BBC website - lawyer trying to force banks to reveal costs

Sillychuckie · 7 April 2007 at 6:58PM

Interesting stuff... but the guy is risking far too much in my opinion, including his future career.
This is arrogance and greed gone a step too far.
He should be darn happy with the £4000 offer and take it, even if, in principle, the bank still 'say' they are in the right.

Hopefully it won't ruin his life, but why bother risking it. The FSA will decide in its own time what is or is not lawful.

computerwoman · 7 April 2007 at 7:09PM

I think he wants to claim damages,
that's what he was on about at around 6am this morning,
the fact that he is owed £2.500 and they offered him £4000 instead because he said no to the 2.500 but he has still said no,
he says if he win's it will open up other doors for other people to claim damages,
I guess he means to his health with the stress and worry of having to be overdrawn then get the charges on top of this,
hope he wins,
cw

Nathan_Spleen · 7 April 2007 at 9:34PM

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

The reason I say muppet is that this is not going to lead to any binding decision. It might lead to nothing at all. And the costs will STILL be a lot.

You really think people are going to throw money at him if it all proves a waste of his time?

Yes. And for your information I am personaly guarenteeing a very large
sum of money - not unajacent to £100k - to another case being brought
against another bank we are suing for a 'declaration' of proof of their costs
of charges. We have the banks own evidence, an ex bank employee and an MP who're willing to appear as witnesses.

My Guarentee will only kick in should we lose and have to pay big bucks in
costs but without it, the case would'nt go ahead.

Of course Tom Brennans case will not set a precedent in itself cause he's
going after exemplary damages but if he wins nat west will have to declare
their true costs and that will be binding as far as nat west claims are concerned

jonesMUFCforever · 7 April 2007 at 10:51PM

I disagree with you Sillychukie. I work for a bank and it is high time this was tested in open court - I don't care which way the judgement goes as long as it sets a precedent and we all know where we stand.

Good luck to him I say - let him have his day in court, the outcome will be lot better than behind closed doors as now with the FSA.

Leaf · 7 April 2007 at 11:29PM

This is interesting. As a claimant myself, I am slightly concerned that this mans stance might set the 'wrong' precedent. Maybe the judge will agree that the charges are reasonable. I agree that we need to know what is lawful and what isn't, but let's get some of these cruel charges back first.

Leaf

techspec · 7 April 2007 at 11:35PM

Leaf wrote: »

This is interesting. As a claimant myself, I am slightly concerned that this mans stance might set the 'wrong' precedent. Maybe the judge will agree that the charges are reasonable. I agree that we need to know what is lawful and what isn't, but let's get some of these cruel charges back first.

Leaf

Exactly.

As someone with claims outstanding, i find this guys actions worrying.

We are all getting our money back in the end, so why risk it for the rest of us.

Someone has stated that whatever the judge says, it will not set a precedent. If he says banks can make these charges, i cannot see how it won't.

That said, the law seems pretty clear, as pointed out by Martin, but judges are a law unto themselves, and this one may have shares in a major bank!:eek:

I'mcomingbackasaman · 7 April 2007 at 11:48PM

The Banks soliitors will be looking for loopholes in consumer law, but up to now they haven't found one, that's why they're settling out of court to avoid publicity.

I cant wait for April 13th but that may just be a preliminary hearing.
I'd put a tenner on it though (if I were a betting person :-) that the bank could possibly back down at the 11th hour.

Nathan_Spleen · 8 April 2007 at 12:08AM

Hopefully it won't ruin his life, but why bother risking it. The FSA will decide in its own time what is or is not lawful.[/QUOTE]

Just how bright are you? The FSA or the OFT have no authority whatsover to decide what is lawful. Only a judge can do that which is why this is so important. And of course it will set a precident. If natwest have to disclose their charge costs they can no longer file defences against any claims and will have to hand out refunds like confetti.

And if he loses he dos'nt risk it for anyone as he's claiming 'exemplary damages' which no one
claims anyway.

I am financialy involved in an action against another bank seeking a 'declaration' of their charge costs. There is no financial gain in it if we win but the same applies. I have given a personal guarentee of nearly £100k to meet costs if we lose which enables the case to be brought in the first place. The bigger picture is the issue here and as I can fortunatly afford it, the potential satisfaction of seeing a bank humiliated is worth every penny

Leaf · 8 April 2007 at 12:11AM

I have another concern.
Courts may be looking to get this sorted as they are being inundated now with judicial findings/rubberstamping claims just to get the cases off their lists. A test case might be protracted but in the long run, for the courts, a precedent will lift the workload.

Leaf

Leaf · 8 April 2007 at 12:16AM

Nathan. Please be kind to us all just trying to get ourselves out of the crap banks have placed us in. If we have spent money unwisely it does not make us morons. We have be penalized by banks who have compounded hardship hand over fist.

Be thoughtful in your comments, mate.
Leaf

BBC website - lawyer trying to force banks to reveal costs

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free