Released on: May 24, 2008, 12:25 am

Press Release Author: Gracy

Industry: Financial

Press Release Summary: A judge at England gave banks permission to appeal a ruling
against the customers of banks ans thus, they could have to wait for some more years
to find out whether current account charges are deemed \"unfair\".

Press Release Body: LONDON - Friday, May 23, 2008 - (Shakespeare Finance Limited) -
Somewhat five weeks back, the High Court ruled in favor of the Office of Fair
Trading (OFT), allowing the consumer affairs watchdog to press ahead with an
investigation into whether banks can legally charge customers who slip into the red
without prior agreement or who write a cheque that backlashes. That hearing
potentially paved the way for current account holders to reclaim billions of pounds
in the form of fees.


However on Thursday , at a case management meeting to set the timetable for the next
steps, Mr Justice Andrew Smith indicated that he would allow the banks to appeal at
least part of his ruling, which relates to the rights of customers to sue banks and
the financial institutions. Apart from this, the other aspects of his initial ruling
are still being reasoned.


Peter Vicary-Smith, chief executive of consumer group, said the move was a \"real
kick in the teeth for consumers as it just drags out the whole procedure\". He added,
"It will be at least another year before people start to get their money back,
during which time the banks will hit us with up to 3.5 billion pounds in overdraft
charges\".


He also added, "The banks should do the right thing now, throw in the towel and
start reimbursing the customers they have been overloading the charges all this
time.\" If the banks do appeal then before the full case goes to court, the case
could go to the Appeal Court and the House of Lords and which could simply take more
years from two.


Britain\'s biggest banks refunded more than 400 million pounds in the first half of
the year 2007. However triggering the legal dispute, several disputed whether the
charges, typically between 24 pounds and 39 pounds per unauthorized overdraft, came
under the OFT\'s remit.


Justice Smith backed the argument that the OST raised in the year 1999 under which
the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations can be applied to overdraft
charges imposed by the bank and, thus, the banks can be sued, easily. However, he
also added that this did not necessarily mean the terms imposed by banks were
unjust.


While analysts and campaigners have estimated they take more than 1 billion pounds
in such fees a year, the biggest banks of Britain say that their charges are fair
and clear. According to judgment, the High Court ruling follows a January hearing at
which lawyers for Royal Bank of Scotland, Abbey, Barclays, Lloyds, HSBC, HBOS,
Clydesdale Bank and building society Nationwide argued the 1999 regulations were not
applicable to charges agreed between banks and consumers.


For additional information on the news that is the subject of this release (or for a
sample, copy or demo), contact Webmaster or visit
http://www.shakespearefinance.co.uk

Web Site: http://www.shakespearefinance.co.uk

Contact Details: United Kingdom