The Supreme Court has today ruled in favour of the banks regarding the bank charges test case, which has been ongoing since 2007.
Following a two year legal battle, the court’s decision will come as a blow to campaigners and consumers who had hoped to claim back charges dating back to 2001.
It had been estimated that if the banks had lost, they would have been forced to pay back billions of pounds to their customers.
However, it had been suggested that if the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of the OFT, then the banks may have begun charging customers for other services such as using cash machines.
In his report, president of the Supreme Court, Lord Phillips noted “that in the absence of the charges the banks would not be able profitably to provide current account services without a fee”.
Commenting, Peter Vicary-Smith, chief executive at Which? said: “This is a bitter blow for the millions of people who have been patiently waiting to get their bank charges back.”
Despite the court’s ruling, Kevin Mountford, head of banking at moneysupermarket.com, does not believe today’s decision will be the “end of the story”.
“We expect the OFT to continue to try and press for a system where the costs of running the current account system are spread more fairly across all customers,” which he believes the banks have already begun to do.
“We’ve already seen a big move from banks towards so-called packaged accounts where you pay a monthly fee but get added benefits such as travel insurance thrown in.”
“We expect this trend to continue and in return for fairer overdraft charges banks could introduce transaction fees, or monthly and annual fees,” he added.
