36 year old father of two from Essex has a penalty charges claim of GBP 3,000 which he believes is owed to him by Royal Bank of Scotland. Meanwhile, he struggles to feed children and heat flat, with mounting debts and a real worry about imprisonment.

PRESS DISPENSARY - Tuesday, Dec 15, 2009 - While the OFT considers whether to restart its litigation against unfair bank charges, the plight of some customers seeking repayment of bank charges is growing considerably worse.

The recent shock decision by the Supreme Court that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) could not investigate the fairness of bank charges under one of the regulations has stalled consumer efforts to regain their money, as banks have interpreted the ruling to mean that the fight is over, even though consumer groups - including Penaltycharges.co.uk and MoneysavingExpert.com - have identified other regulations - not covered by the Supreme Court ruling - under which the bank charges should remain repayable.

One member of Penaltycharges.co.uk, Mr M - a 36 year old father of two from Essex - has a claim against the Royal Bank of Scotland which was stayed, pending the outcome of the recent High Court test case.

Mr M has been out of work for two years with a consequent rising number of debts, and he and his wife have a claim for just over GBP 3,000 in bank charges lodged with the bank. The amount would largely settle their debts and enable them to rebuild their lives. Meanwhile, however, they struggle to feed their children and heat their flat. With mounting Council Tax arrears of GBP 1,500, Mr M faces the possibility of imprisonment in the coming months, should the council pursue his arrears.

Despite the clear hardship suffered by the family, the Royal Bank of Scotland has now followed the Supreme Court decision with a determination that the couple do not qualify for support under the FSA's hardship criteria for repayment of penalty charges, delayed by the test case.

Mr M said today:"My wife & I have a hard time putting food on the table for our kids & I have over GBP 1500 Council Tax arrears. We're seriously struggling to heat the flat during this cold snap, and meanwhile money that I believe is mine is locked away by a bank that decides of its own accord that I and my family don't qualify under hardship rules."

As the matter of unfair bank charges drags on and on (with the battle by no means over), an increasing number of victims find themselves with debts they cannot settle, leading to the risk of custodial sentences.

Stephen Hone, Founder of Penaltycharges.co.uk, says: 
"Mr M's case shows just how bad it can get. A bank - largely owned by the taxpayer - is choosing of its own accord to refuse a case of hardship, despite Mr M's obvious difficulties. If the charges are rightfully Mr M's, the law should ensure that he is repaid them before it's too late. We call on the Government to act now: to reign in the bank who's shares it controls, and to change the law."

"Currently, the government has its priorities wrong on the banking debacles. While Westminster worries about fat cat bonuses, Mr M and many more could find themselves in debtors' court and prison."

Penaltycharges.co.uk appeals - as a matter of extreme urgency - that the OFT, FSA and Parliament should take decisive and rapid action to stop the unlawful business of unfair bank charges and to refund the money taken in the past to its rightful owners.

For people like Mr & Mrs M, government action cannot happen a day too soon.

Notes for editors

About Mr & Mrs M

Mr M is willing to speak to the media about his plight and to be identified in print. To get hold of Mr M, please call Stephen Hone of Penaltycharges.co.uk on 01752 249933 or 07960 498617, or email stephen@penaltycharges.co.uk

About RBS and penalty charges

The website of RBS subsidiary NatWest Bank makes clear its view on repaying penalty charges. At

http://www.natwest.com/personal/current-accounts/g6/overdraft-charges-update.ashx it states that the Supreme Court ruled that the level of unarranged overdraft charges in personal current accounts cannot be assessed for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR). Penaltycharges.co.uk believes that this is deliberately misleading, because the Supreme Court only ruled on a very narrow element of the Regulations and did not make the ruling as expressed by NatWest.

About Penaltycharges.co.uk

Penaltycharges.co.uk was founded in 2004/5 by Stephen Hone after he successfully claimed back more than GBP 5000 from Abbey National, which was 600% more than the value of his claim. It is not-for-profit site which offers free advice to members.