Not legal at all...
...the case in the high court was simply to see if the OFT had the jurisdiction to take the banks to court over it. Under the law they chose, the answer was 'No' - quite rightly too. Of course, the banks will (and have) spin that as "We won the right to fuck you over" - which they didn't.
However, the court informed them at the time that if they had chosen a different part of the same law then they would have found differently.

It was then that the OFT decided NOT to carry on!!???

You can still take your bank to court on the UTCCRs or, you could try the punitive v liquidated damages angle, although I suspect that this won't hold much water since they changed the wording of the contracts and dropped the charges by half (in most cases) and it seems that contrary to common sense (and common law) that most judges believe what the banks have told them rather than the high court - and will throw out cases of this kind.

The "Punitive v Liquidated damages" argument is a difficult one to prove as we're not privy to the information that the banks are (although I do have evidence that Cheltenham and Gloucester have worked out the *loss* and was tiny, but to prove that the evidence came from them would prove problematic) - and they are hardly likely to offer that evidence up for all to see.

In the case of allowing an overdraft on an account without one, they are legally allowed to charge whatever you agree to - in that instance they actually ARE providing a service and can charge more-or-less what they see fit.

I have issues with when they bounce DDs and SOs and STILL charge for a service - since when has doing nothing been a service?? Sadly, this is not challenged and has been tarred with the same brush as the first example.
(dchurch bah, Thu 2 Sep 2010, 22:40, Reply)