A writ for £2,775 was issued to the Abbey National, in Chorlton, Manchester, by bailiffs working on behalf of Sam Umaar.
A stand-off between Mr Umaar, from Chorlton, and the bank arose last May after he tried to claim back ‘unlawful’ penalties originally amounting to £1,915.
Mr Umaar, who is on income support, took the case to Manchester Crown Court after the bank offered him £60 as ‘a gesture of goodwill.’
When the bank did not show up in court, a udge ruled that Mr Umaar should be awarded £2,775, which includes interest and his court costs.
After not receiving a penny in two weeks, he went back to court to file a warrant of execution – which resulted in the bailiffs visiting the bank to issue a writ.
Mr Umaar said that his success in the courts had been ‘a victory for the small man against the might of the big banks’.
He said: "I just hope that this writ finally brings some closure to all of this and that the bank pay up.
"The banks are very quick to take the money out of your account but they are not so quick to repay what they rightfully owe you."
Mr Umaar first wrote to Abbey National stating that he wanted to have any unlawful bank charges refunded.
After initially getting no response, he wrote asking for his past statements, which showed that he had been over-charged £1,915.
He said: "I sent yet another letter and they eventually wrote back to me offering me £60 ‘as a gesture of good will’.
"I was completely speechless and really angry, it was a real slap in the face and although it was really daunting going to court and trying to take on such a big bank I’m so glad I did. After going back to court again I finally got the result I wanted and I’m just hoping that they pay up now."
A spokesman for the Abbey National confirmed they had been issued with the writ.
He said: "We are aware of the hearing that took place at Manchester County Court on June 7, 2007 and the award to Mr Umaar.
"We will be issuing a cheque to Mr Umaar as soon as possible."
Tweet

Showing comments 1 to 12 and replies | View All
The Right to Reply (04/07/2007 at 10:21)
ace, manchester (04/07/2007 at 13:10)
alix, manchester (04/07/2007 at 13:29)
transit, manchester england (04/07/2007 at 14:00)
AH, Manchester (04/07/2007 at 14:36)
Puffing Billy, Outside (04/07/2007 at 15:50)
Don't encounter bank charges seems to be the best policy.
Paul Hanlon (05/07/2007 at 14:24)
A reasonable person does not expect the terms of the contract to be unlawful!
The unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations say that penalty charges are unlawful.
A penalty charge is one that exceeds the true costs incurred by the bank.
The banks ALWAYS refuse to disclose their true costs at court and these costs have been estimated in pennies rather than pounds...so they lose in court.
See www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk for details.
Colin W, Abroad (05/07/2007 at 14:35)
Mr Manchester (05/07/2007 at 16:17)
The riots in your adopted homeland of Sweden would have kept you busy. The 1 May 2007 riot involving up to 100 youths who smashed shop windows, vandalized cars and painted graffiti on walls on Hornsgatan in the Södermalm district of the city. Not forgetting last year's Stockholm riots where several hundred protestors attacked riot police after a middle east protest. Stand now, and be in place for next year's events!
The Catcher, In the Rye (05/07/2007 at 16:21)
They didn't lose the other day when a judge dismissed several cases.
It's the same story with people who get into debt with credit cards then expect sympathy. If you can't afford it (including debt) don't have it.
CliffeMafia, Radcliffe (06/07/2007 at 11:58)
The banks will still get their money but by charging everyone to have an account.
If I agree to terms and conditions and my bank charges me for breaking them then who's fault is that?
I've been charged in the past but you learn your lesson - how does anyone manage to rack up thousands?
AH, Manchester (06/07/2007 at 16:27)