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

[freakyleaky]

Surely if he wins this case, the ruling will apply to all other banks? Or will there have to be similar actions for each bank?

[lateralus]

precedents can't be set in small claims - sounds like maybe he's got it fast tracked - i think he's taking a big chance - will probably make him or break him. as for wider implications - think it's a wait and see - but i doubt it will flutter down - i think it may be case specific - they still won't come out with what the actual costs are. this is a billion pound business. it's their bread and butter - once again - those on the lowest end, least able to bear it paying the charges. - you won't see any big money peeps claiming charges - they don't get them.

[itsamomentintime]

the guy is risking a lot - all for the consumer, good luck fella!!!

 

but re the bankrupcy problem (in the event of the claimant losing), what possible good could come of a judge awarding costs to a huge bank, thus ruining the life and career of a member of the public?

[givememymoney]

You just hope that the judge in this case really knows what they are doing and takes time to really understand the issues and potential implications.

[GaryH]

The main danger for him is that he's refused a settlement offer well in excess of the amount in charges. If he did lose, and Natwest requested that the judge apply the unreasonableness test, the court might not have much choice but to award costs against him. Having said that, and as the bloke said on the news website, it could be considered in the public interest so that may well prevent a huge costs order. I think ultimately its down to the judge - although lets hope the costs issue doesn't even come into it.

[Guest bong]

does anyone know how much he's going after? you said its under £5k breezy, but they've offered £4k and he's rejected it so I would imagine it has to be a lot more. Also he's said he could have to face costs so its probably not in the SCT.

 

wouldnt be surprised to see them settle

[crfx250]

I rather suspect that if this guy did lose the case, many people would step in to help him out and save him from financial ruin. I for one certainly would.

[The Pigeon]

Interesting stuff, was just reading this story on BBC News and thought I'd pop on here to see what the general consensus was. Should those in the middle of a claim worry that if Friday's decision goes against Brennan, it may spell trouble for reclaiming?

[GaryH]

does anyone know how much he's going after? you said its under £5k breezy, but they've offered £4k and he's rejected it so I would imagine it has to be a lot more. Also he's said he could have to face costs so its probably not in the SC

I think the charges are 2.5k, and the damages are likely to be unspecified I would have thought.

[GaryH]

Should those in the middle of a claim worry that if Friday's decision goes against Brennan, it may spell trouble for reclaiming?

No - any sort of precident would be along way off.

[indebtstudent]

I too would donate... But I'm still hoping he will be susccessful.

[nettyg]

anyone fancy a trip to london next friday? i'd love to go see how this turns out. this man is a superstar already in my eyes, good on him brave soldier!!

[Tigs33]

Good on him, I wish him all the luck in the world!!!

[Guest bong]

I'm interested in the fact that he's rejected the charges refund - being a barrister and all that, up until now I haven't known for sure whether the banks have a legal right to force upon you a payment of elements of a claim with no admission of liability, leaving things like CI, claims that fall outside 6 years and damages outstanding - but it seems this could be proof that it will be seen as perfectly feasible by a court to have rejected a part payment.

[GuidoT]

Judgements in County Courts do not set a precedent and are not binding on any other courts, not even other County Courts.

 

Only High Court and above bind themselves and lower courts.

 

Whatever the outcome, this is unlikely to make much difference, certainly not in the short to medium term.

[Guest NATTIE]

i still doubt that the bank will be forced to disclose costs.

[crfx250]

Nice to hear Marc live on BBC 4. It's interesting that nat west have 'forced' their £ 4000 settlement offer into his account and are closing his account next week. They

must be desparate.

 

This guy is showing tunnel vision commitment. He's a hero already

[cleanslate]

Tom Brennan top man best wishes mate you are doing what all of us would love to do.i hope the judge has put his or her claim aswell for return of charges.from the greedy banks:D

[Guest NATTIE]

it is Friday 13th as well, wonder whether he will be lucky?

[BreezyDay]

does anyone know how much he's going after? you said its under £5k breezy, but they've offered £4k and he's rejected it so I would imagine it has to be a lot more. Also he's said he could have to face costs so its probably not in the SCT.

 

wouldnt be surprised to see them settle

 

Hi Bong,

 

There doesn't seem to be any mention of the total amount he is trying to claim unless anyone can enlighten us. Even though he rejected the £4,000, I read it to be he was more interested in the principle of forcing the bank to declare the charges rather than the amount.

 

In the BBC article it refers to 'substantial level of damages' in relation to 'exemplary damages' so I'm wondering what 'substantial' would be in monetary terms. Also, as he is going to CC this Friday, if the judge grants permission, would it be the cost element or the tack he is using that would determine which court it goes to next?

[humbleman]

Check this out

 

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Moneybox | Court bid for bank charge ruling

[deadzebra]

I wonder how Natwest and it's senior barristers will try to defend this?

 

Maybe they will use the OFT extended investigation to postpone things (if that's possible).

 

These are clever people, I'm sure they will have a trick or two up their sleeve.

 

Guess we will all find out next week.

 

I wish Mr Brennan well.

 

.

[Guest NATTIE]

The charges will still not be the issue merely compensation.

[cleanslate]

lucky does not come into it. fact does i think its about time someone with a bit of bottle stands up in court and fights for the rights of everyone who ever has had charges removed from accounts if the law of our fantastic nation understands one mans fight for justice on the real cost of bank charges the law should make banks tell us the real cost of charges. brennan i take my hat off to you everyone in the uk will be willing you all the way to justice when i say everyone i mean us as customers of the rip off bank system got my champagne on ice.however if the legal system within our great nation goes with the banks it would show how the courts have let us all down i can only see one outcome out of all of this.

have your glasses ready and drink a toast to mr brennan. as delboy would say. who dares wins

[Guest NATTIE]

My gut feeling says the issue is really to do with the issue of compensation and not the costs involved. I am sure if this was an area which you could have gone down that it would have been done before. Wait and see i guess