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

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

mailman I don't wish to be unkind but I suggest you read & understand a little more before you post.

 

Its not a question as you state of "very few people in the legal profession simply because they all would have been debarred after losing a court case" which of course is nonsence. Tom will not be able to practice if he's bankrupted & he will if NW claim their costs

[mailmannz]

Well then perhaps the reference to being debared because he lost should be removed completely so that it only says "if he loses he could be bankrupted and as a result of being a bankrupt be unable to practice".

 

The way it was originally spun was that if he lost he would be debarred...not that he would be bankrupted and then not allowed to practice because of bankruptcy.

 

Mailman

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Well shoestring like most of those who once believed the banks & their propagandists you have fallen for the biggest con of all.

 

Have you not noticed how since their claims of a compesation culture premuims have rocketed & wondered why.

 

I suggest you read the following & if they don't convince you of the further deceit being perpertrated on the British Public I have many more examples that might

 

http://www.guythomas.org.uk/compensation/compensation.php

 

http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-9887-f0.cfm

 

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/16/the-myth-of-compensation-culture/

 

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/48/messages/907.html

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060608/debtext/60608-0440.htm

[meagain]

See following representative cases by following these links (there are a great many cases of abuse of the no win no fee system, in fact):

 

The key difference being that the US allows for exorbitant punitive damages, whereas the British legal system does not (I believe it is explicitly disallowed).

[Shoestring]

Well shoestring like most of those who once believed the banks & their propagandists you have fallen for the biggest con of all.

 

Have you not noticed how since their claims of a compesation culture premuims have rocketed & wondered why.

 

I suggest you read the following & if they don't convince you of the further deceit being perpertrated on the British Public I have many more examples that might

 

Pliny, clearly, you are confusing me with someone else.

 

This must be the case, I think, because your opening remarks about me believing in propaganda (of banks or any other form of it) happens to be so way off the actual mark as to be almost farcical (albeit the adjective being said in a most gentle way ).

 

Likewise, I have never yet discussed "compensation culture" on these boards, nor seen them discussed.

 

Yours in confusion

 

Shoestring

 

btw, I briefly read each of the five links you posted. Of them all I found this one most believeable:

 

"Compensation culture"

 

The article by Monbiot on WRGrace and asbestosis fully conforms to my own view of how influential players can manipulate the system to their own pecuniary advantage. I have no love of that nor of the Grace family (J Peter Grace in particular), who had a rather unpleasant history of ultra right-wing politics.

[Shoestring]

The key difference being that the US allows for exorbitant punitive damages, whereas the British legal system does not (I believe it is explicitly disallowed).

 

As it currently stands...

 

We are all the time moving closer to an American model of government and, I fear, the law will simply follow bit by bit, drip by drip, pound by pound, injustice by injustice. In other words the business model of the law.

 

Ministry of Justice eh? Ring any bells? Might that be similar to the Department of Justice? A case of politicising the judiciary more than it is already politicised... We'll be voting in judges next. Anyway, interesting that John Reid was the one who birthed it as almost his last act in government? Personally, I harbour profound doubts about Reid's loyalty and agenda.

 

Shoestring

[Sparkie1723]

Me I'm thick but its its my understanding yhat To Brennans case is in

the COUNTY COURT small claims track at the moment, so about him paying the big sumeof money every one is talking about is not quite there yet, it's only if the judge says "hey this is too heavyfor me to rule on I'm going to have move it up to a higher court"

Thats when it might start getting that he is in danger of paying big money in costs if he loses,

Ther is allways a chance that the Judge in the County Court has got the guts to rule before it gets there, Then the Bank will apply to have that judgement set aside and then from then on it will start all over again.

I can see this going on for ages,

This is my view but as I said I'm thick.

 

sparkie1723

[delboytrotter]

I was under the impression that he was just trying to get permission to sue, for damages etc, if he gets permission then it will move to the higher court...

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Me I'm thick but its its my understanding yhat To Brennans case is in

the COUNTY COURT small claims track at the moment, so about him paying the big sumeof money every one is talking about is not quite there yet, it's only if the judge says "hey this is too heavyfor me to rule on I'm going to have move it up to a higher court"

Thats when it might start getting that he is in danger of paying big money in costs if he loses,

Ther is allways a chance that the Judge in the County Court has got the guts to rule before it gets there, Then the Bank will apply to have that judgement set aside and then from then on it will start all over again.

I can see this going on for ages,

This is my view but as I said I'm thick.

 

sparkie1723

 

You forget that if he wins & they appeal, as they most certainly will, it WILL go to a higher court when the costs will be commensurate.

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

As it currently stands...

 

We are all the time moving closer to an American model of government and, I fear, the law will simply follow bit by bit, drip by drip, pound by pound, injustice by injustice. In other words the business model of the law.

 

Ministry of Justice eh? Ring any bells? Might that be similar to the Department of Justice? A case of politicising the judiciary more than it is already politicised... We'll be voting in judges next. Anyway, interesting that John Reid was the one who birthed it as almost his last act in government? Personally, I harbour profound doubts about Reid's loyalty and agenda.

 

Shoestring

 

I agree entirely with those sentiments about this government & Reid.

 

However not only are we NOT moving in the direction you suggest but in fact we are moving away from compensating the victims to punishing for being victims. This Government is currently preposing (at the behest of the insurance industry) into allowing employers to escape sanction when they kill or injur one of their employee's.

 

The point is I believe that if Tom wins, or even, the right to claim damges the defendant will try & imply that such a judgment will cost the banks to much & should be quashed

[Shoestring]

However not only are we NOT moving in the direction you suggest but in fact we are moving away from compensating the victims to punishing for being victims. This Government is currently preposing (at the behest of the insurance industry) into allowing employers to escape sanction when they kill or injur one of their employee's.

 

You appear to be under the misapprehension that the American system of government and jurisprudence is GOOD? It's not. It's absolutely corrupt and rotten to the core.

 

Quite where the employee compensation subject arose, I have no idea. But I would argue that if what you say is true about governments proposals to limit compensation to employees injured or killed in the course of their work, then it perfectly fits to with the US model where business and wealth rule supreme. It is a deplorable political, judicial and business model and an even more deplorable idea to abandon employees to an unprotected fate. But one that is long in its planning and inception. As a consequence the past is rapidly becoming our future (note what I have said elsewhere about the gradual indoctrination and adoption of a feudal system of government and begin practising bowing your head and tugging your forelock as you're going to need this skill more and more as time goes by).

 

Shoestring

[Sparkie1723]

In the small claims track from what I have seen, you dont have to ask permission to sue for damages and exemplary damages, I had a little bit of experience at that in my case against the RBOS, It started off in the fast track and it was the Judge who moved it up to the Fast tack, I also asked for damages and exemplary damages.................but before you can ask for exemplary damages you first have to prove actual financial loss.

You dont have to ask for permission if you prove "loss" you then have to prove your case for damages............its really TWO cases in one.

You can claim up to £100.000 in the County Courts

Exemplary damages are damages that can be awarded as a punishment in Retribution (Law of Retribution) for a civil wrong that has been made against the Claimant. This is really a fine that is ordered but instead of it going into the courts coffers it goes to the Claimant.

In my case I could not give enough proof of financial loss so therefore could not claim for the damages I claimed, which included exemplary damages. Even though I "won " my Data Protection Claim.

 

sparkie

[setmefree]

Let's face it bank's have no morals,

If you have insufficent funds in your account to pay a debit they let you know with a letter usually within 48 hours and of course the amount they are going to take from your account in the next 7 days,(their charges £39.00).

 

Yet if like myself you have a complaint against them they have upto 8 weeks to deal with it .

i personally have several complaints against them.

(1)fell into arrears with loan their recovery team kept clearing my account all bar a penny which they are entitled to due, exept the same time they passed the debt on to a collection agency without any notification to myself. this company then told me that they were also collecting the arrears.

(2) added £50 charges to my loan account every time the collection agency sent me a letter (spreadsheet to prove)

(3)agreed with bank to change loan date to match the date when my wages go in(loan recovery team still taking money from account)

(4)recovery team cleared all bar a penny from my account on the 26th of oct then on the 27th i had £28.00 charges to be paid account goes overdrawn.

(5)standing order on the loan not taken out at the beginng of the working day nor still not taken at 8pm same day( whole account balance still available to withdraw throughout the day.

(6)debit card used in january transaction slip to prove yet money taken from account in march (overdrawn with a debit card) their fault.

(7)credit file obtained from equifax outstanding loan amount £46.00, so i left £50.00 in bank. letter received from bank 4 days later due to insufficent funds in your account we cannot pay your loan of £62.73 and you have been charged £39.00 for us telling.

 

letter was signed by managing director,i informed him of this fact and surprise surprise the loan is finished no longer appears on my internet banking account.

[monopoly23]

Yes I've already thought of sending a pallet of incontinance pads to

nat west's legal dept as a 'gesture of good will'. I'll get on the blower..

 

Can you send some to me please cos I nearly peed myself laughing lol :o

[chonker]

I just read about this, I hope he nails 'em to the f'ing wall.

[tetley75]

Just heard on the radio that he lost his case today:(

[crfx250]

It's not till Monday. You must be getting confused with the Lloyds case

[doo]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/35751-kevboy_telford-lloyds.html

[tetley75]

It's not till Monday. You must be getting confused with the Lloyds case

 

Sorry mate, i must of miss heard but i could of sworn blind they said tom brennon had lost. Glad that i'm wrong though.

[Sparkie1723]

I've just read the whole judgement summary on the BBC news web site.

 

The man that lost.... I feel sick for him .......but the thing is he wasn't claiming penalty charges back ....he was trying to claim back account standard charges O/D interest and charges for the letters he received from the bank warning him about his overdraft.

 

Sorry to say I think all the mods on the CAG forum tell us all not to include those in our claims, he never mentioned penalty charges in his claim from what I could make out, but its a warning to all I think, dont include account charges or it may become a little sticky

 

anyone else throw anything in

 

sparkie1723

[enaid]

Sparkie you may be on the wrong thread here it was not Tom Brennan, it was a Lloyds case

[noomill060]

Looks like the Judiciary have already made their minds up before Tom Brennan even gets to his next hearing:

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Judge warns 'unreasonable' banks

 

 

 

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.

[calvi36]

noom good post mate, nice to see someone else who is not taking this claimants defeat as now being case law. This case as far as i can see was flawed from the outset, illegal charges instead of unlawful charges etc being used. I for one will continue on my own quest to have my charges refunded. I use the information provided on this site to further my claim, the information here is invaluable. If this claimant had used this site instead of his own ad hoc forms he would have succeeded and he would also have known what he was and was not entitled to claim back. More fool him for being a loose cannon.

[noomill060]

Yes indeed.

 

Today's disappointing result highlights the value of this site and the importance of doing it right.

 

Judge David Mackie QC would appear to be firing a warning shot over the Bank's bow and giving a VERY public signal to the District Judge in Brennans case as to what he would like the result of Brennan v NatWest to be.

[calvi36]

This is a copy of my post in another forum.

But Judge Cooke decided the bank's charges were in fact legitimate fees for servicing an overdrawn account.

As such, the judge said they were legal.

Having held that the charges complained of are not charges for breach of contract but part of the price of the services provided by the bank....he has not satisfied me that he has any ground in law for recovering from the bank the amount of any charges which he has paid to it," he said.

 

I would add that has this piece of pond life actually seen the news, the relevant case law, the refusal to admit what actual charges are in front of a parliamentary commitee.

 

I am not contradicting myself. When we prepare for action in a court we have to be crystal clear as to what we are claiming, why we are claiming and on what grounds we feel we have the right claim. I speak from experience of a different matter, contentious probate, now let's not go there its a mare. I wish sinderely kev had won, but as we used to say in the milatary PPP .......P*** poor planning= monumental f up. Sorry kev, thoughts are with u go to appeal and prepare.