Charges verdict against banks would have had "big" consequences

The knock-on effect on private banking would have been ’big’ if a Supreme Court ruling on bank charges been in favour of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), it has been asserted.

According to Martin Bamford, chartered financial planner for Informed Choice, the Supreme Court’s recent judgement against the OFT was unexpected.

The body had been battling for two years against eight high street banks, claiming consumers had been overcharged for their unauthorised overdrafts.

But the court ruled that the OFT could not have the power to judge this completely.

Mr Bamford said that if the judgement had been against the banks, there would have been ’big consequences’ for consumer relationships and the institutions’ financial power.

He noted that the expectation had been for the court to rule in favour of the consumer body and foresaw changes despite the outcome.

’I expect we will start to see more transparent banking charges in the future,’ he said, observing that banks will not wish to risk more legal action.ADNFCR-2318-ID-19482006-ADNFCR