When the FOS finally respond after we vehemently rejected their initial "findings" and assuming their second attempt is no better than the first - we would expect the next step to be the bank starting repossession action. No repayments have been made for three years and the bank has not once demanded payment or threatened recovery.  We take this as a demonstration of the strength of our case.  We have also read that banks that know they are in the wrong sometimes never start recovery - the dodgy loan just sits there increasing with this interest.

If this happens, we will be forced into starting action against the bank ourselves to bring the matter to a head.

Distrusting solicitors almost as much as banks, would be unrepresented in this application to the Court.

Our question is, when the Supreme Court Judge is presented with documented indisputable evidence of fraud by the lender, how could it be possible to ignore that evidence in such a public arena? How would it be possible for the Court to find in favour of the fraudulent lender faced with factual documented evidence of fraud? How would they justify it?

What if the media could be present?

With the so called regulators being useless/corrupt it seems we only have the Courts to fall back on.

Have found solicitors try to wriggle out of taking on the banks by trying to scare the borrower into believing they will be up for the costs if the case isn't successful. Even if the outcome wasn't entirely to the satisfaction of the applicant borrower, surely it is highly unlikely that a borrower would be forced to pay the banks legal fees if the case was not vexatious and had obvious merit?

Has anyone else instigated an unrepresented case in the Supreme Court, against a bank and as the Plaintiff not the Defendant? 

Overly optimistic :-)

Dawn