Don't have a free DebtWizard account? Find out why you should

Signup to DebtWizard · Log in

4 comments so far
Why not speak your mind below

Date set for Supreme Court decision on bank charges

Page last updated Friday, 20 November 2009

016-barrister-courtThe Supreme Court is currently considering an appeal by the UK's main banks against an earlier decision this year by the Appeal Court that went in favour of the Office of Fair Trading, (OFT).

In an earlier hearing the Appeal Court upheld a ruling from last year that the OFT had the power to decide if bank charges were fair or not.

The banks have argued all along that their charges are fair, reasonable and legal and now, after two years of wrangling the result of the legal cases between the banks and the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) will be revealed at 9.45 am on Wednesday 25th November 2009.

This is the last Court in the UK that can rule on this matter and if the banks lose then their only redress is Europe.

It is estimated that the banks receive around £2.5bn each year from overdraft charges when someone goes overdrawn without permission or if they have a cheque or direct payment returned unpaid.

If the banks win

If the banks win then that is virtually the end of the OFT’s case, all those campaigners and around one million individuals claiming back bank charges will be bitterly disappointed.

If the OFT win

If the OFT win then it will be the end of the first part of what is basically a two-part test case, with this victory settling the issue of whether the OFT can assess if bank charges were fair or not.  

The second part of the case will be what the OFT regard as a fair level of overdraft charges, if any. The banks’ could then challenge what the OFT recommends as a fair charge, they may decide that there should be none or very little. Whatever the OFT comes up with this may invariably lead to more rumblings in the Court. A win for the OFT could also bring about the end of free banking.

How long can I go back with my claim?

This is not clear as most experts say six years in the UK but others argue that your claim could go back as far as July 2001, because in July 2007 the Financial Service Authority (FSA) issued a waiver on all Court claims.  

The standard rule is you can claim back six years, yet the FSA said the clock stopped when the hold on reclaiming started in July 2007, and this is six years before that. Although this is a ruling from the FSA it does not have backing from the Courts. So it may be worthwhile claiming back as far as July 2001 and see what happens.

This applies whether you’re in England and Wales, in Scotland it is five years but it is worth considering going for six as well because if you’re not going to use the courts, but the Ombudsman, where there’s no time limit.

Not yet claimed and need help? If so then see our much acclaimed template letters and interest calculator at Reclaiming Personal Bank Charges Tool

Does this affect credit card charges?

No, this is completely different.

If you have already paid credit card charges then you are likely to have a claim for compensation going back as far as six years in the UK, five years and a maximun £750 if you reside in Scotland and £2,000 if you reside in Northern Ireland.

We have questions and answers plus template letters here

Our much acclaimed 'Reclaiming Credit Card Charges Tool' helps you add up your charges and creates a personalized letter to print out and send to your credit card issuer.


Speak your mind





Submit

Your comment will be moderated before it shows up.
Log in and comment to see your post appear instantaneously

Colin Wednesday, 25 November 2009

The Supreme Court's decision is really what I expected all along. The Establishment has no will to regulate the banks whatsoever, least of all in favour of hard-up members of the public. One rule for the 'haves' (e.g. MP's!) another for the 'have-nots'. What sort of fees and bonuses, I wonder, for the lawyers who won the case for the banks?

Steve James (Guest) Tuesday, 24 November 2009

Hi
Assuming an O.F.T. win at the Supreme Court. Do you have any opinions on what would be regarded as a fair level of charge. Also, do you think the banks would be required to repay in full, or do you think a deal would be struck. In terms of a deal, I am meaning perhaps the difference between actual amount levied and the new charge set by the OF.T. i.e. (Bank Rate - O.F.T. Rate) x No of weeks/years

It occurs to me that if such a deal was pitched appropriately between the two sides, then ground may be formed which encourages the banks not to appeal.
Sincerely
Steve

Debtwizard Monday, 23 November 2009

Hi Mel

Let's wait and see and deal with it according to the result on the 25th November. The OFT are expected to win and if they do it will be sometime before payout because the 'fee' for going overdrawn will then have to be agreed.

This last 30 months legal wrangling has been about whether the OFT can assess and set bank charges, not what they should be set at.

I will update the website and send out a member's email on Thursday of this week covering this.

Best wishes

Debtwizard

Mel Jones (Guest) Monday, 23 November 2009

If the court rules against this test case, will I also lose the £210 I lodged with my local county court to fight the unfair bank charges?


busy

Rapid Response

Continue

Related  40 more related

23/04/09
DebtWizard Update - 23 April 2009

25/05/09
OFT calls time on 'cold calling' in the debt management business

15/05/09
House repossessions figures are misleading

02/04/09
Banks win further rights to appeal OFT

Search Site

The Big List of News

If you're looking for older news from DebtWizard try searching above or viewing The Big List of News!

Mike Thomas aka the 'DebtWizard' helps individuals overcome their debt problems.

Mike writes all the articles found on this site.