Campaigners seeking compensation for around one million former Bradford & Bingley shareholders claim the nationalisation and break-up of the bank was politically motivated.

They claim statements to MPs by past and present B&B bosses confirmed it was still a going concern in late September 2008, when its lending business was nationalised and savings arm sold to Santander.

The claim for compensation is being backed by Shipley MP Philip Davies, who said it would be “an absolute scandal” if no payment was made.

He was speaking after meeting with Peter Clokey, the independent valuer who is considering the case for compensation.

A written submission to Peter Clokey by solicitors acting on behalf of the Bradford & Bingley Investor Action Group highlights issues campaigners want considered.

They do not accept B&B lacked capital or liquidity before its nationalisation and believe it was still a viable business with substantial value immediately before the state take-over.

BBAG states: “The Government claims it acted on the advice of the Financial Services Authority (FSA), which it says determined B&B no longer met its threshold conditions to act as an authorised deposit taker on the morning of September 27, 2008.

“This is at odds with contempor-aneous statements made by the bank’s senior management. For example, on September 25, 2008, the bank issued a press release, approved by the FSA and Bank of England, stating it was well capitalised and fit for purpose.

“Furthermore, in evidence to the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee on November 18, 2008, Rod Kent, B&B’s former chairman, said: ‘At the time when we were transferred into public ownership we were both solvent and well above our regulatory minimum on capital’.”

BBAG says if there was concern about B&B’s liquidity, funding should have been made available under the Bank of England’s Special Liquidity Scheme rather than the ‘drastic step’ of breaking up the bank and nationalising the loan book. David Blundell, BBAG chairman, said: “The facts within our submission not only demonstrate the nationalisation of B&B was politically motivated but that B&B was a viable entity at the time it was taken into public ownership.”