TOM BRENNAN V NatWest

[EXC]

Re: TOM BRENNAN V NatWest

Blimey Ame, your'e a quick reader!

Well his immediate future isn't looking too rosey as he'll have to file for bankruptcy despite offers to help avoid it. He is determined that his major creditor, Natwest, won't get another penny on his behalf. He always said he would.

He had to stop working some time ago to concentrate on case. But he can continue as a barrister when bankrupt despit a common myth that he can't. But he wants to cross over to solicitor as amongst other things, he can earn more at this stage in his legal career.

He had been preparing 2 other cases, the first against Egg and their £16 credit card charge. The second was a judicial review action against the OFT for failing to enforce their £12 limit on Egg but I doubt he has the stomach for that now and who can blame him. It's a shame though about the OFT action as it would have been very interesting. Iv'e seen all his corresponece with the OFT and they were desparately short of justification for not pursuing Egg. Perhaps I'll see if I can post it up.

He's without question one of the brightest people I've met and you only have to spend 2 minutes listening to his case before you're completely sold, it's just a shame the judge didn't see it that way.

[Amethyst]

Re: TOM BRENNAN V NatWest

lol I was waiting didnt read it that quick 6 minutes would be superppowered !

paras 42 to 47 are I think the most interesting. But I am a simple soul.


As you say it is a shame about Egg - the OFT need a kick up the bum from someone.

[EXC]

Re: TOM BRENNAN V NatWest

You have to read this from the bottom up for the correct sequence. The OFT's final reply is in the word file.



From: Jennifer Slocombe [mailto:Jennifer.Slocombe@oft.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 01 August 2007 12:44
To: Tom Brennan
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act Request and proposed Judicial Review proceedings: RE: Credit Card default charges

Dear Mr Brennan,

Please find attached a response to your e mail of 10 July.

Yours sincerely

Jennifer Slocombe




From: Tom Brennan [mailto:counsel_@hotmail.com]
Sent: 10 July 2007 13:45
To: Jennifer Slocombe
Subject: Freedom of Information Act Request and proposed Judicial Review proceedings: RE: Credit Card default charges
Dear Ms Slocombe,

This email includes requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act. This email also gives notice of a proposed judicial review action against the OFT.

Thank you for a response, but most of my questions still have not been answered. I would be grateful if the OFT could actually answer the questions that have been put to it, particularly question 1. From the responses I have received so far, it appears that the OFT is currently trying to avoid answering these questions.

For assistance, I have set out the questions again, and it may be helpful if you number your responses in a like fashion.

1.Has the OFT given any formal indication to Egg that charges of £16 are fair and reasonable? [This is a Freedom of Information Act request, as set out below.]

2.If such a formal indication has not been given, why the OFT is not using its regulatory power under the UTCCR to seek an injunction to prevent the continued use of such an unfair term?
[From your response, I take it that the OFT is not taking any action against Egg, despite the fact that the current charging level is still above the “threshold” which the OFT has publicly stated is unfair. You state that such a decision is as a result of “the information provided by Egg”. What information is it that you are referring to? This is a Freedom of Information Act request, as set out further below.]

3.Does the OFT consider that the requirement to use Direct Debits by companies to be an “exceptional business factor”. If so, can the reasons for that decision be set out in full, particularly with reference to the fact that all other major credit card providers also use direct debits, and what additional costs, if any, may be accrued by a company in any defaults of payments due from a direct debit above and beyond any other default in payments that are due by other means.

4.What consideration, if any, does the OFT give to the fact that defaults by Egg customers in keeping to Direct Debits results in a higher rate of interest being imposed by Egg on the credit card agreement? (As an example, in my case, the rate of interest charged was raised from 13.9% to 19.9%, and then to 29.99%).



Freedom of Information Request

Following on from questions 1 and 2, above, I am hereby making a formal Freedom of Information Act request for the following information:

1.Has the OFT given any formal indication to Egg that charges of £16 are fair and reasonable? If so, I request copies of such correspondence.

2.Copies of any publications or internal documents relating to whether the current charges of £16 imposed by Egg are fair or unfair.

3.Copies of correspondence between Egg and the OFT which relates to the current charges set by Egg, particularly any documents from Egg which seek to justify a charging level above the £12 threshold set by the OFT.

Proposed Judicial Review Proceedings

I am now considering taking formal action against the OFT by way of judicial review. The decision by the OFT that I may seek to challenge would be the decision by the OFT not to take action (or the OFT’s failure to take action) against Egg for imposing default charges above the “threshold level” set by the OFT (see paragraph 1.8 of Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts of April 2006).

A full “letter before claim”, as suggested by the Judicial Review pre-action protocol, will be sent to the OFT on 24 July 2007, which will set out all the relevant issues and name all other interested parties.

I give you notice of this proposed judicial review action in order to inform the OFT that this is not an issue that can be avoided, nor one that can be put far down the administrative list. I appreciate that the OFT is a body whose main purpose is to ensure fair trading practices by sellers and suppliers, and I am not in the habit of trying to interfere with the work of such a body. However, in circumstances where the OFT is the public body intended to protect consumers from unfair practices, it is entirely unacceptable that the OFT does not follow its own published policies in protecting consumers. A failure to act by the OFT in these circumstances totally undermines any protection that consumers may have, and will undermine any finding that the OFT may reach in respect of the default charges imposed by banks on current accounts.

It is wholly unacceptable that private individuals find themselves being forced to take action as a result of the OFT’s failure to fulfil its statutory duties.

If the OFT can provide me with information that satisfies me that such charges imposed by Egg are fair and reasonable, then it may be that judicial review proceedings may not be required. However, it appears at this stage that the OFT is either unable or unwilling to provide such information to the members of the public.

Sincerely


Tom Brennan



From: Jennifer Slocombe [mailto:Jennifer.Slocombe@oft.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 10 July 2007 11:47
To: Tom Brennan
Subject: RE: Credit Card default charges


Dear Mr Brennan

Apologies for not responding sooner, I have been out of the office for the last week and the colleague I had asked to respond to you was unable to.

As a result of the information provided by Egg, and in light of the fact that it reduced its fee to £16, as a matter of administrative priority we did not consider it necessary to take further action against Egg. In view of the current work on bank charges this position has not changed.

For more information on the OFT's view on exceptional factors see paragraph 5.10 of OFT's April statement on Calculating fair Default Charges in Credit Card Contracts.

Yours sincerely

Jennifer Slocombe


From: Tom Brennan [mailto:counsel_@hotmail.com]
Sent: 04 July 2007 18:27
To: Jennifer Slocombe
Subject: RE: Credit Card default charges
Dear Miss Slocombe,

Could you please inform me when I may expect a response to my email below? As you may appreciate, I am unable to commence my proceedings against Egg until I have received a response from yourselves.

Sincerely

Tom Brennan


From: Tom Brennan [mailto:counsel_@hotmail.com]
Sent: 18 June 2007 13:19
To: 'Jennifer Slocombe'
Subject: RE: Credit Card default charges


Dear Miss Slocombe.

Thank you for your response. However, it does not answer the questions that I put to you. At this stage, references to what may or may not amount to an exceptional business factor is of no assistance. What I require from the OFT is a response to my questions, which I shall set out again for assistance.

• <LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: #333399; mso-list: l9 level1 lfo11">Has the OFT given any formal indication to Egg that charges of £16 are fair and reasonable; and
• If such a formal indication has not been given, why the OFT is not using its regulatory power under the UTCCR to seek an injunction to prevent the continued use of such an unfair term?

In addition, and following on from your email, I would like the following questions answered:

• <LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: #333399; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo12">Does the OFT consider that the requirement to use Direct Debits by companies to be an “exceptional business factor”. If so, can the reasons for that decision be set out in full, particularly with reference to the fact that all other major credit card providers also use direct debits, and what additional costs, if any, may be accrued by a company in any defaults of payments due from a direct debit above and beyond any other default in payments that are due by other means.
• What consideration, if any, does the OFT give to the fact that defaults by Egg customers in keeping to Direct Debits results in a higher rate of interest being imposed by Egg on the credit card agreement? (As an example, in my case, the rate of interest charged was raised from 13.9% to 19.9%, and then to 29.99%).

In essence, I am asking for a decision from the OFT as to whether it considers the £16 default charges imposed by Egg to be ‘fair’ under the Regulations, and what action, if any, the OFT proposes to take in response to these charges.

I would appreciate a simple and unqualified response to these questions.

Sincerely,

Tom Brennan


From: Jennifer Slocombe [mailto:Jennifer.Slocombe@oft.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 18 June 2007 10:35
To: Tom Brennan
Subject: RE: Credit Card default charges


Dear Mr Brennan

Thank you for your e mail of 4 June. I hope you find the following information helpful.

Egg reduced its charge to £16 after the OFT action in April 06. As you will see from the OFT press release issued on 5 April 06 where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair, and is likely to challenge the charge unless there are limited, exceptional business factors in play. Exceptional business factors which may affect the level of a fair charge may include policies to prevent casual defaults as operated by issuers such as Egg.
The press release goes on to say where there are exceptional business factors, so that the presumption that a default charge over £12 is unfair is not applicable, this does not necessarily mean that the current level of the default charge is consistent with the OFT's interpretation of the requirements of unfair contract terms legislation. But for example, where a card issuer has a policy of requiring customers to pay minimum monthly repayments by direct debits, such as that operated by Egg, and offers credit cards only to customers that satisfy a relatively high scoring requirement it may be able to set a fair default fee at a level above the threshold.
I have attached the press release of 5 April 06 for your information
Yours sincerely
Jennifer Slocombe





From: Tom Brennan [mailto:counsel_@hotmail.com]
Sent: 04 June 2007 13:32
To: Jennifer Slocombe
Subject: Credit Card default charges
Dear Ms Slocombe,

I appreciate that the following email may not be within your sphere of responsibility; if that is so, could you please pass this email on to the relevant person.

Following on from my current case against Natwest, it has become apparent that one of my credit card providers, Egg, are continuing to level ‘unfair’ default charges of £16, despite the OFT’s decision that charges in excess of £12 would result in intervention (see paragraph 1.8 of Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts of April 2006).

Having spoken to Egg, they claim that the OFT have investigated their specific charges and concluded that they are both fair and lawful. I have re-read the above report, and there is no mention of Egg. I have searched your website, and again, there is no mention of Egg. I have spoken to one of your telephone staff, and they could not point to any position of the OFT in respect of Egg’s charges in excess of the £12 threshold level.

Before I launch legal action against Egg, I would like a response from the OFT to the following two questions:

1)Has the OFT given any formal indication to Egg that charges of £16 are fair and reasonable; and
2)If such a formal indication has not been given, why the OFT is not using its regulatory power under the UTCCR to seek an injunction to prevent the continued use of such an unfair term?

I would be grateful for a response on this matter.

Yours ever

Tom Brennan

[thephoenix]

Re: TOM BRENNAN V NatWest

Egg (citibank) are not part of the test case and i'd of though seeing as each individual bank has submitted their own defence due to the fact that all banks operate there own system (and own excuses), would mean that any information requested under the FoIA could only be refused on the grounds of s.43 ONLY.

Egg were not even part of the Credit Card investigation.

The information (if any) supplied by Egg, should not (IMHO) prejudice or hinder in anyway the OFT case or the banks for that matter.
Completely different operation between overdraft charges and credit card charges.

And in only accepting D/D's as means of payment towards credit card balance would surely lower the costs involved, in this age of high and demanding technology.

IMHO.

[EXC]

Re: TOM BRENNAN V NatWest

He's started updating his site http://www.tombrennan.co.uk/ and is aiming to post
all the information by tomorrow (wed 5 dec)

[Niklowe]

Re: TOM BRENNAN V NatWest

It just seems to me that the OFT are too scared to persue the matter further. They do not seem to understand how an automated response cannot cost the bank/credit card £16. The annoying thing is that we pay for this toothless quango from our taxes.

[EXC]

Re: TOM BRENNAN V NatWest

A big congratulations to Tom who is starting his new job on Monday. He quit his previous position some time ago to concentrate on his case with Natwest and losing it didn't help his employment prospects one bit.

By a strange coincidence his new employers are the big London law firm Finers Stephens Innocent http://www.fsilaw.com/ who worked on the proposed judicial review procceedings against the FSA for Legal Beagles. He'll be an employed barrister working on his speciality of planning law and public law work.

[Nattie]

Re: TOM BRENNAN V NatWest

A huge congratulations to Tom Brennan, at last, a proper job.

[Amethyst]

Re: TOM BRENNAN V NatWest

Wow that's great news. Glad things are working out well for him.

[enaid]

Re: TOM BRENNAN V NatWest

Congratulations to Tom from me too, glad he is going to be ok

[TUTTSI]

Re: TOM BRENNAN V NatWest

Good Luck Tom for your new job

[Tools]

Re: TOM BRENNAN V NatWest

Pass on our congratulations

[EXC]

Re: TOM BRENNAN V NatWest

Pass on our congratulations

You bet I will.

Before being offered this job he had a second interview with the OFT but didn't get it. It may have involved working on the test case. Shame.

[righty]

Re: TOM BRENNAN V NatWest

Congrats Tom in your new job.

I understand they are VG firm to work for - will watch your career with interest

[CYNthesys]

Re: TOM BRENNAN V NatWest

Good Luck in your new job Tom