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
The standoff over separate account margining
CFTC issues sixth extension of no-action relief as long-awaited final rule stalls
Banks fret over vendor contracts as Dora deadline looms
Thousands of vendor contracts will need repapering to comply with EU’s new digital resilience rules
EU banks lose relief on model test after FRTB delay
Deferment of new trading book regime to January 2025 eats into transition period for “erratic” P&L attribution test
Sunday night football and the Basel III endgame
Big banks, political advocates and housing organisations are unlikely allies in race to dropkick new capital regime
Futures exchanges seek clarity on China licensing regime
Hazy details on landmark Futures and Derivatives Law breeds legal uncertainty, unnerving operators
Some EU banks wanted option to start FRTB on time
Representatives of member states raised possibility with European Commission at July meeting discussing the delay
For US Treasury troubles, treat the cause not the symptom
Regulatory alarm about hidden risk in the Treasury futures market misses the point, fund association execs write
Iosco delays pre-hedging consultation to November
Review into controversial practice splits industry