OFT tackles unfair bank charges
Office of Fair Trading court case begins in London
LONDON – The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) kicked off its test case against unfair bank charges on Wednesday (January 16) at the International Dispute Resolution Centre. The OFT is attempting to prove that banks’ penalty charges are unfair under the terms of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999.
The banks disputing the case are HBOS, Lloyds TSB, HSBC, Clydesdale Bank, Barclays, Abbey National and the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), and one building society, Nationwide. They have thrown a lot of legal muscle behind their defence that ‘unfairness’ in the legislation does not apply to their charges on unauthorised overdrafts or bounced cheques.
Representation for RBS, Laurence Rabinowitz QC, opened the proceedings by partly accusing the OFT of opening a floodgate to consumer claims against penalty fees that, according to research released in July last year by Credit Suisse UK, cost banks as much as £200 million.
He said this was in part due to “ill-judged” comments by the OFT in its ruling on credit card charges in 2006, which said that credit card providers were charging unfair fees for late and missed payments, and compared them with charges imposed on current accounts such as those for unauthorised overdrafts.
RBS is continuing its defence. The other banks will present their own cases from next week, followed by the OFT. The hearing is expected to run for three weeks.
Should the OFT be successful, it could mean the end of free banking, as banks attempt to recoup costs from elsewhere.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Complex EU active account reporting could drive trades out of UK
Draft Emir rules might not force large volumes to move to EU, but will make compliance difficult
Capital neutrality key to completing Basel III, says Quarles
Former Republican Fed vice-chair thinks Hill or Bowman could help revive stalled prudential rules
Review of 2024: as markets took a breather, firms switched focus
In the absence of major crises and rules deadlines, financial firms revamped strategy, services and practices
Dora flood pitches banks against vendors
Firms ask vendors for late addendums sometimes unrelated to resiliency, requiring renegotiation
Swiss report fingers Finma on Credit Suisse capital ratio
Parliament says bank would have breached minimum requirements in 2022 without regulatory filter
‘It’s not EU’: Do government bond spreads spell eurozone break-up?
Divergence between EGB yields is in the EU’s make-up; only a shared risk architecture can reunite them
CFTC weighs third-party risk rules for CCPs
Clearing houses could be required to formally identify and monitor critical vendors
Why there is no fence in effective regulatory relationships
A chief risk officer and former bank supervisor says regulators and regulated are on the same side