Santander UK: High Court Claim, During TSB Acquisition

[qaz786]

I am a vulnerable consumer currently involved in a High Court claim against Santander UK PLC (Claim No: CL-2025-000504) regarding systemic regulatory failures. I am sharing this experience as it highlights what appears to be a defensive litigation strategy used to obstruct data access and potentially bypass procedural safeguards.

THE MAIN CLAIM: This is a King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) action concerning systemic AML control deficiencies and vulnerability-safeguarding failures. The claim alleges that the Bank failed to monitor objective transaction patterns that its systems were mandated to detect. I contend that these accounts were not included in the FCA’s 2022 investigation—which resulted in a £107m fine—in an attempt to hide specific failures, despite the bank's promises to remediate cases as part of its fine discount.

THE CORE ISSUES:

1. Failure to Protect a Vulnerable Customer

• The claim rests on the Bank's systemic failure to safeguard a known vulnerable and disabled customer.
• I allege the Bank breached its "Systems and Controls Duty" by failing to operate a compliance framework that should have flagged activity it was designed to catch.
• Specifically, the Bank failed to monitor objective, timestamped transaction patterns—such as Business → Personal → MCC 7995 (gambling) and "channel-hop" sequences—that were clear red flags of compulsive behavior.
• Despite internal CACS notes confirming the Bank's knowledge of my "gambling problem" and vulnerability, they made a conscious decision not to activate mandatory safeguards or welfare interventions.
• No Alerts exist on the 2 DSAR provided and much of the data is missing that I possess.

2. DSAR Suppression & Fabricated Records

• While the bank corresponds with me on litigation matters, they have insisted on "mandatory in-branch ID verification" specifically for my Subject Access Request (DSAR).
• The Fabricated Entry Issue: Most concerningly, after multiple ignored requests since June 2025, I received a "OneTrust" email stating I had requested the DSAR in paper format by post—which I had not. This occurred only after I escalated the matter to the ICO.
• When I complied with the branch-visit demand, I was told my DSAR requests except one were not even on their system, despite previous written confirmation they were being processed.
• This tactic has delayed the disclosure of material AML decision logs and internal notes that are essential to proving my case.

3. Procedural Inconsistencies

• I made an N244 application for a paper determination regarding DSAR compliance. The Court issued directions stating "do not list" in the interim.
• Despite this, an internal email from the Bank's Head of Legal questioned if the hearing was "sanctioned by a judge," the Bank's solicitors attended regardless.
• They failed to inform the court the matter was for paper determination, took no compliant notes, and obtained a £12,000 costs order against me as a Litigant in Person.
• The Evidence Gap: The Bank now admits it holds no transcript or record of that hearing, yet they are seeking to rely on "approximate oral recollections" to support a Civil Restraint Order.

THE WIDER CONTEXT: This conduct is occurring while Santander is seeking PRA/FCA approval to acquire TSB. It raises a fundamental question of public interest: How can a bank seek regulatory expansion while its own legal department questions the authority of the court processes it subsequently uses to its advantage?

SEEKING ADVICE: I am looking for shared experiences or guidance on:

1. Systemic DSAR Barriers: Has anyone else been told in-branch that a confirmed DSAR "is not on the system"?
2. Equality of Arms: Has anyone successfully challenged a bank for taking advantage of a vulnerable Litigant in Person (LiP) to secure costs orders during procedural errors?
3. Media/Regulatory Leads: I am prepared to provide documented evidence of these inconsistencies to investigative reporters covering banking governance.

I have filed a sworn Statement of Truth in the High Court clarifying my position and asked for a Sworn Statement from the Head of Legal asking why they went ahed as officers of the court, instead they were under CPR ensure the court is not misled.

Thank you for any guidance. The Claimant (LiP)

[Celestine]

Thanks for sharing this and welcome to LegalBeagles.
This is an interesting case and merits attention and support, I will link this thread to any media contacts I can.

Paul Tilley
pt2537 may want to look at this also.

Thanks

K

[echat11]

Regarding the following (your paragraph), doesn't that breach the required standards of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Rule 1 - Maintaining trust and acting fairly -

1. You do not unfairly discriminate by allowing your personal views to affect your professional relationships and the way in which you provide your services.
2. You do not abuse your position by taking unfair advantage of clients or others.
3. You perform all undertakings given by you, and do so within an agreed timescale or if no timescale has been agreed then within a reasonable amount of time.
4. You do not mislead or attempt to mislead your clients, the court or others, either by your own acts or omissions or allowing or being complicit in the acts or omissions of others (including your client).
5. You treat colleagues fairly and with respect. You do not bully or harass them or discriminate unfairly against them. If you are a manager you challenge behaviour that does not meet this standard.

• 'Despite this, an internal email from the Bank's Head of Legal questioned if the hearing was "sanctioned by a judge," the Bank's solicitors attended regardless.
• They failed to inform the court the matter was for paper determination, took no compliant notes, and obtained a £12,000 costs order against me as a Litigant in Person.
• The Evidence Gap: The Bank now admits it holds no transcript or record of that hearing, yet they are seeking to rely on "approximate oral recollections" to support a Civil Restraint Order.'

[echat11]

EXC Post filtered, can you please approve.

[EXC]

EXC Post filtered, can you please approve.

Done.

[qaz786]

Thank you for the warm welcome and the thoughtful replies.
Much appreciated Celestine and echat11 — particularly the point about SRA Rule 1. That’s very helpful and directly relevant to the internal Head of Legal email and subsequent actions taken without proper notice or safeguards.

I’m now preparing a further full SRA complaint and welcome any further input or precedent cases, especially where a solicitor has:

• Attended or benefited from an improperly listed hearing,
• Failed to ensure fair process for a Litigant in Person,
• Or contributed to misleading the court, intentionally or through omission.

The case has moved significantly in the past 72 hours, including regulator acknowledgments, further documentary proof, and developments that may now raise serious questions for the PRA/FCA regarding fitness and propriety. If any journalists or legal experts would like to see a dossier of the evidence trail (including DSAR entries, compliance emails, and listing office correspondence), I’m happy to provide that privately if I am allowed legally to do so.

I’ll keep the thread updated — and thank you again for the support. It’s made a real difference.

[qaz786]

Update: I’ve also experienced further issues with the court’s admin process. After filing a response and revised draft order clearly linked to my 9 Jan N244 application (following the Defendant’s reply), I was informed I’d need to file a new application and pay again. As a vulnerable Litigant in Person, this has caused serious anxiety — especially given the procedural confusion and the risk my evidence may be disregarded.

I submitted the documents on CE-File under the same application — but they have still not been accepted. I’ve since emailed the court to clarify this is a response submission with a revised draft order intended to assist the Court, not a new application.

If anyone has faced similar issues with CE-File or court listings, I’d appreciate any guidance.

[qaz786]

Given the facts already on this thread — the Head of Legal questioned whether the hearing was judicially sanctioned, yet the solicitors still attended, said nothing, took no note, and obtained a £12k costs order — does this amount to contempt of court, or just an SRA/CPR breach?

Would appreciate input on whether this crosses the legal threshold.

[echat11]

They must of said something, it's very unlikely that the Judge would have ordered costs without them doing so.
The solicitors not stating what was said, clearly 'impedes' your wanting to challenge the 'costs order'.
So, I think that's good grounds to challenge the 'costs order'.

There is a 'vacuum' i.e. you don't know what was said at the Hearing. What if the solicitors went to the Hearing,
said nothing, but the Judge did this on his own 'initiative'. Sometimes some Judges literally are a 'law unto themselves'.
So proving Contempt of Court might be difficult.

The fact that you believed it would be determined without the need to attend (on the papers) again grounds to challenge
the 'costs order'.

At some point you might want to complain about the Judge / Court.

[qaz786]

Thank you — to clarify, when I said “said nothing”, I was not suggesting that the solicitors made no submissions regarding why the hearing was happening. Surely they had to ask the application was mase for paper determination yet thus hearing has been listed - failing this means they knew and decided to benefit and mislead court!?

What I was referring to is something more specific and, in my view, more troubling.

This was a paper application. The Court had expressly directed “do not list” pending further considerarion once served to defendend. Prior to the hearing, Santander’s own Head of Legal queried in writing whether the listing had been sanctioned by a judge and described the hearing as potentially “premature”. Despite that, the Defendant’s solicitors attended the hearing without:

• asking the Judge why the matter had been listed contrary to the earlier direction;
• drawing attention to the fact the application was for paper determination under CPR 23.8(c);
• seeking clarification on whether the Judge had formally displaced the “do not list” direction.

In other words, they proceeded on an assumption of authority that had already been expressly questioned internally, and did so without putting that procedural issue before the Court — despite being officers of the Court and knowing I was a vulnerable Litigant in Person.

That omission matters. CPR and SRA duties are not limited to what is positively said; they extend to not allowing the Court to be misled by silence or omission, particularly where a procedural irregularity is known and material.

What compounds this is that:

• no compliant hearing note exists;
• no transcript exists (I have applied and waiting for a copy);
• the Defendant now says it holds no contemporaneous record of what was said;
• yet it continues, even in its response to my set-aside application, to proceed on the assumption that the hearing was properly sanctioned.

That creates a procedural vacuum which directly impedes my ability to challenge the costs order and raises serious questions about fairness and equality of arms.

I agree that contempt is a high bar and difficult to prove. My concern at this stage is not to over-label, but to ensure that the integrity of the process is properly examined, starting with the pending set-aside application. Any complaint regarding the Court or judicial handling is something I am consciously holding back on until that determination is made.

Also the Court emailed me a few days prior tonthe New Year with a Sealed Order 17 days after (the same Oral hearing) despite there being a Set Aside application on record... this again seems irregular..

The Court and Judge re complaint - I am considering but feot wait till the judge makes paper decsion om current applications.

The other application filed I asked for a Sworn Statement from the Head of Legal - in order to get confirmation why they attebded knowingly knowing it was not sanctioned..

I appreciate the thoughtful responses here — they have been genuinely helpful in framing the issues correctly.

[qaz786]

CE FILE shows my case and relevant public docs also...

[echat11]

Thank you — to clarify, when I said “said nothing”, I was not suggesting that the solicitors made no submissions regarding why the hearing was happening. Surely they had to ask the application was mase for paper determination yet thus hearing has been listed - failing this means they knew and decided to benefit and mislead court!?

What I was referring to is something more specific and, in my view, more troubling.

This was a paper application. The Court had expressly directed “do not list” pending further considerarion once served to defendend. Prior to the hearing, Santander’s own Head of Legal queried in writing whether the listing had been sanctioned by a judge and described the hearing as potentially “premature”. Despite that, the Defendant’s solicitors attended the hearing without:

• asking the Judge why the matter had been listed contrary to the earlier direction;
• drawing attention to the fact the application was for paper determination under CPR 23.8(c);
• seeking clarification on whether the Judge had formally displaced the “do not list” direction.

In other words, they proceeded on an assumption of authority that had already been expressly questioned internally, and did so without putting that procedural issue before the Court — despite being officers of the Court and knowing I was a vulnerable Litigant in Person.

That omission matters. CPR and SRA duties are not limited to what is positively said; they extend to not allowing the Court to be misled by silence or omission, particularly where a procedural irregularity is known and material.

What compounds this is that:

• no compliant hearing note exists;
• no transcript exists (I have applied and waiting for a copy);
• the Defendant now says it holds no contemporaneous record of what was said;
• yet it continues, even in its response to my set-aside application, to proceed on the assumption that the hearing was properly sanctioned.

That creates a procedural vacuum which directly impedes my ability to challenge the costs order and raises serious questions about fairness and equality of arms.

I agree that contempt is a high bar and difficult to prove. My concern at this stage is not to over-label, but to ensure that the integrity of the process is properly examined, starting with the pending set-aside application. Any complaint regarding the Court or judicial handling is something I am consciously holding back on until that determination is made.

Also the Court emailed me a few days prior tonthe New Year with a Sealed Order 17 days after (the same Oral hearing) despite there being a Set Aside application on record... this again seems irregular..

The Court and Judge re complaint - I am considering but feot wait till the judge makes paper decsion om current applications.

The other application filed I asked for a Sworn Statement from the Head of Legal - in order to get confirmation why they attebded knowingly knowing it was not sanctioned..

I appreciate the thoughtful responses here — they have been genuinely helpful in framing the issues correctly.

Have you sent the Courts a Subject Access Request?

Send a Request to data.access@justice.gov.uk

They will ask you for ID etc,

https://legalbeagles.info/library/gu...ccess-request/

You can see what occurred (or what shouldn't have occurred) from the Court Admin,
how a paper determination ending up in a Hearing in person without you being made aware of it.

You need to concentrate on getting the 'Costs Order' overturned with the 'evidence' you have.

[qaz786]

Update – Set-Aside Dismissed as "Totally Without Merit" / N161 Appeal Filed

Thank you for the support so far. The case has taken a very concerning turn.

The Update: Judge has dismissed my set-aside application and certified it as "Totally Without Merit" (TWM). This is a "dracy" certification usually reserved for hopeless cases. Looking at the Order, what is most concerning is that the Judge appears to have simply adopted the Defendant’s defense in its entirety in a later filing.

The "Cherry-Picked" Evidence: In his reasons, the Judge claims I had "no entitlement" to a paper determination and that I "maintained a request for a hearing." Despite it being filed as a paper application !

To reach this conclusion, the Judge had to ignore the two most important documents in the case, both of which were in front of him:

1. The Judicial Stay: His own direction stating the application “should not be listed in the meantime.”
2. The Defendant’s Admission: The email from Santander’s Head of Legal in the same thread, which explicitly stated there was “no basis” for the hearing and asked the listing office for “confirmation that this decision to expedite has been sanctioned by a judge.”

The Judge used my response to an administrative instruction—where I provided dates—to suggest I agreed to the hearing "on my own accord." He effectively ignored the "administrative trap" set by the listing office and the Bank's own warning that the hearing was unsanctioned. By adopting the Defendant's narrative, he has ignored the reality that a Litigant in Person cannot "elect" for a hearing that a Judge had already forbidden.

Next Steps: N161 Appellant’s Notice in the Court of Appeal. My grounds focus on the "Perversity" of ignoring the Bell emails and the fact that a hearing held in breach of a judicial order is a nullity.

I am also taking the advice here and submitting a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the Ministry of Justice today. I need to find the "clerical audit trail" of how this was listed. If the SAR shows a clerk listed this without a Judge’s signature, the £12,000 costs order should never have existed.

[atticus]

[B]...To reach this conclusion, the Judge had to ignore the two most important documents in the case, both of which were in front of him:

1. The Judicial Stay: His own direction stating the application "should not be listed in the meantime."
2. The Defendant's Admission: The email from Santander's Head of Legal in the same thread, which explicitly stated there was "no basis" for the hearing and asked the listing office for "confirmation that this decision to expedite has been sanctioned by a judge."

Sorry, but those things were not ignored. If anything, they were applied. The judge did not list the application for hearing but on considering the application on paper determined that it was 'totally without merit', that is to say bound to fail, and therefore that the coup de grace needed to be applied.

Without seeing the case papers I cannot say whether that was an appropriate thing to do. I see that you will be appealing.

[qaz786]

atticus — I appreciate the input, but I think there’s a misunderstanding of the chronology here.

The "Totally Without Merit" (TWM) certification wasn't the Judge applying his own "do not list" order to save time. It was the opposite:

1. The Error: Despite the initial N244 for DSAR "do not list" direction, the Court Listing Office erroneously listed an oral hearing for 12 December. The Listing officer told me to agree dates, I thought this was correct and did so.
2. The Warning: Before that hearing, the Bank’s Head of Legal stated in writing there was "no basis" for it and asked for judicial sanction. No sanction was provided, yet the solicitors attended anyway.
3. The Hearing: I attended that hearing (under the impression I had to), where a £12,000 costs order was made against me.
4. The Application: I then filed a set-aside application under CPR 3.3(5)(a) to challenge that costs order, specifically because the hearing was unauthorized and breached the Judges own direction.
5. The TWM Order : The Judge has now dismissed that set-aside application as TWM. In doing so, he claimed I "elected" for the hearing because I gave dates to the Listing team—totally ignoring that his own order forbade the listing and the Bank had already flagged it as unsanctioned.

So, the "coup de grace" wasn't applied to the main claim on paper; it was applied to my attempt to correct a serious procedural irregularity that resulted in a five-figure costs penalty. The Judge hasn't "applied" the direction —he has ignored its breach. I as a LIP understand once a direction has been given. only a variation/judge directions can change this.

Re the defendant - they knowingly attended the hearing despite the Head of egal clearly stating on record - is it sanctioned - I thought it was. a duty for any offier of the court to ensure a fair process, no abuse etc...

Does that change your view on the "election" argument?