MSE News: Guest Comment - Bank charges fight still alive

Alpine_Star

*MF* wrote: »

Interestingly, tied into an earlier post on ths thread, that link also takes you to some of the figures which were discussed by the FSA and TSC over the income the banks derived from "free if in credit" and "unauthorised overdraft charges, see below (same linK)

Extract:

Q49 Mr Mudie : Let’s stop it there. Hector has had enough time to read the report.

There is o ne thing you don’t mention that w e got from our first evidence session . An important thing you’re leaving out lies between the person walking through the front door, free, being able to open an acco unt and get on to insurance and mortgages and so on, and the £8.4 billion the banks charge opaquely to customers for things like overdrawing on cheques and so on. They broke it down : £ 4.1 billion was interest for gone, with a small amount they pay on their accounts. They make £ 4.1 billion out of that and they make £ 4.3 billion out of charges. If you left free banking alone , the free entry, but you got stuck into these hidden opaque charges that the banks make so much money from, wouldn’t that be a very good area of competition?

Ends ...

The 4 figures quoted by George Mudie MP are completely inaccurate.

*MF*

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The 4 figures quoted by George Mudie MP are completely inaccurate.

Would it therefore be fair to suggest that an issue which has affected milions of individuals when discussed by the FSA and the TSC contain inaccuracies, and that, not least, may have played its part in the non-resolution of the position.

Might that also be said of the comments from Lord Turner in the link above when he averred "... There was a clear legal decision, ...."?

Is that accurate? Or is it potentially misleading, in like manner to the figures quoted?

I will use only the Press Summary, but this is and remains "the clear legal decision" of the Supreme Court:

"This appeal involved a relatively narrow issue. The Supreme Court had to decide not whether the banks’ charges for unauthorised overdrafts were fair but whether the OFT could launch an investigation into whether they were fair.

Lord Walker made clear that the scope of the appeal was limited – the court did not have the task of deciding whether or not the system of charging current account customers was fair, but whether the OFT could challenge the charges as being excessive in relation to the services supplied in exchange (Paragraph 3). As Lord Phillips stated, even if such a challenge was notpossible, it might still be open for the OFT to assess the fairness of the charges according to other criteria (Para 61)."

From the Press Summary here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0070_ps.pdf

There was indeed a clear legal decision as Lord Turner said, but it was not one which addressed the fairness or otherwise of the charges, that was and to this day remains an open question, one never answered, which is why in the blog I repeatedly use this:

Let's ask Lord Turner and the FSA this very simple question:

Do you believe that the charges levied by Banks on their customers were and are fair or unfair?

That is not a hard question imho, it is very simple - but the implications of the potential answer are large, which is why I mentioned earlier, that simple, this ain't! THere is more than money at stake, it also involves the reputations of many.

PS: I hope to be back but it will be much later today with the extracts I mentioned.

*MF*

Below, as promised, are limited extracts from a post on the blog today.

Work will prevent me from being on the forum over the weekend.

**********

Extracts:

What evidence exists to show the FSA know what fair is?

For reasons which I will explain - in full - later, I intend to offer evidence against item 2) first.

Let me just say for now that in repeating that very simple question to Lord Turner and the FSA throughout this blog, I already know that there is substantial evidence that they have already answered the question in the most fundamental way possible.

Now, that is not true to the extent that is necessary, because the evidence I will submit below relates to the FSA treatment of charges which in themselves do not involve bank charges. However that qualification equally applies to all those who have any authority to adjudge the fairness or otherwise of the charges levied on customers.

The OFT have not answered the question, Parliament has not answered the question, and the highest Court in the land has not answered the question. It's not just the FSA - no one has answered the question!

So, please be very clear that the question over whether bank charges are fair or unfair has never had an answer, none, nada, zilch, from anyone (with the legal authority to do so) alive or dead in the entire history of mankind.

I hope this blog will play its part in changing that position, and we do get an answer to a very simple question.

How? Well there is extensive evidence which can be provided on how the FSA address the question of fairness in respect of charges - and specifically those which arise in an identical manner to bank charges.

Let's have a look at this evidence, and allow you to form your own opinion. As you may have surmised I already have my own opinion formed, both emphatically and for quite some time.

For instance, read the following comments, how do they begin to shape your opinion?

" ...a number of serious failings were identified in relation to its dealings with customers. These include ... .excessive and unfair charges for customers that did not reflect administration costs."

" ... The FSA has identified a number of serious failings. These include: Applying charges to customers' accounts that were unfair and/or excessive. These were: A fee for a returned direct debit which was charged regardless of how many times the direct debit had already been returned unpaid."

" ... and applied charges that were unfair because they were charged repeatedly or did not accurately reflect the cost of administering an account in arrears."

''... Firms which fail in their obligations to customers should expect not only a substantial fine but also that they will have to pay back customers who have been disadvantaged by their failings.''

" ... the FSA will take robust action where it sees that customers are not treated fairly. Retail firms which fail in their obligations to customers should expect not only a substantial fine but also that they will have to pay back customers who have been disadvantaged."

" ... The case sets a precedent, with the FSA concluding this investigation in a matter of weeks, and the firm working with the FSA to agree a process to enable customers to receive redress as quickly as possible."

************

Am I forgetting item 1) to identify, without exception or qualification, the regulatory role of the FSA in the matter?

Nope, not for a second, but first let's firmly establish whether you, just like me, believe (based on evidence drawn from the FSA) that they have more than sufficient experience to answer this question:

Let's ask Lord Turner and the FSA this very simple question:

Do you believe that the charges levied by Banks on their customers were and are fair or unfair?

Once we establish that position, we can then identify why a question they were legally obliged by Parliament to answer (by virtue of the Financial Services and Markets Act) has not been addressed by them, let alone answered.

Ends ...

Alpine_Star

*MF* wrote: »

For instance, read the following comments, how do they begin to shape your opinion?

They don't shape my opinion in the slightest.

That the FSA don't regulate unauthorised overdraft charges is a fact and not something one can opine on.

The comments pertain to mortgage arrears and are irrelevant to the consideration of the fairness or otherwise of unauthorised overdraft charges.

*MF*

Alpine_Star wrote: »

They don't shape my opinion in the slightest.

That the FSA don't regulate unauthorised overdraft charges is a fact and not something one can opine on.

The comments pertain to mortgage arrears and are irrelevant to the consideration of the fairness or otherwise of unauthorised overdraft charges.

I mentioned in an earlier post that the blog's existence is known to the likes of the FSA, OFT, TSC and others - and no one is more aware than me that anything I say, or present in evidence to support what I say will be challenged - very seriously challenged, not least at some stage by the banks, who also are very aware of the blog - and for that reason I am happy that you challenge me every step of the way - that is a totally sincere comment.

"That the FSA don't regulate unauthorised overdraft charges is a fact ..."

I agree, and I hoped I had made clear my agreement in an earlier post. We are not in any form of dispute over that fact.

"The comments pertain to mortgage arrears and are irrelevant to the consideration of the fairness or otherwise of unauthorised overdraft charges"

That I do not agree with. Whilst the Supreme Court left open one option for the OFT to take forward, the OFT declined the opportunity.

To that extent in comparison with the FSA, I believe it is equally fair to say, as we stand today, that the OFT not only don't, not only don't want to, and perhaps given the Supreme Court ruling cannot regulate unauthorised overdraft charges.

So two of our most significant regulators are in the same boat on the face of it - and none of us have an answer.

But dig somewhat deeper. The regulatory powers of the OFT on this matter arise from the powers given to them over Credit Agreements - including overdrafts in this case.

The FSA's regulatory powers also extend to cover Credit Agreements - in the form of mortgages.

So there is a link - a read through from one to the other,and perhaps nowhere is that more important than in the Concordats that the FSA and the OFT have with each other - a subject dealt with in detail in the blog.

I know you may not agree with that - but that is why I am using a blog to offer the evidence of the significance of that link, and why it may lead us to an answer via the FSA - when the OFT have left the field of battle.

In no way do I wish to be seen offering false hope - that is why the blog relies on evidence - not my own personal opinons - but where you deem it correct to challenge the evidence - please continue to do so.




*EDIT* I will be posting the links to the extracts to which we are both referring over mortgage arrears and which are used in my earlier post here, in the blog in one of my next posts.

When I do that I will also post them on here, so that other MSE members can see what is involved, and what we are discussing. They all come from the FSA web site.

Alpine_Star

*MF* wrote: »

But dig somewhat deeper. The regulatory powers of the OFT on this matter arise from the powers given to them over Credit Agreements - including overdrafts in this case.

The FSA's regulatory powers also extend to cover Credit Agreements - in the form of mortgages.

The problem is that the charges fall outside the scope of credit agreements as the Supreme Court ruled that although they are contingent on being triggered in a debit situation, they are in fact levied in exchange for the general package of banking services supplied. And I think that this is where the GLC challenge using CCA 140 will be difficult to apply.

*MF*

As posted, the rules of MSE preclude me from posting a link to the blog. In follow up e-mails with MSE Guy I have said that I do hope that posting extracts in no way breeches that rule, and in that it gives all MSE members access, I believe that is for the overall good - whether anyone agrees with details in the blog or otherwise. So far that appears to be acceptable.

*************

I will be away (literally in a few minutes time) from my computer for a few days, and don't have time to edit and post extracts only - so apologies for this long post, and the absence of the links on the blog itself - but here in full is the latest post on the blog - and in part it supports Alpine Star's latest post - namely that no one can ignore the Supreme Court decision.

My contention in summary form is that the answer to the question of the fairness or otherwise of bank charges can be addressed by the FSA without in any way ignoring that decision. To provide the evidence, and because of the challenges it may face, I am addressing all the issues I think are crucial, and am doing so in a series of tests, and those tests are also having to be divided into parts, because this is no simple matter.

This post looks at why I believe the Supreme Court ruled against the OFT - it was the wrong starting point, no matter how seemingly obvious it was. It eventually created the barrier of the ruling from the SC that Alpine Star points out - and why therefore Alpine Star's post and understanding of the complexities in all of this is very very relevant.

The next set of posts in the blog will then address - in great detail - why I believe the answer lies with the FSA - and will offer the evidence for that conclusion.

Again - apologies for the length of this post - I just don't have the time to edit it.

***************

The FSA - v- The OFT - Part 1

I have to cover a fair amount of evidence in this next set of posts, so I have divided it into parts to reduce the amount that has to be read at one sitting. However, it is my intention, as best I am able, to link each part so that eventually the parts form a whole, and in a manner that is continuous.

Essentially, I intend to compare and contrast the roles of the OFT and the FSA as regulators, and also illustrate not only where those roles combine, but where by not combining they leave a gap, one into which this issue of the fairness over bank charges fell, and where it still lies fallen.

A constant challenge, of which I am only too well aware, is that many of you reading this blog will say "so what"? "Why bother"? "The FSA have no regulatory jurisdiction when it comes to overdrafts and unauthorised overdraft charges."

Now, that is true and I offer no disagreement to that being true. However whenever any one of us is asked to appear in court, we are not solely asked just to tell the truth. Wisely, and with very good reason, we are asked to declare that we will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The evidence I will present in the following parts, in sequence, will address the issue of the fairness of bank charges by adopting that wider measure of judgement. That is precisely why I have broken it down into consecutive parts - to illustrate what, for me,takes us closer to the whole truth. Whether you agree after you have reviewed the evidence is up to you - you are the jury.

So, in the FSA v The OFT - let's start here:

It's an old well worn joke, so I expect you may know it. It involves a stranger asking for directions, to be told that “if that is where you want to go, I wouldn't start from here!”

For me, that answer applies very strongly to this issue of bank charges. If we want to find an answer to whether bank charges are fair of unfair, if that is our ultimate destination, maybe we have to be very selective, very selective indeed, in our starting point.

For very understandable reasons, the vast majority of people saw that starting point as the OFT, indeed as court case followed court case that starting point seemed more and more secure, until it hit the buffers at the Supreme Court. So was it the wrong starting point?

That belief in the powers and abilities of the OFT to resolve issues over charges and their fairness or otherwise, can probably be traced back to 2006 and the action the OFT took over credit card charges.

These are extracts from a BBC article in May 2006:

"The OFT said that in the future, credit card late repayment charges in excess of £12 would be considered unfair and likely to be challenged in the courts.


Charges, the regulator argued, "should only reflect the administrative costs of dealing with the default".


Not all that dramatic a statement, perhaps, when applied to just the credit card industry.


But when the OFT said the same principle would also apply to default charges on overdrafts, you could almost hear the gasps from UK's banks and building societies."

That for me was the starting point of the journey that led eventually to the Supreme Court decision some 3 years later.


You don't need me to tell you that when you programme a sat-nav with a destination you want to reach, if you insert the wrong starting point, you won't get there - ever.

Is that what happened over the issue of the fairness of bank charges? We used, (not in any way unreasonably on the face of it) the OFT as our starting point, and after 3 years, after 3 expensive Court appearances, we found we had NOT arrived at the destination we wanted to reach - a decision on the fairness of bank charges.

Let's retrace our steps, back up and go back to 2006, starting, I suggest here: a speech by Jonathan May, Executive Director, Policy and Strategy, Office of Fair Trading. It was a speech given to the British Bankers Association in November 2006.

The highlighted link will take you to the full speech, but for now I want to ask you to reflect on these extracts:

- setting unfair standard terms and conditions knowing that consumers are very unlikely to read and take on board all the detail contained in the small print. This is where our recent work on default charges comes in, to protect consumers from unfair penalties that recover more than the cost of dealing with a default.

- Our work on credit card default charges found that more than £300 million was being earned through unlawful penalty charges. Credit card issuers have agreed to reduce default charges, the majority by almost half.

Note please the use of the word unlawful, and more importantly the words penalty/penalties.

To claim something is unlawful is one thing, to establish it as fact requires that it be taken to a court of law.

The resolution of the issues over credit card charges was not decided in a court of law - it was decided in an agreement by the card companies with the OFT, so unlike the Supreme Court decision over bank charges it is not essentially the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to use the word unlawful - simply because it was not decided in a court of law. It is a belief, an assertion, until a court decides.

That important distinction on the issue of credit card charges being unlawful, is well recognised by many, including Martin Lewis in the MSE Credit Card Charges - Reclaiming Guide - which has this comment in its opening remarks:

" In 2006, the Office of Fair Trading ruled these charges of up to £35 were unfair, and many believe they’re actually unlawful."

I have little doubt that the OFT sincerely believed in the use of the word unlawful, and that belief, in my opinion, prompted them to take on the issue of bank charges.

However it was a belief that had never been tested in a court of law, until the grounds put forward by the OFT for that untested belief were put to their ultimate test in the Supreme Court. You know the result.

This is the full judgement of the Supreme Court, all 40 odd pages. I will let you read it for yourself, if you have not already done so, but what I want to target now is the word "penalty".

Why? Because in the evidence given to the Supreme Court on behalf of the banks, it was something they knew had a very great importance, and that it went beyond the bounds of the ruling the Supreme Court might finally give over the main subject under debate, namely the provisions and applicability of the UTCCR (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations).

These extracts from the Supreme Court ruling will, I hope, explain the importance of what is or is not a penalty - not directly related to the UTCCR, but its importance at common law:

"The banks, in order to obtain a more comprehensive answer covering related issues raised in individual claims, counterclaimed not only for declarations to the opposite effect to those sought by the OFT (including an express declaration as to plain and intelligible language) but also for further declarations that their Relevant Terms were not capable of amounting to a penalty at common law


that none of the terms amounted to the imposition of a common law penalty

Andrew Smith J considered at paragraphs 295 to 324 whether the Relevant Charges were penalties at common law so as to be unenforceable for that reason. He held that they were not because a penalty at common law is a payment that becomes payable upon a breach of contract. Liability to pay Relevant Charges is not contingent upon breaches by the customers of their contracts.

Those extracts come from a Court of Law, the debates over their importance form part of a Court ruling, a ruling of the Supreme Court in the UK.

For me they confirm why - despite the sincerity of the belief held by the OFT, namely that the charges were unlawful and penalties - we eventually arrived at a legal decision which did not support those beliefs. For me they confirm why the legally untested beliefs and assertions of the OFT were the wrong starting point

However I leave you to judge the merits of those comments, and of that evidence - but bear in mind as you do so that you already know the Supreme Court ruling. My comments may not be accepted by you at all, the ruling of the Supreme Court however has to be accepted by us all.

For me, the harder task in the following parts is not to provide evidence that the beliefs of the OFT were the wrong starting point, let's just accept that their best efforts did not get us to our destination.

The mountain I will have to climb is to establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the beliefs, the recorded actions,and the regulatory powers of the FSA are not only the better, but the only, starting point to reach the destination we want - an answer as to whether bank charges are fair or unfair.

The following parts in this series will offer the evidence for that view, but for now let's leave the OFT behind and just simply get the FSA involved. Is it true - that they have no part to play in this whole matter?

I referred much earlier to adopting the wider horizon of looking for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I used that phrase against the fact that - the FSA do indeed have no regulatory jurisdiction when it comes to overdrafts and unauthorised overdraft charges. True as that may be - is it however the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Let's start here - the agreement signed by all those who decided that there should be a test case to take to court. It involved the OFT, it involved the Banks, and it involved one other party.

This is the agreement dated the 25th July 2007. Do you notice who that other party was to that agreement?

Yep, the FSA!

So, when we say that the FSA had, and has, no regulatory jurisdiction or indeed involvement in this whole matter - is it indeed the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - or is there more to it?

Nor is it that the "more to it", as some may suggest, - is just the FSA's singular regulatory power and regulatory ability to issue the waivers which froze all outstanding claims either at the FOS or in the many courts involved in claims? That power in itself is no small matter, nor was it a minor involvement.

However there is much more to it -what that is, and it implications, will form the start of the evidence in Part 2.

Alpine_Star

*MF* wrote: »

My contention in summary form is that the answer to the question of the fairness or otherwise of bank charges can be addressed by the FSA without in any way ignoring that decision.

The FSA may have their view but under UTCCR only a court can decide whether a contractual term is unfair.

*MF*

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The FSA may have their view but under UTCCR only a court can decide whether a contractual term is unfair.

Reference to the applicability or not of the UTCCR to this question over bank charges has predominated throughout the whole period and I want to attempt to both open and then close reference to the use of UTCCR (as far as I am concerned) as the way to resolve the issue of bank charges - because for me it is a dead end.

It is not possible to write a blog without it containing the opinions of the person writing it, and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that, but in itself it is just opinions, and that is why I have laid emphasis on presenting "evidence" that support those opinions, and it is then up to those to see whether that "evidence" leads them to the same conclusions as I have.

Referring to the UTCCR as above is very much a case in point, and whilst I agree with the comment made by Alpine Star, I want to offer evidence for that comment, not just opinion, not least in order to justify my comment that it is a dead end, a route to nowhere.

Nor is that only applicable to the OFT who chose that route to ask whether they had the power to challenge the fairness of bank charges, it is equally true for the FSA, so when you hear me make reference to the FSA as the road to travel, that is true, but it has nothing to do with the UTCCR.

Let me explain, using this evidence of the FSA's equal involvement in the use of the UTCCR - and then show why it would also be a dead end if we went that way.

This is an example of the FSA using the UTCCR:

As a qualifying body under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) we can challenge firms that are using terms which we consider unfair. We review contract terms referred to us by, among others, consumers, enforcement bodies and consumer organisations. Our review of terms and conditions used in the RBS Group has led to The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, National Westminster Bank plc, Ulster Bank Limited,Coutts & Co and Adam & Company plc undertaking not to use certain terms that we consider unfair.

Under the Regulations we must notify the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) of the undertakings we receive. The OFT has a duty to publish details of these undertakings, which then appear on its Consumer Regulation website. We also publish a notice of these undertakings on our website. Both publications name the firms, identify the specific terms and explain why we thought they were unfair under the Regulations.

Even if firms have not given an undertaking or been subject to a court decision under the Regulations, they should remain alert to undertakings or court decisions concerning other firms as part of their risk management. These will be of potential value in showing the likely attitude of the courts, the FSA, the OFT or other qualifying bodies to similar terms or terms with a similar effect. Ultimately only a court can determine the fairness of a term and, therefore, we do not recommend terms that have been revised by a firm to address our concerns as being definitely fair.

Source ( and full details) here:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/rbs_undertaking.pdf

Amongst the evidence, this is perhaps the best example of the FSA using UTCCR, for a number of reasons:

1: It clearly involves the UTCCR.

2: It involves the FSA, and establishes that the OFT were not the only regulator who could raise issues addressed by the UTCCR, so too can the FSA.

3: It offers the evidence that the final resolution of any issues under UTCCR can only be reached in a court of law -as Alpine Star has said.

4: It involves banks, and the terms used by banks.

5: It demonstrates the relationship between the FSA and the OFT, that leads to the importance of the Concordats that they have set up between them - an aspect of great importance dealt with in the blog. Why is it important? In this instance (given my earlier comments about starting points) note that the FSA, not the OFT, are described as the Lead Organisation.

However, am I in any way drawing a conclusion from that evidence, that the FSA, given their position to deploy the powers under the UTCCR in like manner to the OFT were the starting point for the court actions over overdraft charges? An absolute and emphatic - No!

We have already established via evidence that the FSA were not empowered to regulate overdrafts, that fell to the OFT. Equally, it did not ultimately matter, because the Supreme Court ruling is explicit, and would have applied whichever body had taken the lead.

However, and it is a big however, let's repeat exactly what the SC made explicit.

From the Press Summary the SC issued:

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2009_0070_PressSummary.pdf

- this was made explicit:

This appeal involved a relatively narrow issue. The Supreme Court had to decide not whether the banks’ charges for unauthorised overdrafts were fair but whether the OFT could launch an investigation into whether they were fair.

That, for me, is final, but it has two parts.

First, that the route to determining fairness over bank charges is not to follow the road sign marked UTCCR, it is a dead end, leading nowhere - the SC has ruled on that.

But second, the SC has made it abundantly clear (I personally don't think they could have made it any clearer) that it has not ruled on the fairness of charges.

Indeed, if you read the full judgement of the SC

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2009_0070_Judgment.pdf

- you will find additional evidence that, using the UTCCR leads to a dead end, but - that it is not by any means the end of the issue of the fairness or otherwise of bank charges - and that is not my opinion, it is clear for me from the comments drawn from the highest court in the UK:

LORD WALKER

It is therefore appropriate to spell out at the outset that the Court does not have the task of deciding whether the system of charging personal current account customers adopted by United Kingdom banks is fair.

Some would regard the United Kingdom system as being, in some sense at least, obviously unfair, though Mr Sumption QC (for the banks) vigorously disputed Lord Mance’s suggestion that his clients were engaged in a sort of “reverse Robin Hood exercise”. That is an imponderable question which depends partly on whether one’s perception of the average customer who incurs unauthorised overdraft charges is that he is spendthrift and improvident, or that she is disadvantaged and finding it hard to make ends meet. But it is not the question for the Court.

If the Court allows this appeal the outcome may cause great disappointment and indeed dismay to a very large number of bank customers who feel that they have been subjected to unfairly high charges in respect of unauthorised overdrafts. But this decision is not the end of the matter, as Lord Phillips explains in his judgment.

Moreover Ministers and Parliament may wish to consider the matter further. They decided, in an era of socalled “light-touch” regulation, to transpose the Directive as it stood rather than to confer the higher degree of consumer protection afforded by the national laws of some other member states. Parliament may wish to consider whether to revisit that decision.

LORD PHILLIPS

Thus the issue of whether or not the Relevant Charges form part of the “price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange” within Regulation 6(2) is not necessarily academic. No attack has yet been made, however, on the level of the Banks’ charges overall.

LADY HALE

... is the real problem that we do not have a real choice because the suppliers all offer much the same product and do not compete on some of their terms? This is the situation here. But it is not clear to me whether the proper solution is to find some way of forcing the suppliers to compete with one another in the terms they offer or whether the solution is to condemn one particular model of charging for those services. Fortunately, however, that is for Parliament and not for this Court.

***********************

I will allow you to form your own conclusions, but if using the UTCCR is closed, and for me it is a complete dead end - does that mean that there are no other ways of resolving this issue? For me the answer is that there are, and as is known to both MSE Guy and Mike Dailly, I formed that conclusion before the SC ruled.

What those extracts show is that Parliament is involved, and that will take us to what the political parties said about bank charges being fair or unfair - which I will address in the blog, they are important in all of this.

But, for me, the more important and outstanding question is this - which body, other than the OFT, was already empowered by Parliament - at law - both to regulate the banks, and in addition empowered - equally at law - to secure as one of its main objectives - consumer protection - securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers?

Answer - the Financial Services Authority.

Extract:

We are a statutory body set up under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). FSMA sets out our four statutory objectives, which are supported by a set of principles of good regulation that we must have regard to when discharging our functions.

From here:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/About/Aims/Statutory/index.shtml

**************

The next posts in the blog will offer evidence of :

1) how the FSA address issues of fairness

2) why I believe the FSA are the way to resolve this issue over bank charges, and why they are already empowered by Parliament to do so

3) why, after providing the evidence for both those points, we are left with only one very simple question, namely:

Let's ask Lord Turner and the FSA this very simple question:

Do you believe that the charges levied by Banks on their customers were and are fair or unfair?

I will post extracts as those posts are made.

*MF*

Because I am unable to post a link to the blog, it means that much of the past evidence I have presented will not be seen by MSE members, and it make many wonder what I am referring to.

Let me use this one example: In my recent posts (above) I make reference to "Concordats" - and their importance.

Evidence of their importance formed one of four Tests listed in the blog, the Concordats form part of: Test 3 - Evidence that the Concordat agreed between the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading established the basis for real consumer detriment and serious regulatory failings.

It is essential in my opinion to understand these Concordats and Memoranda of Undertakings agreed between the FSA and the OFT, because in large part they illustrate why this issue over the fairness or otherwise of bank charges remains unresolved.

It is painstaking, some would say masochistic, to read, let alone understand what these items contain, but if we are to understand the relationships that the FSA and the OFT shared, then these are important.

Earlier posts in this thread raise the issues of who, between the FSA and the OFT, had the powers to carry out various investigations, and on the face of it, the answers would seem clear.over say something like who handled credit agreements, including overdrafts. But as you read the Concordats and the Memoranda of Understanding between the two bodies, does that clarity remain?

I have my opinions, but it is for you to judge and form your own opinions. But if they leave you with questions, if they make you think twice about who is best placed to address the issues over bank charges, the FSA or the OFT, then you may begin to better understand why I am using this question:

Let's ask Lord Turner and the FSA this very simple question:

Do you believe that the charges levied by Banks on their customers were and are fair or unfair?

For example having read the items, are you still sure, 100% sure,

- that it was the OFT who alone could address the issue of bank charges,

- and that the FSA had no interest, no part to play, in the matter whatsoever

Below are only some of the links to the items I used as evidence in the blog. Read them all, (if you are so minded), but if not use the first link for definite, perhaps try at least the first three, and see what conclusions you reach.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/general_policy/674008/MOU.pdf

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/general_policy/674008/OFT-FSA-Banking-Conduct.pdf

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/general_policy/674008/OFT-FSA-update.pdf

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/general_policy/674008/Annex-C-CPR-concordat.pdf

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/general_policy/674008/UTCCR-concordat.pdf

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/about_oft/oft838.pdf

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/about_oft/oft940.pdf