One man's legal fight for justice over bank fees

He is the ultimate bank rebel. After months of controversy, Britain's banks face a landmark court challenge over charges as a result of a one-man campaign waged by a barrister who is risking his professional career to prove they are acting illegally.

Tom Brennan believes that if he wins his case for exemplary damages against NatWest, the bank will have to reduce penalty fees for all its customers - paving the way for hundreds of thousands of other high street bank customers to launch claims. Banks could lose a chunk of their estimated £4.7bn a year earnings from penalty fees for unauthorised borrowing.

But if he loses the case, Mr Brennan risks having to pay the bank's costs, which would make him bankrupt and would disqualify him from working as a barrister. He has been flooded with messages in support of his campaign which he is conducting himself.

The Independent has been encouraging people to reclaim penalty fees for exceeding overdrafts or bouncing cheques. The Office of Fair Trading has ruled the fees are excessive and is investigating the charges claimed by British banks, which are making record annual profits.

Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999, charges must be proportionate to costs but the banks have been billing up to £38 a time for transgressions that are thought to cost no more than £4.50.

So far financial institutions have always settled cases for refunds before they have reached the courts, fearing an adverse ruling could force them to reduce the fees. However, their legality may finally be challenged when Mr Brennan's case is heard in the small claims court of the City of London on 30 April.

Mr Brennan, 30, from Lewisham, south London, is claiming £2,500 in charges for unauthorised overdrafts and "bounced" direct debits and the damages, which can be imposed when a wrong is deemed to be deliberate, malicious or negligent. NatWest has agreed to refund the fees and pay an ex gratia payment, but the barrister has refused to end his campaign.

The bank seems willing to contest the case.

Yesterday Judge Simpson, postponing the case in the Mayor's and City of London's County Court to allow time for a proper trial, said it would be "closely argued".

Mr Brennan wants to challenge the legality of the fees because they caused him financial hardship during his legal training and he wants justice for bank customers. He told The Independent: "The issue in this case is not money. It is the principle. They are charging illegal charges and making people suffer and I want them to stop."

Mr Brennan, whose current account has been closed by NatWest, will pit himself against what is expected to be a team of senior barristers from the bank. If he loses, he could be liable for costs if the judge deems his case was unreasonable.

A spokesman for NatWest, which is owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland, said: "The claim is the subject of an ongoing defended court process and it would be inappropriate to comment further."

Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group which has led the revolt against the charges, described Mr Brennan's as "very courageous and ambitious". "He has the support of all 134,000 Consumer Action group members," he said. If he is successful, he will be followed by thousands of others.

"This man, is armed and dangerous and the banks should be very afraid."