
OFT tackles unfair bank charges
Daily news headlines
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.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
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. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Industry confused by EU’s ‘bingo card’ clearing rules
Uncertainty over definition of representative trades in Emir active account requirement
FDIC scrutinised over move to cover all SVB deposits
Advisory panel questions whether guaranteeing uninsured deposits was necessary to prevent contagion
EBA seeks to tighten up uneven prudent value adjustments
Regulator to consult ‘soon’ on changes to improve consistency of capital deductions
Post-Brexit divergence puts EU subsidiaries on the rack
Banks face choice between higher staffing costs or over-engineered processes at UK headquarters
SEC criticised for belt-and-braces ban on volume-based pricing
Legal experts question need for rules to prevent firms disguising agency trades as proprietary
SEC expected to protect CRT in conflicts of interest rule
Decision could come as early as today; high hopes for credit risk transfer exemption
FRTB managers face hard facts about risk factors
There are ways to reduce the capital charges caused by NMRFs, but they come at a price
SEC official defends delayed dealer registration rule
Regulator says market should be treated like equities, but PTFs warn it will harm market liquidity