Bank of Queensland executive Mark Davies was appointed to a regional manager's position in New South Wales early in 2008. What made Davies' "region" different was that he was given control over a number of the bank's owner-manager branches that were in trouble.The OMBs either had performance issues or were having trouble repaying overdrafts advanced to them by the bank. What Davies did to sort out these problems was the subject of evidence in the Supreme Court of New South Wales yesterday.A group of former New South Wales owner-managers (franchisees) has brought a claim of misleading and deceptive conduct against the bank. The case, which started last September, resumed this week. Davies is the first of a number of BOQ senior staff expected to give evidence over the next few weeks.Bank of Queensland entered the NSW market in 2004 using a branch franchising business model. The claim against the bank is that the expansion plan was based on a superficial business analysis, overly optimistic projections, which were never properly tested, and a failure to acknowledge the bank's competitive disadvantages. A central issue in the case is the extent to which the owner-managers relied on representations from bank executives and how much they made decisions based on their own business skills and planning.Davies was given oversight of branches in Springs Street (Sydney CBD), Hornsby, Miranda, Rhodes, St Ives, Kellyville and Bankstown.Davies' job was to help managers improve their performance. He advised the bank on whether managers should be given extensions to their overdrafts. He also provided input into bank deliberations about whether the bank should close branches or convert them into corporate branches.In their meetings and communications with Davies, managers complained that the Bank of Queensland did not give them enough authority to discount loans to match competitors' rates. They also said the bank had not done enough to create brand awareness and so help bring business through their doors.Managers claimed that they were losing refinancing business because the bank's valuations, in many cases, were too low. This resulted in higher than expected loan-to-valuation ratios and the need for lenders' mortgage insurance (which added costs to the loan).And they complained that the bank's product-set was not attractive. One manager told Davies: "They don't want what we are selling."To bring in business, managers wanted to be able to pay "spotters' fees" to accountants and other referral sources. The bank's policy was to pay a flat $250 fee, but the managers wanted to be able to match the higher fees paid by competitors.Davies said part of his job was to help the managers get business through relationships and not just discounts and referral fees.Davies said: "We were never going to be the cheapest and never going to be the dearest. In most of the branches I have worked in in my career, people won business on service and relationships.  You can't rely on discounts for every loan."Davies said he had a mixed bag of managers. Some had good skills, while others did not