BBC website - lawyer trying to force banks to reveal costs

hibees1875_2

I think today's outcome was wholly predictable. No way was this going to be settled in a few hours. There is too muc at stake. Even at the next date 30th April, I don't think we will have the final verdict. As i have said before, this is going to take some time to resolve via the courts. And it's in the bank in questions interests to drag it out.

Those that are in process/thinking of claiming, carry on regardless. View this as an interesting side-story for now and keep up to date on it, but don't rely on it as it's gonna take some time.

I think Tom would have realised himself that there wasn't going to be a magnificent decision made today. Or he should have. The banks would have simply run the clock on the courts time for today to ensure no decision could be made anyway, so it would have been a fruitless exercise. The courts move slowly at the best of times.... especially so in such a controversial area as this.

Good luck all! Don't forget to enjoy the sunshine! :beer:

hibees1875_2

Tozer wrote: »

Yes it is. If an offer is made for (above!) the claim amount then the CPR requires parties to settle. He is acting unreasonably in proceeding.

But you forget, Tom is not just claiming for bank charges imposed. He isn't acting unreasonably in his argument. The parties can only settle if the amount offered is equal to the loss. Tom is arguing that the amount offered is not equal to the loss and as such cannot agree to settle and they must therefore settle things another way.

If the courts aren't made for principle stands then no where is and we may aswell curl up and die. Just because it may not be the done thing, doesn't mean it is wrong. And anything that brings the courts closer to real people is a good thing. This whole subject area has opened up the court process to thousands of people who before would have thought of it as a great immovable beast. The courts are there for the protection of law abiding people.

The bank is forcing him to make a stand by not revealing their true costs, which you could say are commercially sensitive, however, it would create less of a fuss to simply reveal charges. Here is a unique oppotunity for a bank to take the lead, reveal charges and set their charges at a fairer rate such as 3.50 in northern ireland. Although why a bank charges someone for going overlimit defies me, as the banks should not be allowing people to go over their authorised limit in the first place, let alone charging for the priveledge.

It's time the people took back control of the courts from the rich and the businesses, and it's time the courts spoke the language of the people rather than the purple patch legalise. All huff and puff. Its a shame the courts havent really moved on for hundreds of years. They still remind me of the satire of henry fielding. Viva la J. Andrews!

Twinkly

Firstly thanks to nickmack for posting the news report.

I am a bit incredulous at the claimants statement in the article thus:

Speaking after the session, Mr Brennan said he was "massively disappointed".

He added: "It should be noted that any delay is going to assist the defendants because only six years of charges can be made.

"Every day that passes, more money is being saved by the bank."

I would have thought that as a lawyer he would have known about Section 32 of the Statute Of Limitations Act that allows him to claim further back than 6 years.

Nathan_Spleen

Tozer wrote: »

Yes it is. If an offer is made for (above!) the claim amount then the CPR requires parties to settle. He is acting unreasonably in proceeding. Courts are not for making "principle" stands and as a lawyer he should know better.

Don't get excited about the precedent being set either. It is only County Court and there is no judicial precedence at this level.

The claim and offer amount don't come into it. His action is for the profit the
bank made on his unlawfully obtained money. If granted the amount would be a 'punitive' figure made at the discretion of the judge.

Indeed no precedent can be set in CC but if he's succesfull it would be difficult for any future defence natwest files against claims on the basis that they're fair and lawful, if any judge has deemed them otherwise

Tozer

Twinkly wrote: »

Firstly thanks to nickmack for posting the news report.

I am a bit incredulous at the claimants statement in the article thus:

Speaking after the session, Mr Brennan said he was "massively disappointed".

He added: "It should be noted that any delay is going to assist the defendants because only six years of charges can be made.

"Every day that passes, more money is being saved by the bank."

I would have thought that as a lawyer he would have known about Section 32 of the Statute Of Limitations Act that allows him to claim further back than 6 years.

It doesn't at all and it is completely misleading to say that the Limitation Act permits post-6 year actions in contract or tort. Exceptions are available where for example there is medical negligence and the effects come out after the limitation period. Also, in respect of latent defects (e.g. in a house which falls down after 7 years).

Yes, you can claim charges going back more than 6 years as banks appear to be (at the moment) willing to settle. However, you are not ENTITLED to claim back past this period.

First term law school stuff.

Tozer

hibees1875 wrote: »

But you forget, Tom is not just claiming for bank charges imposed. He isn't acting unreasonably in his argument. The parties can only settle if the amount offered is equal to the loss. Tom is arguing that the amount offered is not equal to the loss and as such cannot agree to settle and they must therefore settle things another way.

If the courts aren't made for principle stands then no where is and we may aswell curl up and die. Just because it may not be the done thing, doesn't mean it is wrong. And anything that brings the courts closer to real people is a good thing. This whole subject area has opened up the court process to thousands of people who before would have thought of it as a great immovable beast. The courts are there for the protection of law abiding people.

The bank is forcing him to make a stand by not revealing their true costs, which you could say are commercially sensitive, however, it would create less of a fuss to simply reveal charges. Here is a unique oppotunity for a bank to take the lead, reveal charges and set their charges at a fairer rate such as 3.50 in northern ireland. Although why a bank charges someone for going overlimit defies me, as the banks should not be allowing people to go over their authorised limit in the first place, let alone charging for the priveledge.

It's time the people took back control of the courts from the rich and the businesses, and it's time the courts spoke the language of the people rather than the purple patch legalise. All huff and puff. Its a shame the courts havent really moved on for hundreds of years. They still remind me of the satire of henry fielding. Viva la J. Andrews!

I find these sorts of posts amazing. Courts have moved on massively and we have, probably, the best court system in the World. Where else would customers be able to issue proceedings in their hundreds at low cost, without representation and win? When was the last time you saw the inside of a courtroom other than on TV?

In my legal career, since the advent of the CPR, things have got hugely better.

I really find comments like Courts being taken back from the rich to be utter gibberish. For £30 you can go and have a full small claims trial before (mainly!) extremely competent judges. Point me in the direction of where the good old fashioned rich v. poor argument comes in???

Twinkly

Tozer wrote: »

It doesn't at all and it is completely misleading to say that the Limitation Act permits post-6 year actions in contract or tort. Exceptions are available where for example there is medical negligence and the effects come out after the limitation period. Also, in respect of latent defects (e.g. in a house which falls down after 7 years).

Yes, you can claim charges going back more than 6 years as banks appear to be (at the moment) willing to settle. However, you are not ENTITLED to claim back past this period.

First term law school stuff.

Ahum ok.

Section 32 of the Statute Of Limitations Act states:

(1) .... where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either-
(a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or
(b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or
(c) the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;
the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.

I confess to never having attended law school, never mind for at least a year to have experienced tuition on this point from one qualified to do so but I can read. I do not see anywhere in the section where there is exceptions listed. It is however clearly stated 'any action.'

If, as you state, people are not entitled to claim further back than 6 years then I suppose you expect me to believe that a fully fledged lawyer paid by the bank is willingly letting this point slide ? It would be easily arguable if, as you say, people are not entitled and enough to have a claim struck out surely ? If people arent entitled to claim back further than 6 years and the lawyers can argue bank charges are an exception then I really shouldnt be reading about cases where the banks have settled when they clearly should not and need not have done eh ?

I appreciate your opinion and the discussion generated by your difference of opinion to mine but I disagree entirely. I certainly did not state anything misleading. I said he 'could claim further back than 6 years' and according to the exact wording of Section 32 of the SoLA it is absolutely true. It is your interpretation of the section that causes difference in opinion. I have read it as it stands and made no interpretation at all, as I suspect do the banks, courts and lawyers given the number of successful claimants implementing it in support of their extended claims.

Twinkly

Tozer wrote: »

....
I really find comments like Courts being taken back from the rich to be utter gibberish. For £30 you can go and have a full small claims trial before (mainly!) extremely competent judges. Point me in the direction of where the good old fashioned rich v. poor argument comes in???

Well...to point you in the direction of your own post to me previously, you need to be a first year law student apparently to understand the laws you use in court and not many people can afford to go to law school

This post was made in fun... I will not indulge in an arguement....and I am now off for a weekend away anway. I hope your weekend is as enjoyable Tozer

Leebcoward

Brennan v NatWest adjourned today.

Brennan said he was very disappointed at this latest delay
An attempt to force the NatWest bank to justify its overdraft penalty charges has been postponed again.
A barrister, Tom Brennan, is claiming damages from the bank for levying penalty fees he says were unlawful.

He was charged a total of £2,500 by the NatWest for unauthorised overdrafts when he was a law student.

Judge Peter Simpson, at the City of London County Court, adjourned the hearing until a full day could be set aside to hear the arguments.

The judge said the issues were "extremely important" but the two hours set aside to hear the case would not be sufficient.

Outside the court, Mr Brennan said he was very disappointed at this latest delay as it was to his disadvantage.

"It should be noted that any delay is going to assist the defendants because only six years of charges can be made," he said.

"Every day that passes, more money is being saved by the bank," he added.

Settlement

In an attempt to settle the case, NatWest has refunded Mr Brennan's penalty charges, and offered to pay him £1,500 extra if he does not take the case to court.
Mr Brennan has refused to accept this and is pursuing his claim for exemplary and aggravated damages to punish the bank for what he claims was the unlawful seizure of his money, causing him economic harm.

The court hearing, which will now take place on 30 April, will not be a hearing of the full case.

It will be to establish, first of all, whether Mr Brennan does in fact have the right to claim these extra damages.

Any comments?

lostcrusader

Hello folks.

Not sure this really is the area for this but I was watching a news bulletin today and the London County Court has delayed a case for 6 months. It was against Natwest.

Now if this is setting the precedence by the courts to delay the system of paying out then a decision must have been made by the courts higher executives to delay hearings.

Now putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5 I am thinking that the legal system is slowing up to allow a decision by the OFT.

Anyone with knowledge on this case can clarify as to the reasons please.

Sorry to add further stresses or concerns but I feel it should be made aware that things may be slowing down.

Good Luck all