There will be no increase in investment in SME’s by owner/managers whilst the banks can add to their profits by grabbing the security behind that investment and at the same time add to their profits. This increase in investment is needed if the UK economy is ever going to approach the superior productivity levels of its competitors.

This piece of common sense needs to be recognized by all Parliamentarians. The people in this room should be using their talents (including tenacity) to be adding to the UK’s GDP instead of fighting banks!!! 

• The problem will not be solved by new legislation. As Dr Rudi Vis MP demonstrated in the House in 1999 there is more than enough legislation. This legislation is either ignored or interpreted by the judiciary in a way that is different from that which was intended.

In the Financial Services and Markets Act there is provision for the Treasury to step in and set up an independent inquiry this is what we feel needs to be done and some of the hundreds of cases on file for Europe need to be investigated as a test. The banks should be made to accept the investigating bodies ruling and be made to pay accordingly.

The general public should not be out of pocket and deserve compensation for their errors and mistakes. If it cost the banks it would make them think twice before ruining people’s lives in protracted disputes.

• Members of the judiciary not unnaturally find for their biggest customers. It is rumored that Barclays spend £240.000.000 p.a. on legal fees. Not unnaturally many judges will find a customer of the legal profession whenever possible. Also this means that the Banks get the best lawyers who are usually conflicted from working against them.

It is rumored that somebody recently beat Lloyds in the Court of Appeal by importing lawyers from Australia. When you have lost your business or home you normally cannot afford to do this.

• When it comes to improving the economy all this time and talent goes down the plughole. This is not true of our major industrial competitors who have a more modem and sensible approach to the debtor/creditor relationship, not by legislation itself but by the interpretation of that legislation.

IMHO new legislation will only add to the confusion, and harm the people it is trying to protect by the Banks  having that legislation interpreted in the way they want through the Courts, as the Courts d9 with Asylum Seekers.

• Accepting this is the situation what, if anything can be done? The Treasury may have the power to take the regulation of banks away from the FSA. This very act would give the matter the profile it deserves (bearing in mind the harm it is doing the economy, and really making the Treasury's policy of encouraging investment appear naive.)

• If possible the Courts need to become more equitable. It is acknowledged that a member of the judiciary will always believe a banker or a professional (accountant or solicitor) before he believes an owner/manager of a SME or member of the public.

Overcharging is rife backed up by Cruishank report SAFE can prove that inmost cases money is removed without the owner's permission by bank staff with full knowledge of their actions to increase individual branch profits.

Also they obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception according to the .1985 theft act when they take charges and obtain signatures on documents illegally all of these actions are Theft there is no other way to describe it.

The banks and the more unscrupulous members of those professions abuse this fact the use of polygraph testing    will go a small way to redress that balance. We feel there is a definite need for Polygraphs to be admitted as  evidence into civil court cases then the judges would realize that the banks do hot always tell the truth, even the  Home office is considering using the tests for the sake of justice.

When perjury, fraud, deception, theft, etc. are proved why aren't the banks prosecuted like anyone else in society.  We have proof of cases where everyone involved police, CPS, etc just keep passing the buck because it is too costly to prosecute the Bank.

There no compensation when the Banks are finally proved wrong, even when they loose in court they do not reimburse the other parties costs and they never seem to pay any compensation for the hardship and distress caused by their actions?

If the dispute could be frozen by the courts after six months especially in view of the fact it is common practice by the banks to ignore requests for information and account breakdowns for several years which makes the debt spiral out of all proportion and in view of the fact they impose penalty rates, then it would make them respond quicker and the problems would not get so out of hand

Also Benefits System would also collapse if law were enforced re-mortgage payments, for people receiving assistance through ill health or unemployment

• It needs to be recognized that this is not a "black and white" situation. Not all businessmen are angels, not all judge’s weak, not all bankers and professionals' liars. In fact there are material differences in ethics between the "big four" banks. There are as far as we know no abuse’s of HSBC. THE most successful of the big four, yet many of Lloyds’s currently the least successful. If this is a fact it needs to be brought out and used at all levels---the media, the government and the courts

There is a need for "Accountability" across the board

C.P.R    Overriding principal is – JUSTICE – w here is it in our country?