header-logo header-logo

Banks win on overdraft charges

26 November 2009
Issue: 7395 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The banks have won a surprise victory in their high profile legal battle over unauthorised overdraft charges.

In OFT v Abbey National Plc and Others [2009] UKSC 6, the Supreme Court had to decide not whether the banks’ charges for unauthorised overdrafts were fair but whether the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) could launch an investigation into whether they are fair. Lord Phillips, president of the Supreme Court, and four Supreme Court Justices, ruled unanimously in favour of the banks.

Millions of current account holders who have been waiting to claim back charges will be taken aback at the decision. It follows two years of litigation during which the high court and Court of Appeal have both ruled, in favour of the OFT, that the banks could be investigated for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

According to Which? Magazine, the average customer claim is about £634. Banks paid out about £560m in refunds before the process was frozen in 2007 pending the result of this case.

Lord Phillips, President of the Supreme Court, said that unarranged overdraft charges are an important part of current account services which the banks provide to customers, and the amount of those charges is not assessable for fairness.

He noted that in the absence of the charges, the banks would not be able to run current accounts profitably without a fee.

He stated that it might be open to question whether it is fair to subsidise some customers whose accounts are always in credit by levies on others who experienced events they did not foresee when they opened their accounts.

He acknowledged that the OFT may yet be able to use other regulations to investigate the charges.

Ed Crosse, finance litigation partner at Osborne Clarke, says: “This is a stunning victory for the banks which will provide greater legal clarity going forward. 

“Many commentators wrote off the banks chances of winning. As the Supreme Court's decision records, however, it remains an option for the OFT to assess the fairness of the charges according to other criteria.”

Tom Morrison, associate, Rollits, says: “The decision has come as a blow to many who were hoping that banks would be made to hand back fees which some think were unfairly charged. 

“It was never a certainty that the OFT would win, but there is no doubt that consumer groups see this as a big setback in the resetting of the relationship between banks and their customers. Given the history of the case and the OFT's view that banks need to treat their customers better, it would be surprising if the OFT lets the matter drop here.”

The OFT said, in a statement, that it was “disappointed” by the decision but was exploring whether it could continue with its planned investigation, and expected to make an announcement on this in December.

 

Issue: 7395 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
Is a suspect’s state of mind a ‘fact’ capable of triggering adverse inferences? Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Smith of Corker Binning examines how R v Leslie reshapes the debate
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
back-to-top-scroll