What a surprise - the banks don't have to pay

[Miss Demeanour]

if you have ever been charged ?30 for breaching your overdraft limit, incurred a ?10 fee for the subsequent letter informing you of this misdemeanour, and then watched interest charges being levied on these penalties, you might have been hoping for a windfall as a result of the overdraft charges court case.

But the Supreme Court has overturned the Court of Appeal's decision and ruled in favour of the banks. This means that bank charges are likely to remain as they are, and millions of people hoping for a refund will be disappointed.


If the banks had lost the case wouldn't we have only had to pay them more money from our own pockets to give it back to ourselves 

Anyway - fancy trying to impose a code of conduct on  charging  for banks - how totally ridiculous 

[Barman]

No surprise there then...? 

[Snoopy]

So the lesson is that the Banks will always win in the end as they have more money to throw at lawyers than the ordinary people.

Personally I have an agreed o/d facility that is available should I need it but I make sure I never use it.

[Uncle Mort]

If you cannot even keep a simple check on how much money you have then you deserve a fleecing.

As far as I'm concerned those whose pay charges for unauthorised overdrafts were subsidising the running of my bank account and if the banks had lost I'd probably have to pay a current account fee.

[Miss Demeanour]

I have an agreed o/d facility too - that is where the similarity ends  

[Pastis]

The charges for the unauthorised overdraft will sting and smart as always but at least you'll be aware of them ... unlike the black marks and notes against you and your credit worthiness which will be kept from you