BBC website - lawyer trying to force banks to reveal costs

pete-in-london

Thought this might be of interest...

Apparantly a lawyer is trying to persuade a judge to force a court decision on bank charges. This will be featured on radio 4's Moneybox programme tomorrow.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/6526127.stm

computerwoman

Court bid for bank charge ruling

<!-- S BO --> <!-- S IBYL --> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="416"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="bottom"> By Paul Lewis
BBC Radio 4's Money Box
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- E IBYL --> <!-- S IIMA --> <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="203"> <tbody><tr><td> Barrister Tom Brennan believes bank penalty charges are illegal

</td></tr> </tbody></table> <!-- E IIMA --> <!-- S SF --> A high street bank may be forced to justify its penalty charges in court for the first time.
No judge has ever ruled on whether charges of £30 or more to bounce a payment are legal as the banks have always paid up to prevent court action.
But a barrister now believes he can force the issue to court and is seeking a key ruling on Friday.
He is demanding the right to claim damages on top of a refund and has rejected an offer to settle the action. <!-- E SF -->
Tom Brennan, who ran up £2,500 in penalties on an unauthorised overdraft when he was a law student, told BBC Radio 4's Money Box what he is asking the court.
"I am arguing for what are called 'exemplary damages'. Where a company acts unlawfully and then takes unlawful profits from a person they should face a substantial level of damages to strip them of those profits," he said.
He shares the view of many consumer groups that the charges levied by banks when people exceed their overdraft limit or a payment is bounced are illegal.
"Consumer protection regulations state clearly that you can't charge a disproportionate level of charges for any breach of contract," he said.
"The information I have from my experts it that it will cost £2.50 or thereabouts to bounce a direct debit. The bank charges me £38."
Consumer action
Major campaigns by consumer groups have led to tens of thousands of people recovering bank charges.
More than two million form letters have been downloaded from one website alone.
In every case the banks eventually pay up - sometimes at the court steps - so the legality of the charges has never been tested.
<!-- S IBOX --> <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="208"> <tbody><tr> <td width="5"></td> <td class="sibtbg"> They've offered me £4,000 but I've rejected it


Tom Brennan, barrister

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <!-- E IBOX -->
Mr Brennan says his approach will force NatWest to defend its actions in court.
He has refused an offer well in excess of the penalty charges taken by the bank.
"They've offered me £4,000 but I've rejected it because they keep saying the charges are both fair and lawful but I don't agree," he said.
If the court rules against him he could pay a heavy price.
"If I lose and they state that I am acting unreasonably they can ask for their costs," he said.
"They are employing senior barristers. It would bankrupt me, and that prevents you being a practising barrister or transferring to be a solicitor.
"But that will only happen if the judge awards costs and he may not if he decides I am bringing this for public reasons. This case has a momentum of its own and is too important to walk away."
In a statement, NatWest confirmed that the case was being defended but "it would be inappropriate to comment further".
The case will be heard on Friday, 13 April in the Mayor's and City of London County Court at Guildhall.
BBC Radio 4's Money Box will be broadcast on Saturday 7 April 2007 at 1204 BST.
The programme will be repeated on Sunday, 8 April at 2102 BST.


<!-- E BO -->
watch this space,
as if he wins then its heads up for all of you,
but if he loses where does it leave you all,
cw

NeilW

I'm all for this. Better that we have clarity as to where the law stands on the issue.

This is a matter of great public interest and it is right that the arguments are heard in court and a decision taken. If nothing else it will stop the Courts being clogged up with cases.

Let's hope the County Court judge realises what he's doing and kicks the case up to a higher court for a full hearing.

NeilW

trets77

Call me cynical but could this not be the banks putting this guy up to it??

Banks ( or their agents) get this guy to take them to Court , he puts up a really crappy argument/case , he loses , the banks now have a court ruling on their side to refuse claims . he is quitely rewarded on the side .Mr Brennan is never seen again.

someone tell me where the safeguards in the legal system are to stop this happening ????!!!!!!!

i certainly Don,t put it past the Banks to try this underhand trick , given all the other underhand tricks they like to pull

it makes no sense why risk so much ( i.e the banks entire court costs for a very high paid barrister ) for so little. i,e damages to be decided by a judge on top of what he could get by going through usual routes.

i Hope some Money Journalists from National newspapers are putting this whole thing under some intense scrunity.

NeilW

i Hope some Money Journalists from National newspapers are putting this whole thing under some intense scrunity.

So you think that a barrister is a stool pigeon, but you have faith in journalists.

I think you might have your loyalities mixed up.

someone tell me where the safeguards in the legal system are to stop this happening !!!!!!!

Each case is argued on its merits, and higher courts are not bound by the judgement of lower courts. The lower courts are unable to set binding precedents anyway.

And then there is the issue of whether the case is 'on points' with a precedent. So you can work around precedent by casting your argument in a different manner.

The English legal system has several hundred years of experience behind it, and the way it works is pretty impressive. The judges I've seen working are very well aware of all of the tricks and, particularly in cases of public interest, will ensure that the matter is considered appropriately.

If there is one institution you can have faith in, then it is the court system. It's pretty good and pretty fair IME.

computerwoman

its just been on the news again,
so it looks like there will be a big interest in this story,
I bet it'll be all over the papers next if not today,
keep watching,
cw

trets77

If there is one institution you can have faith in, then it is the court system

:rotfl: :rotfl: lets hope so. he has not lost yet after all.if he lose's for any reason you can expect me (me who is completly representive of public confidence :rolleyes: :rolleyes: , so no pressure to find agaisnt the banks your honor;) ) to question was this worth it , if not why do it.

if it is geniue then i bet Natwest backside is twitching. ( hope so )

if is not i do trust the repected papers i read ( The Times) to uncover a sneaky plot.

guess i read to many Conspiarcy books in my time.

nickmack

I'm not sure whether he will be successful, but it's an interesting one.

As NeilW said, this is still at County Court level so a precedent will not be set. I don't believe this is the claimants aim though. From what I've seen, his main objective seems to be to get them to reveal their costs.

As the article states, it is a personal risk for him, because he's already refused to accept a full refund plus damages. If he continues to press and the judge deems him to have acted irresponsibly, it could be disasterous for his career.

computerwoman

its just been on bbc news 24
its natwest bank,
cw

aMIGA_dUDE

I found out about the story from a Canadian site.

Interest is not the word!

This is big.

Nathan_Spleen

Just seen an interview on BBC tv news with the producer of moneybox.

He says that Brennan is to argue that although he's been offered £4000
on his £2500 claim, the bank have still made a profit on the original charges. He also said that even if he fails, he has ''plenty of friends'', presumably legal buffs, who will take the same action with other banks. He said he has good evidence nat west charge costs are only £2.50 and not the 38 sobs he was charged. Lets just hope the judge plays ball...

According to the BBC, Nat west have hired some big gun legal suits to defend this case bur Brennan is looking at the bigger picture and seems hell bent on a discloser.

The story is going to be featured on BBC radio - today Money Box 12 pm.