BBC website - lawyer trying to force banks to reveal costs

kincade

A trainee barrister has taken his bank to court over his charges of £2500...he has even turned down an extra £1500 in compensation,not sure how much he's after but the bank seem very scared to go to court.

wonder what this will mean for those just wanting their basic costs back if the bank are found against ? will they just hands up and give the cash back without threatening court action to stop it going even further etc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6552627.stm

strangeluvuk

Well I've won against Lloyds TSB bank account so I'm going to put the credit card complaints through quickly, just in case.

feedering

Just in case of what?

Nathan_Spleen

Brennan on Moneybox BBC radio 4 12pm today


BBC NEWS | Programmes | Moneybox | Bank charges challenge

Tozer

Twinkly wrote: »

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.

Thanks for the post. Not sure of the point. None of those exceptions to the Limitation Act apply in the case of penalty charges. I've had many clients who would have wanted to jump on any of those in order to bring a claim but Courts are EXTREMELY picky about exceptions to limitation.

With respect, this is not down to interpretation on a fairly old piece of legislation (that is, almost by definition, litigated upon frequently with bucketfuls of case law to support). It is utterly wrong to give people hope when the law, to the minds of all lawyers (oh, by the way, judges are lawyers) is crystal clear.

Tozer

Twinkly wrote: »

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

Firstly, have a good weekend yourself.

More importantly, please do not presume to think that I got into law school through money. It takes at least 6 years of 'ecking hard work and huge sacrifices as well as massive investment (career development loans, student grants....) to get there. Yet again the "rich v. poor" argument is dragged out!

Tozer

feedering wrote: »

Just in case of what?

Agree. If he wins or loses there is no precedent.

hibees1875_2

Yet again the only place i see or hear brennan is on bbc. Either they are the only ones interested in the story, or they have an exclusive, or i am missing something? If someone could point me to non-bbc coverage of the story then my suspicions will be hugely averted.

pete-in-london

The Independent have it (currently) on their website homepage:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2447665.ece

Smiley_Mum

Tom Brennan was recently on GMTV on the Newshour between 6am and 7am. I found this on their website which may be of interest. I've not gone through the complete thread so apologies if this has already been posted. It's more than likely that he will be on again when there has been a conclusion to his case.

http://www.tombrennan.co.uk/