substantial legal team, and ensure that no deals are struck behind closed doors by the banks and the regulators without their involvement. But before more detailed discussions and preparatory steps can be taken, it is important to establish whether there is sufficient interest from claimants for these GLOs to go ahead. There have been indications from the Courts that this may be the most sensible way to deal with the tens of thousands of claims already in the system, and the hundreds of thousands that may well follow. It should be noted that a Court has powers to order such a GLO of its own initiative and can add additional claimants to the Group Register. It may be better, however, for such initiative to come from consumers themselves. To that end, please take a moment to consider the following: If you have already issued your claim, would you be interested in joining a Group Litigation Order? If the answer to that question is Yes, please reply to this post stating: · which bank (or banks) you have a claim against · whether you are eligible for legal aid (see below) Please do not post any additional information at this stage, as you may be contacted later by private message for any additional information. Please note there is a separate post for discussion of the proposed GLOs, so please do not post any comments or discussion within this post. Once the data from this poll has been collated, a further post will set out progress on the current discussions with solicitors and the Legal Services Commission in respect of GLOs. Legal Aid criteria. If you can answer YES to both of the following criteria, you should be eligible for legal aid: Income: is your gross income £2530 per month or less, or are you in receipt of Income Support, Income Based Jobseeker's Allowance, Income Based Employment and Support Allowance or Guarantee Credit? Capital: is your capital (savings, etc) less than £8000, or are you in receipt of Income Support, Income Based Jobseeker's Allowance, Income Based Employment and Support Allowance or Guarantee Credit? When calculating your capital, you should include any equity which is over £100,000 in your property (though you can deduct up to £100,000 for any mortgage on that property). Thank you for taking the time to read this information and responding to this post. Hopefully, with your support, we can join enough claimants together on GLOs to properly protect the interests of consumers and to ensure a fair result on compensation for these bank charges. Thomas Brennan Barrister Atlas Chambers

Proposed Group Litigation Orders (GLOs) This post is for the discussion of the Proposed Group Litigation Orders. If you wish to register your interest in being a party to a Group Litigation Order, please reply to that separate post: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/173396-proposed-group-litigation-orders.html#post1870713 The issue of bank charges, their lawfulness and their continued use has been completely overtaken by the OFT test case proceedings. Attempts by individual consumers to find redress, either through the banks’ own complaints procedures, or through the courts, have now ground to a halt whilst the test case continues and whilst the FSA waiver remains in place. Although the OFT and the FSA are undertaking serious and much needed work through the test-case and the PCA market study, there are legitimate concerns within consumer circles that the interests of the consumer are not being adequately represented or protected. The judgment of Smith J. makes it clear that bank charges are subject to the requirement of fairness, and the OFT has now written to the banks with their preliminary conclusion that these charges are unfair. Nevertheless the banks are still imposing these charges with impunity and routinely ignoring consumer complaints, citing the FSA waiver and the test case as justification. Without any proper redress through the court system, consumers are becoming increasingly frustrated by this apparent unequal treatment, particularly those consumers suffering from financial hardship. Given the current financial crises affecting the UK banking industry, it is unsurprising that the banks are not seeking a quick resolution to the issue of bank charges. There are already in excess of 65,000 “bank charge” claims in the court system, and OFT figures suggest that in excess of 12 million people could have a claim against their bank; the final compensation figure could be well in excess of £10billion. Even when the test case is fully resolved some time in late 2009 or early 2010, there will remain a number of outstanding legal issues, since neither the OFT nor the FSA have any statutory powers to bring proceedings on behalf of consumers. These issues include, but are not limited to: What can be recovered by consumers? The full charges, the interest on those charges? What about any consequential losses, such as a resulting bankruptcy or the repossession of a family home? What rate of interest can consumers reclaim: the statutory 8%, compound interest or the contractual interest that the banks have imposed? Does the Statute of Limitations and the 6-year rule apply to bank-charge claims? And whilst the test case continues, there are pressing concerns for many claimants: Can consumers facing financial difficulty bring an injunction to stop these charges? Can all consumers? Can the stays on cases involving financial hardship be challenged? Can the ongoing FSA waiver be challenged in light of recent developments? With legitimate concerns that the consumer’s interests are not being properly advanced or protected, it is essential for consumers to be properly represented. Whilst no individual could be expected to have the resources to fund their own legal team, collectively consumers could have a much greater say in how their interests are protected through the use of Group Litigation Orders. A Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’) is an order made by a Court to manage claims which give rise to common or related issues of fact or law (the ‘GLO issues’). Essentially, one claim is used as a test case to deal with the GLO issues, and all claims which are proceeding on related issues of fact or law are attached to that claim by way of a Group Register. Any ruling that is made in respect of the test case will be binding on all other cases on the Group Register. This is sometimes referred to as a “class action”. The benefits of GLOs in these cases against the banks are substantial: a GLO claim is automatically assigned to the multi-track, and so funding can be obtained from the Legal Services Commission if a sufficient number of claimants are eligible for Legal Aid. This would allow for proper representation by solicitors and enable a litigation team to be put together for consumers. Preliminary discussions have taken place with the Legal Services Commission and funding could, in principle, be granted for such GLOs. This would allow consumers to have their own interest advanced properly by a substantial legal team, and ensure that no deals are struck behind closed doors by the banks and the regulators without their involvement. But before more detailed discussions and preparatory steps can be taken, it is important to establish whether there is sufficient interest from claimants for these GLOs to go ahead. There have been indications from the Courts that this may be the most sensible way to deal with the tens of thousands of claims already in the system, and the hundreds of thousands that may well follow. It should be noted that a Court has powers to order such a GLO of its own initiative and can add additional claimants to the Group Register. It may be better, however, for such initiative to come from consumers themselves. This post is for the discussion of the proposed GLOs. A separate post is set up for individuals to register their interest in being a party to a GLO. Once the data from this poll has been collated, a further post will set out progress on the current discussions with solicitors and the Legal Services Commission in respect of GLOs. Thank you for taking the time to read this information. Hopefully, with your support, we can join enough claimants together on GLOs to properly protect the interests of consumers and to ensure a fair result on compensation for these bank charges. Thomas Brennan Barrister Atlas Chambers

The EU Directives came into force on 1st July 2004, so in my opinion any potential claim could only be back-dated to that date.

This report stems from an earlier report in the Sunday Times (Money Section) dated 3 August 2008. The full Sunday Times report can be seen here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/mon...cle4448569.ece I have produced a note in response to this report, which identifies the relevant Directives and some of the issues involved: Following from today’s article in the Sunday Times relating to price differentials in payment methods for gas and electricity customers, I am posting on here to give some additional background information. The following is the correct position to the best of my knowledge, but if you are going to rely on the following statements in court or in correspondence with your gas or electricity supplier, then I must recommend that you get your own independent legal advice. The legal research I have undertaken in respect of this issue is not final, and my thoughts on this issue may be refined in light of further research. Before I start I would also like to correct a slight error in the report in the Sunday Times: when Ali Hussain states “Tom Brennan of Atlas Chambers, the law firm that initiated a surge in bank-charge claims last year”, it should be noted that Atlas Chambers is a barrister’s chambers, and not a law firm at all. And whilst my case may have been one of the factors that helped to highlight the issue of unlawful bank charges, I would like to stress that I had not joined Atlas Chambers at the time of my case. At that time, neither Atlas Chambers nor its members were linked to my case or bank charges generally. Now to the substance. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) is the responsible Authority for regulating gas and electricity suppliers, and has as one of its statutory objectives a duty to protect consumers. Ofgem is responsible for issuing licences to the relevant suppliers, and such licences are a pre-requisite for the national supply of electricity and gas. There has been a great deal of consumer concern at the increasing level of gas and electricity bills, which has seen the recent introduction of the term “fuel poverty”, which is defined as “Households which spend in excess of 10% of their income on maintaining an adequate level of heating and lighting”: see page 42 of the House of Commons Business and Enterprise Committee Report on Energy prices, fuel poverty and Ofgem, (hereafter “the Select Committee Report”), which can be found at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmberr/293/293i.pdf There has been particular concern at the standard practice by energy suppliers in charging significant differences between the different payment types for bill payments. If a consumer pays by cash, cheque or pre-payment meter, then they are likely to be charged significantly more than those customers paying by direct debit. However, under paragraph (d) of Annexe A to EU Directives 54/2003 and 55/2003 (extracts below), gas and electricity suppliers must offer a wide choice of payment methods, and any difference in terms and conditions (e.g. price) must reflect the costs to the supplier of the different payment systems. In essence the suppliers are not allowed to profit from using different payment methods, as it is normally those who must pay by cheque, pre-payment meter, or cash, that are normally the hardest hit by fuel costs and “administrative costs”, and those most likely to fall within the definition of “fuel poverty”. These EU Directives had to be implemented by the UK by 1st July 2004. However, it does not appear that the UK has implemented those Directives correctly, specifically in relation to the requirement that any price difference between the payment types having to reflect the actual costs to the supplier. In paragraphs 83 to 88 of the Select Committee Report mentioned above, MPs reached the conclusion that there was significant overcharging by energy suppliers for any payment type that was not by direct debit. They concluded that: “The ‘Big Six’ are on average overcharging pre-payment customers by £59 a year, and those on standard credit by £69.” Under previous UK Regulations, between 2004 and 2006, Ofgem operated standard licensing conditions for electricity and gas suppliers that are different to the current conditions that are imposed on suppliers today. Under those old licences, the suppliers had tosupply different payment methods under Condition 43: Contractual Terms - Methods of Payment. Condition 43(4) stated that “The [supplier] shall process all requests for a supply of electricity to domestic premises without undue preference or undue discrimination” in respect of those different payment types (gas suppliers had the same standard terms). This could arguably have been in line with the European Directives which have already been mentioned, and the requirement that any difference in price reflect the actual cost. But Ofgem revised the standard licensing conditions in 2007, and since then Condition 27 (the new condition on payment types) no longer makes any reference to “undue preference or undue discrimination”. In effect, the new licensing conditions are a step back for consumer protection. Ofgem does seem to have picked up on this point, which can be seen in the Fuel Poverty Summit Action Group that it convened in April this year: http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/SocAction/Publications/Documents1/Fuel%20Poverty%20Summit%20Action%20Programme.pdf, at page 7, Commitment L. Ofgem is now considering how this issue may be addressed in possible new licensing obligations. However, the measures to implement the relevant European Directives were supposed to come into force by 1st July 2004, but it appears that the UK has failed to implement them correctly. Our UK legislation, and the licensing regime that stems from it, does not appear to reflect the requirements under the European Directives. So where does this leave consumers? If the content of the Energy Report by the House of Commons Business & Enterprise Committee is correct, then it follows that the gas and electricity suppliers are acting in breach of the Directives as they are charging more than the actual cost of processing cheques, etc, to their customers. The consumer could therefore have a claim against the company on two grounds: First, that the contractual term is unlawful as a result of the European Directives and/or the 2004-2007 standard licensing conditions, and therefore unenforceable. The consumer would therefore be claiming back any payments that have been made to the supplier as a result of those contractual terms that are found to be unlawful. It should be noted that there is an actual cost to the supplier of the different payment types, but the assertion made in the Select Committee Report is that those price differences that are being charged do not reflect the actual costs. Any consumer challenging such price differentials would be required to prove their case, and would have to rely heavily on the content of the Select Committee Report and associated documents. Further or alternatively, the consumer could bring a claim for “breach of statutory duty”. I stress could, because this area of law is still very much developing. European Treaties and Regulations (two of the three forms of European legislation) that have direct effect in this country and are intended to protect a particular class of persons are considered to impose a “statutory duty”, and failure to comply with those Treaties or Regulations can amount to a “breach of statutory duty”. However, where the laws are enacted through European Directives (the third form of European legislation), the law is less clear. It is not certain whether the customer in this case could bring a claim against their supplier for breach of statutory duty. There is case law to suggest that they can, and there is case law to suggest that there is no such remedy in tort. The issue is far from settled, and a test case may have to be run in order to establish legal certainty on the issue. The good news for consumers is that if a court rules that the consumer does not have a claim against the supplier in contract or in tort, then the consumer could make a claim against the Government for failing to properly implement the European Directives, where the consumer has suffered loss as a result of that failure to properly implement the Directives. Essentially, the consumer would get two bites at the cherry, first against the supplier, and second against the government. If a test case were to be run, it may be that both the supplier AND the government could be joined as joint defendants to the case. On a practical note, however, a consumer who has been charged excessively by their supplier for paying by cheque or by cash, etc, could write to their supplier and demand a repayment of the amount that they have been overcharged. I may, in the course of the week, draft such a standard letter for open use, but I must stress again that if it comes to any legal proceedings you must get your own independent legal advice. I hope this information comes in useful. Tom Brennan Below are the extracts of the relevant Directives and Standard Conditions from the old licensing regime. DIRECTIVE 2003/55/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC Article 3 Public service obligations and customer protection 1… 2… 3. Member States shall take appropriate measures to protect final customers and to ensure high levels of consumer protection, and shall, in particular, ensure that there are adequate safeguards to protect vulnerable customers, including appropriate measures to help them avoid disconnection. In this context, they may take appropriate measures to protect customers in remote areas who are connected to the gas system. Member States may appoint a supplier of last resort for customers connected to the gas network. They shall ensure high levels of consumer protection, particularly with respect to transparency regarding general contractual terms and conditions, general information and dispute settlement mechanisms. Member States shall ensure that the eligible customer is effectively able to switch to a new supplier. As regards at least household customers these measures shall include those set out in Annex A. ANNEX A Measures on consumer protection Without prejudice to Community rules on consumer protection, in particular Directives 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) and Council Directive 93/13/EC (2), the measures referred to in Article 3 are to ensure that customers: …. (d) are offered a wide choice of payment methods. Any difference in terms and conditions shall reflect the costs to the supplier of the different payment systems. General terms and conditions shall be fair and transparent. They shall be given in clear and comprehensible language. Customers shall be protected against unfair or misleading selling methods; Article 33 Implementation 1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive not later than 1 July 2004. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. DIRECTIVE 2003/54/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC Article 3 Public service obligations and customer protection 5. Member States shall take appropriate measures to protect final customers, and shall in particular ensure that there are adequate safeguards to protect vulnerable customers, including measures to help them avoid disconnection. In this context, Member States may take measures to protect final customers in remote areas. They shall ensure high levels of consumer protection, particularly with respect to transparency regarding contractual terms and conditions, general information and dispute settlement mechanisms. Member States shall ensure that the eligible customer is in fact able to switch to a new supplier. As regards at least household customers, these measures shall include those set out in Annex A. Annex A …. (d) are offered a wide choice of payment methods. Any difference in terms and conditions shall reflect the costs to the supplier of the different payment systems. General terms and conditions shall be fair and transparent. They shall be given in clear and comprehensible language. Customers shall be protected against unfair or misleading selling methods; Article 30 Implementation 1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive not later than 1 July 2004. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. ELECTRICITY SUPPLY LICENCE: STANDARD CONDITIONS (Old conditions 2004-2006) Consolidated to 11 August 2006 Condition 41. Terms for Supply of Electricity Incompatible with Licence Conditions 1. The licensee shall not enter into or offer to enter into a variation of or operate any domestic supply contract or deemed contract for the supply of electricity to a customer at domestic premises otherwise than on terms which comply with the licensee’s obligations under the licence. 2. The licensee shall not enforce or take advantage of any term of a domestic supply contract for the supply of electricity to a customer at domestic premises if: (a) the inclusion of that term was incompatible with its obligations under any of the conditions, or (b) the enforcement or the taking advantage of that term would be so incompatible. 3. The licensee shall not take advantage of the omission of any term from a domestic supply contract or deemed contract for the supply of electricity to a customer at domestic premises if that term was required to be included in the contract or deemed contract in question by reason of the conditions. Condition 43. Contractual Terms - Methods of Payment 1. Where the licensee offers to supply electricity to domestic customers under a domestic supply contract, it shall have available forms of domestic supply contract which provide for the payment of charges for electricity supplied to domestic premises: (a) by prepayment through a prepayment meter; (b) by different methods, including: (i) by cash, at such places and to such persons, as are reasonable in all the circumstances; and (ii) by cheque, and © at a reasonable range of different intervals, including: (i) paying twice-monthly or fortnightly or more regularly, such sums as agreed; (ii) paying monthly a predetermined sum; and (iii) paying quarterly in arrears. 2. Where the licensee supplies electricity to domestic premises under a deemed contract, the terms of that contract shall include terms in respect of all the ways of making payments mentioned in sub-paragraph 1(b) and the frequencies mentioned in subparagraph 1©. The foregoing shall not apply to deemed contracts made following a direction under paragraph 1 of standard condition 29 (Supplier of Last Resort). 3. Before entering into any domestic supply contract (other than through a prepayment meter) the licensee shall inform the customer of and offer to enter into domestic supply contracts which comply with sub-paragraphs 1(b) and ©. 4. The licensee shall process all requests for a supply of electricity to domestic premises without undue preference or undue discrimination.

Thank you all for your posts of support and encouragement. I am, needless to say, incredibly disappointed at the judge's decision, and with the greatest of respect to Pitchford J., the judgment does not sit well with the authorities that were cited. I have been updating my site www.tombrennan.co.uk, which I hope to have completed by the end of tomorrow (Wednesday 5th December). Once it is finished, you will be able to see the reasoning and legal support for the basis of my claim in tort (breach of statutory duty), and the adverse consequences that stem from this ruling. Regardless of the outcome, I still believe it was right to bring this case, and I can only apologise for not having been more succesful. Needless to say, this ruling won't be the last chapter of the fight against unfair and unlawful business practices by the banking industry. I would just like to take this opportunity to say a big thank you to crfx250, who has been unswerving and exceptionally generous in his support for me throughout this case. Without his help, I would have had to abandon this case a long time ago, and would now be bankrupt, having lost in excess of £7,000 as a result of the judge's decision. crfx250 may not have been the public face of this particular battle, but he ws certainly the driving force behind it. Thanks chap - I am forever in your debt. Best of luck with all your attempts to get back your money from the banks, and let's hope that the OFT, the FSA or the Government take the appropriate steps to prevent these unfair and unlawful practices from continuing. Tom Brennan

I have now spoken to the Judge's clerk, and unfortunately the judgment is still being drafted. Whilst no timescale can be put on the date when it will be released, I have explained my situation to the clerk, and I am optimistic that the judgment will be handed down soon. Whilst it is a little frustrating to wait for a decision, especially one which affects me so strongly, it must be remembered that all High Court judges are extremely busy, and that they have a great number of cases to deal with. The fact that this judge is taking his time to draft a well-considered judgment can only be a good thing. If I am to be unsuccesful in this case, I would prefer to have a good judgment and wait a few extra days. After all, this has been going since September of 2006, so a few more days won't hurt. As soon as I get the result, I will post on this site and update my website accordingly.

My particulars of claim, skeleton arguments, etc, have pleaded points of law that are not entirely clear at present, such as breach of statutory duty, aggravated damages, exemplary damages, consequential loss, etc. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to post those points of law until I have had some final ruling in my case. My concern is that people will rely on those points but will be unable to put them across effectively before any judge, and the authorities are not entirely clear on these issues. As a result, it may actually detract from any legitimate claim that you have, and may cause those bringing such a claim additional costs. Having said that, if my appeal is succesful then I will be posting all the relevant documents either here or on my own website. In the meantime, keep pressing for your charges to be returned until a test case of some sort resolves all these additional issues.

Yes, Natwest filed a letter with the court, but did not turn up today, which meant the hearing was much quicker (and smoother)! Fortunately the press didn't get wind of the hearing, which menat I could focus on what I was doing without distractions.

The oral application for permission to appeal was heard this morning, 29 October 2007, before Mr Justice Pitchford. The hearing went quite well, all things considered, and Pitchford J. has reserved judgement, which will most likely be handed down next week. I will post here once I have received the judgment, but for now, it's a case of watch this space. For a consideration of the issue of default provisions in consumer contracts being subject to the test of fairness, see Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank [2001] UKHL 52 (House of Lords - Director General of Fair Trading V First National Bank).

Thanks again, and well done Parkvale for getting your money back! We are still waiting for a date on which the judgment will be handed down. The judge only returned from his holidays yesterday, so I'm not expecting any decision for another 2 to 4 weeks. Best wishes to all, Tom Brennan

Dear All, I've been a little busy of late, but I wanted to write on these forums to say thank you so much for your support. I've not had the opportunity to read every post relating to my case, but from what I've seen so far, there's a lot of support for what I am trying to achieve. So thank you. It has been quite a daunting task, and it has taken a lot of hard work just to get this far, but I'm hoping that in the end all the time and effort will be worth it. I will be posting on these forums in the coming days about my case, my reasons for launching the case, and what I am hoping to achieve. As you can appreciate, I'm not going to be able to discuss the current application, the likely outcome, or any course of action I might take in response. I have not been informed of a date for the judgment in this application, although the Court has informed me that it can take up to 8 weeks (from 22 May 2007). In this case, the judge is likely to take some care in drafting his decision, given the levels of scrutiny to which his judgment will be subjected by the parties, the public, the media, and (potentially) the appeal courts. I will update my website (www.tombrennan.co.uk) and post on these forums once I know anything further. Tom Edit: As an afterthought, please appreciate that I am not in a position to help individuals at this stage. My experience, such as it is, is in planning and environmental law, and I am not a consumer protection specialist. I have learnt a great deal in the past three months about the law involved, but I do not profess to be an expert. However, I do intend to post some general comments about my understanding of this area of law, and try to give some general guidance about the legal process and some of the legal arguments involved.