• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Tempty's press article (2/11/2007)

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tempty's press article (2/11/2007)

    I think this is quite a nice piece of work for a local paper.
    :guyfawkes: :fireworks:

    http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/di...=sideb****arch

    CLAIRE TO FIGHT ON IN BANK CHARGES ROW

    11:00 - 02 November 2007
    A Paignton mum has lost the latest round of her David and Goliath court battle with one of the biggest banks in Britain.

    Claire Gardiner was due to have her case against charges imposed by NatWest heard at Torquay County Court, but a judge ruled that proceedings should be put on hold until a national test case is concluded next year. The 34-year-old from Queen Elizabeth Drive is hoping to reclaim £4,848 in bank charges, plus interest, from NatWest.

    Her case is one of many thousands across the country in which customers claim the banks imposed unfair charges on them.

    But the consumer-driven revolt against bank penalty charges has been largely halted because of the test case being brought by the Office of Fair Trading against seven banks and a building society at the High Court in January 2008.

    Mrs Gardiner, who works part-time as a cleaner, believed her case against NatWest should have been processed early and argued 'severe hardship'.

    She argued the banks should not have been able to take the money as it was social security benefits paid to her by the Government to help look after her children.

    And the 'stay' had been lifted for the case to go ahead but NatWest successfully applied to have it reinstated and therefore halted the Torquay proceedings.

    Judge Bernice Meredith ruled Mrs Gardiner should wait until the test case because the likelihood was that the bank would appeal should she win, and the money would not be handed back to her until the appeal was resolved, if at all.

    If she did not win, and the Office of Fair Trading case was successful, then Mrs Gardiner would have lost out.

    Solicitor George McPherson, on behalf of NatWest, told the judge Mrs Gardiner wanted £4,848 bank charges back from the bank plus £838 interest.

    He said: "There's no reason why the claimant shouldn't wait until after the test case. The bank says she will benefit from the delay.

    "A stay is in accordance with dealing with the case justly. We say she is not going to suffer any financial hardship."

    In the hearing, Mrs Gardiner said the only option she was given by the bank to repay her charges and get her out of her overdraft was to take out a loan, which in turn led to more charges.

    She told the judge: "It's a situation which I find frankly disgraceful. I made a mistake by going over my overdraft limit but what we are arguing is that the price the banks are charging is not relevant to the actual cost to the bank.

    "If you are on a low income then that initial small charge snowballs. A large proportion of what I'm claiming has been taken out of benefits money and the Office of Fair Trading test case isn't going to address that issue."

    Judge Meredith said: "It's not going to avail the claimant of anything if the case goes ahead. In general terms it's more to her advantage for the case to wait until the outcome of the Office of Fair Trading test case.

    "The hardship argument doesn't work because it's pre-supposing you're going to win."

    Mrs Gardiner, who acted as a 'litigant in person' by representing herself, was praised for preparing her case well and thoroughly.

    But Judge Meredith said the claim should have been made on the grounds of her benefits being unfairly taken from her account, which she felt wasn't clear enough in the legal documents.

    After the preliminary hearing, Mrs Gardiner declared: "I'm not beaten yet. I'm going to amend the particulars of my claim then take the whole situation to the Financial Ombudsman Service."

    She hopes the ombudsman will uphold her case as one of 'genuine hardship', which are meant to be exempt from the waiver granted by the Financial Services Authority to banks until the test case is resolved. She claims to be such a case because her husband Mark broke his ankle in February and subsequently lost his job as a tyre and exhaust fitter.

    Mrs Gardiner, who with Mark has two sons, aged 10 and 13, has been advised by the consumer forum Legal Beagles.

    A spokesman for the forum said it would continue to fight on behalf of people like Mrs Gardiner as it feels the banks are not adhering to the waiver rules.
    Last edited by Kafka; 26th January 2008, 23:37:PM.

  • #2
    Re: Tempty's press article

    Hmmm good article, but did they need to give so many personal details?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tempty's press article

      Tempty was asked before the details were released and was happy to have them published.
      Any opinions I give are my own. Any advice I give is without liability. If you are unsure, please seek qualified legal advice.

      IF WE HAVE HELPED YOU PLEASE CONSIDER UPGRADING TO VIP - click here

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tempty's press article

        Solicitor George McPherson, on behalf of NatWest, told the judge Mrs Gardiner wanted £4,848 bank charges back from the bank plus £838 interest.

        He said: "There's no reason why the claimant shouldn't wait until after the test case. The bank says she will benefit from the delay.
        I'd keep a copy of this quote should Temptys final award not meet her expectations - foot well & truly shot in methinks

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tempty's press article

          hahahaha me thinks so too

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tempty's press article

            Originally posted by callumsgran View Post
            Hmmm good article, but did they need to give so many personal details?
            That's exactly what I thought when I read it too¬!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tempty's press article

              Oooooh crikey.......................... fame tempty.................... youre very very brave, but Im not sure I would have wanted to go down the avenue of being so open to the public. The whole beauty of the forum for me is that you can get help whilst keeping your private life private................... but each to their own. Im right behind ya hun.................. were all different. Thats what makes the world go around. BEST OF LUCK................... BUT YOU KNOW THAT ANYWAY. Fendy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
              Natwest Round 1 - Won £16,080 after 6 month battle :roll:
              Abbey Round 1 - Won £5,580 after 5 month battle :okay:
              Capital 1 Credit Card - Won £1230 in 2 months
              Capital 1 Cred Card for Hubby - Won £1560 in 2 months :kiss:
              Abbey MBNA Credit Card - Won £2210 in 3 months
              Halifax Credit Card - Won £1680 in 2 months

              THE WAY FORWARD ON THESE CLAIMS, IS TO STAY POSITIVE, FOCUSED AND PATIENT, AND ALWAYS, ALWAYS BELIEVE ITS WORTH THE EFFORT, BECAUSE IT TRULY IS. WHY CHOOSE THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE WHEN THERES NOTHING TO LEARN FROM THAT. THINK OF CLAIMING AS A PERSONAL CHALLENGE AND GIVE IT YOUR ALL.

              Now Gunning for
              Natwest round 2
              Abbey Round 2
              Yorkshire Bank round 1
              A further £6000 to come back from above 3 when I win.:roll:

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tempty's press article

                Its a pity that they went so much on the local angle, though you do expect this from a local rag due to the 'city man dies in nuclear holocaust' syndrome.

                I gave them lots of hard-hitting background about the banks, FSA and the waiver, even slagged off Gordon Brown for establishing the FSA to lighten regulation and creating a Frankenstein monster (not in those terms of course).

                With the rarity of the case, they had the chance here to provide a real groundbreaking scoop in the charges world, and I offered to let them be very aggressive and campaigning here by attributing the comments to me. However, in the event, they never came back to me and it was really rather tepid consumer injustice stuff, but with some strong local angles.

                Anyway we did get a plug. I have also arranged for the article to be posted OTR through an intermediary, with the link still providing the LB ref if people actually go there. The info may help members there, and I wanted to share the details. All publicity is good publicity at the moment. I never did get any nationals to pick up the story, but this is a good success for us even if only local. It really is hard going building a reputation.

                :guyfawkes:

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tempty's press article

                  Kafka and for that matter Claire aka Tempty, it was a good story and I agree with a lot of views. I am surprised that nationals did not want that story but the judge went against Tempty(you did a great job too). The interesting thing maybe the fact that the judge mentioned the tax credit angle and benefits, that may be a good point of reference.

                  Comment

                  View our Terms and Conditions

                  LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                  If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                  If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                  Working...
                  X