BBC website - lawyer trying to force banks to reveal costs

oscar52

hxxp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/6530315.stm

Its on the BBC website (and just been on the news). He has rejected all offers and is forcing them to court. Natwest have stated they are defending.

If they lose, I wonder if it will force all banks to issue automatic refunds?

Ladidi

computerwoman wrote: »

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

Good Luck to you, I hope you win and are on the side of the consumer. I mean lets face it the banks have been over charging people and have been at it for years since they were first allowed to pass off these costs to the customer. What I would love to know is when this was first allowed by the Ombudsman that they could do this why did they not state to the banks clearly that they can only pass off their true costs and nothing more giving them ceiling limit on what they can claim then none of this sorry mess would have began in first place. The customer on the low income would not have been destitue and left high and dry forcing them into more borrowing to clear a debt they had no control over and saw no way out of making them ill from one month to the next borrowing from peter and paul just to keep things going.

The only winners were the bank bosses in their high and extortionate salaries and bonuses they paid themselves and the share holders. MONEY making GREEEDY PEOPLE more MONEY but taking it all off the POOR and LOW PAID. Lets face it they are not exactly making money off the already RICH are they????

It will be one in the eye for banks and a victory for the people. I honestly believe that the Judge will award in the your favour. How ever in todays day and age anything is possible!

MarkyMarkD

oscar52 wrote: »

hxxp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/6530315.stm

There's NO NEED for hxxp when it's just a link to the BBC's website! Post the proper link and save people's time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/6530315.stm

halloweenqueen_2

The bank of been fairly keen to avoid the court as he had about £2000 worth of charges and they made a second offer of £4000. If he loses he also loses his career as he will be disbarred, Somehow I don't think the bank is going to be able to prove it cost them £38?

MarkyMarkD

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

... and not the 38 sobs he was charged. Lets just hope the judge plays ball...

I always wondered why it was 'sobs' and not 'sovs' and now I know.

According to http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/s.htm it's just mis-pronunciation of sovs.

Most interesting!

rog2

Watched the news myself - I hope the Bank loses, but at the end of the day it will just mean that they make MILLIONS in profit, rather than BILLIONS. :eek:

VeryTrying_2

I've read elsewhere that it's possible this could be a put up job. Perhaps the barrister might fight a really weak case, get everything all wrong, and then lose in the bank's favour.

Conspiracy theory? Perhaps. And I'm sure the barrister concerned wouldn't do anything so underhand, but the banks are another matter. We all know what they are capable of.

I'll credit the original poster if I can find it again!

Nathan_Spleen

Ladidi wrote: »

Good Luck to you, I hope you win and are on the side of the consumer. I mean lets face it the banks have been over charging people and have been at it for years since they were first allowed to pass off these costs to the customer. What I would love to know is when this was first allowed by the Ombudsman that they could do this why did they not state to the banks clearly that they can only pass off their true costs and nothing more giving them ceiling limit on what they can claim then none of this sorry mess would have began in first place. The customer on the low income would not have been destitue and left high and dry forcing them into more borrowing to clear a debt they had no control over and saw no way out of making them ill from one month to the next borrowing from peter and paul just to keep things going.

The only winners were the bank bosses in their high and extortionate salaries and bonuses they paid themselves and the share holders. MONEY making GREEEDY PEOPLE more MONEY but taking it all off the POOR and LOW PAID. Lets face it they are not exactly making money off the already RICH are they????

It will be one in the eye for banks and a victory for the people. I honestly believe that the Judge will award in the your favour. How ever in todays day and age anything is possible!

The Ombudsman has no power to lay down blanket rules on the banking industry. He just steps in in individual cases. The real problem is that banks are not really regulated at all and merely asked to comply with the 'banking code' which is not enforcable and only voluntary. The whole thing sucks.

TV game shows are more heavily regulated than the banks...

MarkyMarkD

I'm not sure that I understand why he would be disbarred if he loses - taking a case to court isn't an incorrect thing to do!

Edit: now re-read the BBC article where he says that he would be disbarred because the costs would make him bankrupt. He's a bit of a muppet then, to be honest.

Nathan_Spleen

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I'm not sure that I understand why he would be disbarred if he loses - taking a case to court isn't an incorrect thing to do!

Edit: now re-read the BBC article where he says that he would be disbarred because the costs would make him bankrupt. He's a bit of a muppet then, to be honest.

'Muppet'? surely 'hero'. He's looking at the bigger picture here and chances
are that if he did lose, many people would step in to help him out and prevent bancrupcy. I for one would.