Bank-smart now charging me!

I can see two possible grounds for complaint against this firm.

The first is the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007. If you go to page 6, you will see there are "Client Specific Rules".

Rule 1a says they must "Act fairly and reasonably in dealings with all clients". If they have not then you have grounds for complaint.

Rule 1b says they must "Ensure that any service offered is one that meets the needs of the
client and satisfies the requirements of these Rules". If you needed a "no win, no fee" agreement then it has not met your needs and you have grounds for complaint.

Rule 1c says "Ensure that all information given to the client is clear, transparent, fair
and not misleading." If it was not made clear to you at outset that a fee would be payable regardless of the outcome you have grounds for complaint.

Rule 1f says, "Where advice is given, advise the client to pursue cases only if it is in
the interests of the client to do so." This is particularly relevant to bank charges because if they intend to charge a fee regardless of outcome it is unlikely to be in your best interests because of the outcome of the court case. Indeed, once it became apparent that the case was going to court there was always a significant risk that the banks would win and no redress would be payable. So if they indicated they could get money back for you there are grounds for complaint.

Bank-Smart's website says of this: "
Bank-Smart are experts in reclaiming client’s 6 years worth of unfair charges with interest. ....

The legality of personal account charges has been dropped by the Office of Fair Trading. Bank-Smart can still process your claim and demand a refund of charges, particuarly (sic) where you can demonstrate financial hardship."

The word "particularly" (assuming that is what is meant) is significant because it infers that charges can be recovered in other circumstances when, in reality, the chances are virtually nil.


Moving on, Rule 10 says, "Before seeking to enter into a contract with a client a business must make
reasonable enquiries as to whether the client has alternative mechanisms for pursuing a claim".

Did they check whether you had legal expenses cover with your household insurance? Or whether there was a legal helpline with your insurance (even legal expenses cover with your car will often have a helpline on other legal matters) or with your employer, or even the Citizens' Advice Bureau? If not you have grounds for complaint.

Rule 11a requires them to provide "Honest, comprehensive and objective written information to assist the client to reach a decision including the risks involved in making a claim, in particular the possibility of losing money and, in the case of legal action, appearing in court."

Did they make clear to you that you would have to pay even if no redress was awarded? If not you can complain.

Rule 11b requires them to provide details of "The services that will be provided, in a way that does not misrepresent, either by implication or omission, any term or condition or by whom the service will be provided."

If you were led to believe it was "no win no fee" you have grounds for complaint if they are charging you for their failure.

Rule 11e requires them to provide details of "Any charge the business makes". This is probably in the documents given to you. However, all the requirements of Rule 11 must be met PRIOR to the contract's commencement and if it was not made clear to you that you would pay a fee come what may you have grounds for complaint.



Rule 12 says "Where a claim is one that falls within the province of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Housing Ombudsman Service or any other recognised dispute resolution procedure, the business must not suggest that a claimant will have a more favourable outcome if he uses the services of the business."

I have put in the full wording because Bank-Smart seem to think you can claim for anything. (In some cases it is merely a tax rebate!). However, if they suggested they could get a more favourable result from the Financial Ombudsman Service you have grounds for complaint.


Rule 13 says "A business must make explicit to the client his right to seek further advice or
to shop around, subject to any time limits within which a claim must be made." If they did not tell you then you can complain that, had they done so, you would have chosen a no win no fee company instead. This looks to be very difficult for them to defend.

Rule 14 says "A business must take reasonable steps to ensure that the client is able to
understand the contract that he is being asked to agree to."

Again - if you did not understand that it was not a no win no fee agreement you have grounds for complaint.

If you are not satisfied with their response you can take your complaint to the Ministry of Justice.