David Prosser: Proof that the law is on customers' side
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.This is the moment Britain's banks have been dreading. For several years now, almost every current account provider in the land has been quietly settling claims for compensation made by customers furious about charges that bore no relation to the cost incurred when someone exceeded their overdraft limit or bounced a cheque.
In public, the banks have presented a united front, arguing they were doing nothing wrong in charging £25 or more each time customers bust their limits, even by just a few pence. Their arguments were undermined by their own behaviour – every time a customer threatened to take them to court over such charges, compensation was coughed up swiftly. Anything to avoid a court case that would set a precedent by which all compensation claims could be judged.
Unfortunately for bank bosses, however, the day of reckoning has arrived. The High Court could not have been clearer yesterday: bank charges most definitely are covered by laws governing unfair consumer contracts and, as such, the banks are acting illegally.
By all the laws of natural justice, yesterday's ruling should be an end to this sorry controversy. Not only should those customers who have already complained about charges get their refunds immediately, but banks should be forced to scour their records for all those who haven't claimed and reimburse them.
If only life were that simple. Leading banks are now considering an appeal and the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has, in any case, still to work out what a fair charge for unauthorised borrowing would be. Bank charge victims won't be able to work out what they are owed until this figure has been set.
The real pity of this is that we never needed a court case in the first place. The OFT has long known exactly what it costs to process unauthorised borrowing cases. Last summer, it told the credit card industry that any penalty fee above £12 would almost certainly be considered illegal.
The watchdog was poised to make an identical ruling in the banking sector. But at the last minute it lost its nerve, following a PR campaign from the banks.
The Financial Services Authority also granted the banks an unprecedented right to postpone consideration of all complaints about borrowing charges, pending the High Court's decision. Now we have that decision, the FSA ought to lift that waiver.
In the meantime, however, the important message to bank customers from yesterday's ruling is that the law is on their side. Stake your claim to compensation as soon as possible – it may take some time, but you will eventually get the money you're owed.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments