Bank customer with ‘phobia of Pride flags’ loses case against NatWest
A bank customer who claimed to have a “phobia” of Pride-related material has lost his case against NatWest, where he claimed an exhibition at one of its branches caused him “serious psychological distress”.
Mark Jennings said he saw some material supporting LGBT+ issues when he went to the bank’s regular branch in Herne Bay, Kent, on 16 August.
Mr. Jennings, who has autism spectrum disorder, borderline personality disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, “describes himself as having a phobia of Pride-related paraphernalia that worsens his mental health conditions,” according to court documents.
While he claims that his circumstances were aggravated by his Catholic faith, he sees Pride as a movement that “promotes social values that he sees as contrary to his religious beliefs.”
The documents added that NatWest’s request to “make reasonable adjustments for his situation” by not promoting Pride in the branch due to the “adverse impact of this material on mental health” was rejected.
Mr Jennings claimed that this refusal breached the Equality Act 2010, that mental health conditions are considered disabilities under the law, and took action against NatWest.
“Since then, he has been unable to visit these branch premises without experiencing significant psychological distress, resulting in increased social isolation and poor mental health,” the documents said.
The case was heard at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, where Mr Jennings claimed £35,000 for “annoyance, anxiety and inconvenience”, as well as the removal of Pride-related paraphernalia at the bank’s Herne Bay branch.
However, the sheriff dismissed the case on the grounds that “there was no relevant or sufficiently specific claim in law.”
Mr. Jennings’ proposed amendment and appeal were later rejected by the court.
The documents outline how he attempted to change the details of his disabilities by claiming that “exposure to certain visual stimuli associated with the Pride brand causes distress by triggering sensory overload, increases in anxiety, and shutting down/avoidance behaviors.”
Mr. Jennings requested an appeal after “filing using ChatGPT.”
He argued: “The cases establish no connection between the operator of the bank branch and the defendant. The sheriff correctly identified the lack of specification and therefore explanation as to how the facts gave rise to liability. The motion for amendment during argument was correctly denied because it was vague, late and fundamentally altered the case. Expenses were always left to the discretion of the court.”
On 21 November, Sheriff’s Principal NA Ross concluded: “I will deny the appellant’s request for amendment in terms of the amendment brief.
“The record, even if allowed, does not present a coherent and lawful case on evidence that could be sent to trial. It does not fairly inform the defendant of critical parts of the case to permit him to prepare and present any defense. It is inexcusably late, both in time and in relation to the stage of trial at which it was initiated; the delay is neither justified nor adequately explained by disability or any other reason.”
“The original unredacted case is irrelevant for the reasons given by the sheriff and is too lacking in specification to give fair notice. This appeal must fail.”
Mr Jennings was also ordered to pay NatWest’s appeal costs.
A NatWest Group spokesman said: “We welcome the Sheriff’s Appeal Tribunal’s dismissal of the claims against us.”
