Lawyer Loses Bank Charges Challenge

[Guest]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...277759,00.html

[Happyolddog]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...277759,00.html

Geeezzz

Thats a blow! What are the implications for the rest of us?

Best wishes,
Hod...Liam..

[Kafka]

I'm not sure there are really HOD.
Tom had already received more than his charges back, and this was about damages on top. Had this succeeded, it would have opened up a massive series of very different claims and swamped the courts again. I don't think the system would ever have permitted that to happen.

The judge who heard the case treated Tom as if he were the defendant anyway - probably has shares in the banks and is raking it in with the new profits published.

Whilst Tom has been a good ally and obtained some good publicity for the whole issue of penalty charges, he was always fighting his own cause really. Whilst I admire him greatly, this was never our fight really.

K.

[mistie]

I dont see it as a blow, he got greedy and went for damages not just the charges plus interest like everyone else has....

but eh that my thoughts.....

mistie

[biscuits]

Agree with you mistie, he's a greedy t*at!!

[Tempty]

Very true, I can't see that it will adversly effect a court's decision on a case.... might give Natwest another stalling/scare tatic though..... recent win over a lawyer claiming charges...etc. We will just have to wait and see!

[veilside01702]

I think he got caught up in trying to punish Natwest.....
and forgot what we all want.....just honest fair treatment from them...
Russ

[Glenn UK]

I think its interesting that many are so quick to brand him greedy and a twat.

FWIW I think the banks should disgorge the money they have earned as a result of their unlawful activities.

If the defendant had been a drug dealer, no doubt they would have been the receiver of bad news, even amongst claimants it seems the banks are getting the benefit of the doubt.

Whatever the merits of tom Brennan's case from a legal viewpoint, why not give him the benefit of the doubt unless you know him and have first had knowledge of his greed.

FWIW if my claim succeeds i will get back far more than the bank took.

Perhaps I'm am greedy twat too.

Glenn

[Sapphire]

Just my humble thoughts:

He tried, he lost, hey ho fair play to him for at least trying. So time to go back to basics. Personally I would not have taken that on anyway, but then again who am I to argue.

sapphire

[enaid]

I think if he had won, then people would have gotten greedy. It would have been a bottomless pit as to what "damages" had been caused to people and how much they would try to claim back.
Look how far reclaiming bank charges has come in such a short time, now CI is becoming the thing and also CCA,s that are supposedly unenforcable.
What next I ask?
IMHO the banks have had to nip it in the bud so to speak, as it was coming to the stage where people were getting back far more than the banks had taken in the first place.

[Kafka]

I have been following this case and a lot of further info can be found on Tom's site at
http://www.tombrennan.co.uk/

He stood to suffer possible costs of £250,000 from this, because NatWest had hired 3 very expensive lawyers to fight its case. Tom was offered lots of financial help with costs if he lost, but he publicly rejected these offers, saying that the banks had made enough from other people's money and he would prefer to go bankrupt to avoid paying. As a barrister, this would have ruined his career.

Whilst I think he was optimistic and somewhat naive, I have nothing but admiration for his courage and integrity.

I prefer to think that beagles who are so critical of him now were perhaps unaware of these facts.

(off soapbox...)

K.

[mistie]

Ops that would be me then kaf, still havent changed my opinion.
I think had he won, there would be people that played on the damages part of their claims rather than the charges themselves.

He did what was right for him......

mistie

[veilside01702]

I hope nobody took my opinion the wrong way...I don't think he is greedy....he was doing what he felt may force the bank to change the way it deals with customers...
A different approach to us all....
But we all want the same thing Fair charges for a service and Not profit making Penalty charges that just line shareholders pockets!!
He was trying to prove a point and managed to get the whole country talking about his case......So he did good embarassing the banks anyway!!

How long will it be before one of the small banks drops their charges to a true cost and gains millions of new customers in the process???????

I would love to see that happen.....what would the big banks do if they had No customers?????

It's a Shame we can't start a bank between us all.......... I'm sure we could manage to charge the genuine cost of the charges, be understanding and honest about everything....
Could run as a non profit bank, all the profit given back to the customers, no shareholders....
Any idea's????
lol...
russ

[Kafka]

I hope nobody took my opinion the wrong way...I don't think he is greedy....he was doing what he felt may force the bank to change the way it deals with customers...
A different approach to us all....
But we all want the same thing Fair charges for a service and Not profit making Penalty charges that just line shareholders pockets!!
He was trying to prove a point and managed to get the whole country talking about his case......So he did good embarassing the banks anyway!!
I think the point I was trying to make is that he stood to gain very little financially and risked losing his career. If he was greedy it was perhaps for fame. You are spot on that he got the message in the news, even if it has confused the issues of charges and damages in many people's minds.

How long will it be before one of the small banks drops their charges to a true cost and gains millions of new customers in the process???????
I would love to see that happen.....what would the big banks do if they had No customers?????
This has never happened because there is an unholy alliance and they've all been guilty. Nationwide is surprising because its a mutual that is supposed to serve its members, but its just as bad as the others. I just took them for 4k and I'm a member with voting rights.

It's a Shame we can't start a bank between us all.......... I'm sure we could manage to charge the genuine cost of the charges, be understanding and honest about everything....
Could run as a non profit bank, all the profit given back to the customers, no shareholders....
Any idea's????
lol...
russ
With the post offices getting closed, the govt. seems determined to force everyone into the hands of the unscrupulous banks. The solution could be a huge growth of credit unions, especially for poorer areas. They are a form of social enterprise that doesn't cost a lot to set up and are very effective. I have been thinking for some time of starting a campaign to get interest in this as a way of removing the banks' stranglehold. Its a winning idea, but as always would need funding and political support.
If we can get this for the main issues we are fighting, this could be promoted as one of the desirable solutions to poverty and local empowerment - things that all the parties say they are committed to.

llllllllllllll

[strangewayofsavin]

If he had won, we all would have been rewritting prelims etc, I think it was worth a try, and if an appeal goes to high court, it will keep the Issue in the press, and the more its in the press, the less, the bods at the top can ignore us.
What one man deems a failure, others deem a learning experience