The case of Tom Brennan and bank charges leaves me in two minds. Blog Discussion

MSE_Jenny

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's "The case of Tom Brennan and bank charges leaves me in two minds." blog. Please read the blog first, as the discussion follows it.

Read Martin's "The case of Tom Brennan and bank charges leaves me in two minds." Blog

crazy_guy

This case of Brennan seems very interesting - exemplary damages are to punish the defendant for fraud or wilful misconduct generally but to be honest i dont see the Courts accepting that the bank were either of these things. As he's already recieved the charges back the Court may not even venture into the realm of the charges but purely decide on the exemplary charges which i dont think will wash

computerwoman

I don't get it? If they gave him his money back, why is he taking it further, and if he loses his claim will that effect other people putting claim's in the future, if he was trying to clear his good name, eg having been charged bank charges has this put a black mark against his name with credit firms, so in future he would be classed as a high risk by credit firms and then he cannot get good credit from anyone, so winning this case put's him back into good credit where by he can get a good deal on a mortage/bank loan/credit cards, etc, what is his game,
curious
cw

Robyn_Banks

There are 2 points to discuss here.

1 It is accepted that what the Banks and others have been doing is illegal. It really is not sufficient just for them to pay back what they have taken from customers' accounts. If anyone else were caught breaking the law or directing a company that broke the law, they should expect prosecution and punishment.
Why should banks or their directors be any different?

2 They have profited by lending our money that they stole (stealing is defined as taking something to which they have no right with the intent of permanently depriving the rightful owner) to the tune of 18%. I can see no reason why they should be allowed to profit from their illegal activities. A drug dealer would forfeit the profits from his/her illegal activities.
Why should banks be any different?

j-baby-scotland

Tom is taking it to the extreme...
Much good has been done regardless of the outcome.
He is a barrister, not without brains, his choice.
Not all have his brains, Martin steps in there...if you ask me...

Markyt

computerwoman wrote: »

I don't get it? If they gave him his money back, why is he taking it further,

Publicity - he wants to make a name for himself, which will lead to a partnership in a big firm.

Mark7799

Robyn_Banks wrote: »

There are 2 points to discuss here.

1 It is accepted that what the Banks and others have been doing is illegal. It really is not sufficient just for them to pay back what they have taken from customers' accounts. If anyone else were caught breaking the law or directing a company that broke the law, they should expect prosecution and punishment.
Why should banks or their directors be any different?

It has not yet been proven in a Court of Law that Nak charges are illegal. In any case, I believe that the argument is not that charges are illegal per se but that it is the AMOUNT of such charges - this topic has been done to death on many other threads elsewhere. Also, if they were illegal - that would surely be a criminal matter rather than one for the Civil Court?



2 They have profited by lending our money that they stole (stealing is defined as taking something to which they have no right with the intent of permanently depriving the rightful owner) to the tune of 18%. I can see no reason why they should be allowed to profit from their illegal activities. A drug dealer would forfeit the profits from his/her illegal activities.
Why should banks be any different?

Where does your 18% figure come from?

Robyn_Banks

Mark7799 wrote: »

Where does your 18% figure come from?

The 18% comes from Martin's Blog but in reality the actual rate would depend on what is charged by the illegal charge taker. In any event, whatever the rate of interest, it belongs to the rightful owner of the money.


You are correct to point out that it is the amount of the charge that is illegal not the fact that there is a charge. However that does not remove the illegality.

You are also correct to point out that the law governing the level of the charges is in the Civil part of our code but, the taking of another person's property with intent to permanently deprive without that person's freely-given consent, is stealing. So far as I can see these illegal charges fit that description.
Also the Banks etc have been at pains to deceive us about the legal status of their charges and that deception has two effects. It removes the 6 year limit (see Limitations Act for timings) and turns the theft into fraud.

Which bit of illegal would you prefer?

There are any number of examples of large organisations getting away with acting illegally despite the "authorities" knowledge of their actions. The fact that no prosecuting agency has acted on the basis of theft or fraud or any other criminal charge does not change the situation.

mary_eastwell

Re compensation for bank charges. My son was suffering depression but still managing to get up and go to work and just about pay his bills. One error in his banking resulted in a returned direct debit. The resulting charges meant more returns, more charges, you know the score! 5 years later, following complete downward spiral, alcohol abuse etc. he has finally "pulled himself together", paid off his debts and, thank God, stopped drinking. During this 5 years he totally let himself go (although somehow managed to keep working). His flat became almost uninhabitable, he went through a period with no water (because he couldn't afford to repair a leak) No gas or electric as they had been disconnected and more rubbish than I have ever seen in one place! He hid this from me so as to not upset me although I obviously knew he was drinking and not caring for himself. He got too scared to open letters so left them by the front door in a heap. All this was set off by unlawful bank charges. I believe he would have recovered from his depression in time had this extra pressure not been placed on him.

Headieboy

Robyn_Banks wrote: »

You are correct to point out that it is the amount of the charge that is illegal not the fact that there is a charge. However that does not remove the illegality.

The charges haven't been legally challenged in court as yet so it's all subjecture as to their legallity. As none of the banks are going to come out and tell us how they arrive at the charge levied, we don't know if they are legal. Remember, it's all to do with how much it costs the bank to pay the cheque or direct debit and send the letter. The banks say the charges are legal, others say they're not.

Whilst I agree that the charges are excessive, you could also argue that you are stealling the banks other customers money by exceeding your overdraft limit. I think Tom Brennan is either very brave or very foolish. The bank has made several offers (I don't believe it has paid him any money as he has refused them) to settle, the last offer was more than he was charged originally plus interest and I think that the courts will side with the bank. According to the report I saw, this will make Tom bankrupt which will prevent him from practicing law. Even if he wins, a lot of banks will not be willing to deal with him in future.

expat_mike

I think some people have missed the point over this one. The whole purpose of exemplary charges is to (a) deter banks from continuing their quasi-legal activities and (b) give some renumeration for the time and stress caused to an individual by their actions. To use an example, if I walked into a bank and stole £50,000 from them, was caught and handed it straight back, I would still be charged with theft. Banks have been taking money from personal accounts for many years without authority, either mistakenly or illegally and should be held to account in a similar manner. The only appropriate action against banks is exemplary charges to reimburse the account holder over and above straightening their account out. After all, customers are charged for similar mistakes made by them and will accept the charges providing they're not excessive, and the same thing should happen in reverse. How many people have spent time and money sorting out a banks errors and all that happens is you finally get your money back weeks later and a limp apology if you're lucky. I see no reason for not having a scale set of charges that a customer receives automatically when a bank deliberately or accidentally mess's up and causes stress and/or temporary financial trouble to one of its customers.