Campaigners on behalf of nearly one million former Bradford & Bingley shareholders have lodged a formal appeal against the decision not to compensate them after the break-up and part-nationalisation of the mortgage bank in 2008.

David Blundell, chairman of the Bradford & Bingley Action Group, has written to Peter Clokey, the independent valuer appointed by the previous government, who decided last month that no compensation should be awarded to holders of B&B shares, which are now worthless.

Mr Blundell is also urging individual shareholders to write to the Treasury Select Committee pressing for an inquiry into the B&B affair – a move being called for by Shipley MP Philip Davies – and to write to their local MPs urging support for the campaign.

He has also pledged that, whatever the outcome of the appeal, BBAG would continue to demand an independent inquiry into events leading up to B&B’s nationalisation.

BBAG questions the suggestion that the B&B board was on the point of putting the company into administration immediately before nationalisation, saying that public announcements by the company at the time stressed B&B was a solvent business.

It is demanding to see evidence, such as board minutes, to clarify this point.

The group is challenging the decision that B&B should be valued as if in administration. It claims that Mr Clokey based his valuation on the assumption of all government funding being withdrawn, whether it was or would have been if the company had not been nationalised. That forced him into concluding that B&B should be valued on the basis that it is in administration.

Mr Blundell contests the assumption that Bank of England loans to B&B under the Special Liquidity Scheme were not ‘ordinary market assistance’, when more than 30 banks had received such funding which had become a normal part of maintaining adequate market liquidity.

In its submission, BBAG suggests that measure such as a government guarantee for savers’ deposits could have prevented a run on the bank and avoided the nationalisation of B&B were not fully explored.

Mr Blundell states: “There were indeed a number of options available to ensure B&B did not go into administration if nationalisation had not taken place, and in our view one or more of those options should have been put in place to avoid such an administration, which would have seriously damaged the interests of retail depositors.”

BBAG said the sale of the savings book to Santander destroyed B&B as a viable business and it was the only bank that was treated in this way.

“Since then, Santander has publicly boasted of the significant profits generated by that purchase and B&B has reported good profits as well, yet no consideration of this issue has been incorporated into your valuation,” states Mr Blundell.