BBC website - lawyer trying to force banks to reveal costs

LilDevil

I think he's very brave, I hope he wins. It is important for banks to prove how much it costs them to process returned charges etc.

Got the radio on now to listen to the programme.

katmac_3

Does anybody think all the other banks will be dragging their feet over existing claims until this case is resolved ?

Nathan_Spleen

katmac wrote: »

Does anybody think all the other banks will be dragging their feet over existing claims until this case is resolved ?

You mean their not dragging their feet already?

He's going for a particular legal tack on a little used 'exemplary compensation'.
It wont effect anything unless he wins. Then there will be an avalanche of similar claims. If he loses, nothing changes

Ladidi

oops sorry my mistake then!

I thought there was some kind of regulation that was agreed where banks could pass of chages to their customers for going over their agreed limits and bouced cheques etc etc
I guess I got it wrong, sorry.
I still think there should have been someone stepping in sooner, but my guess is they didn't because as i said before the RICH get richer and the banks make no money from them only the POOR so they take from the POOR to give to the RICH by way of imposing bank charges that were extortionate and way above what it actually costs them to impose and give them out.

techspec

The reason many of us have been paid out so easily, is because the banks wanted to avoid court, at all costs. This suggests that they know that they are wrong.

But the future of many claims, now lie in the hands of this judge. Judges tend to interprate things differently, and if this man loses, then that could be that.

As someone with claims still outstanding, i wish that he was not going to court.

As for being a consumer champion, sound like he just wants to make history to me. Natwest have offered him twice the amount requested. I remember a case of a woman who took action against Tesco. She was made an offer to settle, but refused it. The judge, angry at her refusal of such a 'generous offer', made a slightly lower offer in her favour. This made her liable for costs, and in effect bankrupted her.

Of course, we all hope that he wins, and that would clarify the law. But even if the court judges in his favour, his action in refusing a 'generous offer', may be his downfall.

With so many people currently taking the banks to court, this man could be seen as a bit wreckless. That said, by this time next week, he will hopefully be an hero.

nickmack

techspec wrote: »

But the future of many claims, now lie in the hands of this judge. Judges tend to interprate things differently, and if this man loses, then that could be that.

Of course, we all hope that he wins, and that would clarify the law. But even if the court judges in his favour, his action in refusing a 'generous offer', may be his downfall.

It won't set a precedent at this level, please read my post above.

pete-in-london

You can view the report online now:
(top left)
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?tab=av&q=bank%20charges&recipe=all&scope=all&edition=

trets77

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

that was me

my point is that however noble and incorruptible the courts are , they can be Hoodwinked.

i trust the Courts , i trust the power of geniue investigative journalism to expose a dirty plot , who i don,t trust is BANKS !!!!

i certainly think they would try this .

one thing for sure i bet this POISIONOUS SPINSTER SNAKE SLITHERS OUT OF HER IVORY TOWER THIS WEEK TO TRY AND DEFEND HER DARK LORD MASTERS



for thoose of you who don,t know who she is

she is Angela "thanking you for banking" Knight head of the BBA. and she cannot lie for toffee when she is on the telly , you can see all the classic signs when she tries it on TV ( she would be a pretty crap poker player for sure). maintains eye contact for too long , lick her lips ect.

she will be the sole face of the banks PR after this court case . her role in the treasury as a secatary mp in the last Tory Government and the the resulting 15% intrest rates don,t get mentioned though.

here is a little quote from her

Customers can't have everything their own way, she argues. "People don't like to pay for anything if they can avoid it," she says.

so i guess she thinks you should pay penalty charges , say thankyou and be on your way.

of course the fact that people can avoid it because it is ILLEGAL is not mentioned.

if i cannot have everything my own way then i won,t be customer .how do you like them apples !!

mzqa395

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

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.

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.


They've offered me £4,000 but I've rejected it
Tom Brennan, barrister

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.

MarkyMarkD

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

'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.

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?