skip to main content
|

Banking

Moneywise

Message Boards
Property Pensions
Savings Utilities
UK Stocks Investing
Speach bubble How much will House prices fall?
Speach bubble Are American women with brains welcome here?
Speach bubble Printing money - six months on
Speach bubble What kind of people post on this board?
Speach bubble Cash the new Gold


Recession

  Just how deep is the trough?
Banking Crisis
 

Are the banks out of the woods?

Stock Market Crash
  Explaining the global market turmoil
Money saving Tips
 

How to beat the credit crunch

Isn't Finance Funny?
 

Scandals and silliness



Moneywise Promotion
Receive a FREE copy of Moneywise magazine
Get your free copy now

Also on Yahoo! Finance
Mortgages Insurance
Loans Credit Reports
Credit Cards Banking
Savings Cut Your Bills

Mortgage articles
House price recovery falters
Bypass estate agents and sell your home yourself
Is it the right time to buy
Stamp duty holiday supports house price rise

View archive

Personal finance articles
10 rewarding career choices
What to do if you're caught out by a cowboy tradesman
Don't get ripped off in the gold rush
Top 4 financial life-changing events

View archive

Investment articles
Is this the end of QE policy?
Don't underestimate the value of ISAs
Third quarter reporting season
The Dollar, the renminbi and the G-20

View archive


Is this the end of free banking?

By Liam Tarry

It's a subject that continues to divide opinion; should banks be allowed to charge people for dipping into their overdrafts without permission? If you think they should, then what constitutes a fair charge - a one-off fine, a daily charge or a percentage-based penalty?

This very issue is currently the subject of a long-running legal battle. In 2007, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) brought a test case to the High Court, because it believes that it should have the right to apply consumer contract regulations to bank charges and decide whether they are fair or not.

However, banks disagree that the OFT should have the power to cap charges, which they maintain are fair.

In April last year, the High Court came back with its judgment - it declared that the OFT does have the power to decide if fees are fair or not. However, the seven banks and one building society involved in the test case appealed this decision and the case returned to the courts.

On Thursday, The Court of Appeal gave its verdict and quashed the appeal.

Are charges too high?

If it is granted the right to take action on bank charges, then it is expected to cap these and demand the banks refund those they have penalised in the past.

So will I get my money now?

Prior to the test case, large numbers of people started to seek refunds for bank charges through the county court system. At the end of 2007, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) put a waiver in place removing the obligation of banks to deal with complaints and refund requests surrounding unauthorised bank charges until a final decision was reached.

This waiver was recently extended until July 2009.

What's going to happen now?

The European Commission could even become involved at some point.

If the banks do appeal then the FSA's waiver is likely to remain in place until the House of Lords reaches a decision. This means that all pending cases are likely to stay on hold and banks will continue to charge overdraft fees, warns Which?

If the banks don't appeal, then the OFT will assess their terms and conditions and current overdraft fee structures and decide whether it thinks these are fair or not.

So what should I do?

In addition, the FSA's waiver can be overruled if a customer can prove they are suffering from financial hardship as a result of the charges.

What will the impact of this be on banking customers?

Unfortunately, the bank charge test case does put the future of free banking at risk. It is estimated the banks earn up to £3.5 billion a year from penalty charges and, if banks lose this income stream, they will look to other areas to recoup their losses.

In 2008, HSBC said it expected to pay back a further £300 million if the OFT decision went against it.


Useful links:

Send Article by Email  |  Send Article by IM  |  Blog This with Y! 360  |  Printable View

Yahoo! Finance : Banking

Archives of