Tweet
BBC NEWS | Business | Q&A: Bank charges test case
Q&A: Bank charges test case
A High Court judge is set to decide a crucial test case which could have widespread consequences for millions of banking customers in the UK.
The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) believes the overdraft charges levied by banks and building societies are unfair and wants the High Court to rule accordingly.
However, the banks insist their fees are legal.
What exactly is the High Court being asked to decide?
The OFT is challenging seven leading banks and the Nationwide Building Society about the fairness of their unauthorised overdraft charges.
Customers are sometimes charged more than £30 for going into the red without permission, an amount which the OFT and consumer groups argue is significantly higher than the true administrative cost.
However, the OFT will not ask the judge to make a straightforward ruling that the banks' charges are unfair.
BANK REFUNDS IN 2007
Barclays - £87m
HSBC - £116m
HBOS - £79m
Lloyds TSB - £36m
RBS - £81m
Source: Bank interim results
Instead it will argue that the overdraft charges come under the scope of the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.
This would mean the OFT would have the authority to decide itself if the charges are unfair, and the power to force the banks to change their practices as a result.
The regulator will also argue that the banks' terms and conditions are not written in sufficiently plain English, something else that would give the OFT jurisdiction to act.
For their part, the banks argue that their charges are a fee for a service and not a penalty charge, and also that they form a core term of their contracts with their customers.
As such they say the Unfair Terms legislation does not apply.
Why has the case reached the High Court?
The test case was announced last summer, in response to an unprecedented wave of mass litigation which has swept the country during the past two years.
It is estimated that banks have so far refunded about £570m to 330,000 customers who accused them, often through local court proceedings, of imposing excessive overdraft fees that were unfair and illegal.
In the vast majority of cases the banks chose to settle the cases before the matter reached court. This has meant no legal precedent was been set.
But the growing volume of cases led to an agreement between the banks and the OFT to seek a High Court ruling to ensure what the regulator called a "clear and orderly resolution" of the issue.
What is at stake?
Potentially billions of pounds and the future of free current account banking.
If the OFT argument is upheld it could mean banks and building societies having to return billions in fees collected from customers over the past six years.
In addition, some senior banking industry figures have suggested that the loss of income from charges - which the OFT estimated to be worth about £10m a day - could lead to introduction of monthly current account charges.
Most UK bank customers enjoy free banking while in credit, whereas in many other countries current account fees are commonplace.
Is the end in sight?
Not really.
The High Court hearing is expected to last eight days with a judgement being delivered by the court around Easter.
But whichever side loses is highly likely to appeal, possibly all the way to the House of Lords, which means the issue may not be resolved until next year.
And even if the OFT was ultimately successful, it would not automatically lead to payouts for customers.
It is expected that the question of compensation would be dealt with by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
Can people still claim against their banks?
Since the test case was first announced at the end of July, most courts have been halting new and existing claims for the return of overdraft charges until the legal issues are settled.
Some estimates suggest as many a million cases have been left in limbo.
The banks are therefore protected, for the time being, from any new legal action in the courts and from any new complaints to the Ombudsman.
The banks are also still covered by a "waiver" granted to them by the FSA at the end of July which says they do not have to make progress with any new or unresolved complaints about their charges until the outcome of the court case.
But consumer groups have complained that the banks are still levying the charges against customers, and have urged people to keep lodging claims.
These will not be processed but must be acknowledged, meaning customers' details would already be on the banks' systems should they lose the legal action and be told to pay compensation.
Story from BBC NEWS:
BBC NEWS | Business | Q&A: Bank charges test case
Published: 2008/01/11 14:01:01 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
Q&A: Bank charges test case
A High Court judge is set to decide a crucial test case which could have widespread consequences for millions of banking customers in the UK.
The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) believes the overdraft charges levied by banks and building societies are unfair and wants the High Court to rule accordingly.
However, the banks insist their fees are legal.
What exactly is the High Court being asked to decide?
The OFT is challenging seven leading banks and the Nationwide Building Society about the fairness of their unauthorised overdraft charges.
Customers are sometimes charged more than £30 for going into the red without permission, an amount which the OFT and consumer groups argue is significantly higher than the true administrative cost.
However, the OFT will not ask the judge to make a straightforward ruling that the banks' charges are unfair.
BANK REFUNDS IN 2007
Barclays - £87m
HSBC - £116m
HBOS - £79m
Lloyds TSB - £36m
RBS - £81m
Source: Bank interim results
Instead it will argue that the overdraft charges come under the scope of the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.
This would mean the OFT would have the authority to decide itself if the charges are unfair, and the power to force the banks to change their practices as a result.
The regulator will also argue that the banks' terms and conditions are not written in sufficiently plain English, something else that would give the OFT jurisdiction to act.
For their part, the banks argue that their charges are a fee for a service and not a penalty charge, and also that they form a core term of their contracts with their customers.
As such they say the Unfair Terms legislation does not apply.
Why has the case reached the High Court?
The test case was announced last summer, in response to an unprecedented wave of mass litigation which has swept the country during the past two years.
It is estimated that banks have so far refunded about £570m to 330,000 customers who accused them, often through local court proceedings, of imposing excessive overdraft fees that were unfair and illegal.
In the vast majority of cases the banks chose to settle the cases before the matter reached court. This has meant no legal precedent was been set.
But the growing volume of cases led to an agreement between the banks and the OFT to seek a High Court ruling to ensure what the regulator called a "clear and orderly resolution" of the issue.
What is at stake?
Potentially billions of pounds and the future of free current account banking.
If the OFT argument is upheld it could mean banks and building societies having to return billions in fees collected from customers over the past six years.
In addition, some senior banking industry figures have suggested that the loss of income from charges - which the OFT estimated to be worth about £10m a day - could lead to introduction of monthly current account charges.
Most UK bank customers enjoy free banking while in credit, whereas in many other countries current account fees are commonplace.
Is the end in sight?
Not really.
The High Court hearing is expected to last eight days with a judgement being delivered by the court around Easter.
But whichever side loses is highly likely to appeal, possibly all the way to the House of Lords, which means the issue may not be resolved until next year.
And even if the OFT was ultimately successful, it would not automatically lead to payouts for customers.
It is expected that the question of compensation would be dealt with by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
Can people still claim against their banks?
Since the test case was first announced at the end of July, most courts have been halting new and existing claims for the return of overdraft charges until the legal issues are settled.
Some estimates suggest as many a million cases have been left in limbo.
The banks are therefore protected, for the time being, from any new legal action in the courts and from any new complaints to the Ombudsman.
The banks are also still covered by a "waiver" granted to them by the FSA at the end of July which says they do not have to make progress with any new or unresolved complaints about their charges until the outcome of the court case.
But consumer groups have complained that the banks are still levying the charges against customers, and have urged people to keep lodging claims.
These will not be processed but must be acknowledged, meaning customers' details would already be on the banks' systems should they lose the legal action and be told to pay compensation.
Story from BBC NEWS:
BBC NEWS | Business | Q&A: Bank charges test case
Published: 2008/01/11 14:01:01 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
Comment