If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Bit of a stat-tastic post today all about lending in January 2010 and the whole of 2009, courtesy of recently released figures from the Bank of England. Check these beauties out:

- 48,198 mortgages were approved in January ‘10, – 17% lower than the 58,223 in December ‘09 but a whopping 43% higher than in January ‘09.

For a bit of context, researchers Global Insight believe 70,000 to 80,000 home loan approvals a month means ’stable house prices’ and experts attributed slow Jan ‘10 sales to poor weather (yes you read right) and the return of the Government stamp duty threshold to £125,000.

- **RECORD BREAKER** – UK banks wrote off a previously unheard of £4.12billion in bad credit card debt in 2009.

- £984million of mortgages were written off in 2009, double the £408million in 2008.

- In total the amount written off by banks (including cards, mortgages and other loans) rose from £6.9billion to £9.3billion.

- Total lending dropped from £13.53 billion in December to £10.24 billion in January.

- UK citizens borrowed £500million more than they repaid in January, a rare occurance with the populus having repaid more that we’d borrowed for five of the previous six months. An interesting comparison is that at £500million borrowed, the amount of credit being handed out in one month is still a long way from the £2billion a month during the peak of the recent boom time.

The latest report by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has revealed that unfair bank charges are affecting low-income  households so much that they are unable to pay their rent or mortgages. According to the report, the number of families struggling because of excessive bank charges risen from 2,000 to 8,000 in just one year.

As part of their report the FOS commented that the situation had been made worse by the Supreme Court decision to allow bank charges to remain unregulated and in turn denying millions of customers the chance to reclaim bank charges. The FOS expects 2010 to be a year of continued and increased banking distrust and is preparing for a 27% increase in the number of disputes between consumers and financial firms about bank charges, mis sold PPI and mis sold endowments.

Just a quick one today to point you in the direction of Msartin Lewis’ Blog, he’s been to No. 10 to discuss the future on bank charges and credit card charges. Looks like the PM’s on board with making sure the banks reduce fees and play ball, check it out here…

The City’s seen some toys thrown out of the pram this morning as Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) bosses have been campaigning for £1bn in bonuses. The board of the Government-owned bank have said they’ll walk out if staff don’t receive the bonuses and warned that the bank could lose all it’s best workers if the money isn’t paid.

Unsurprisingly, the Government isn’t too keen on the bonuses seeing as RBS has just had £70bn off of the taxpayer (£4600 per family in the UK) and as the majority shareholder they can refuse to pay. Some critics of the banks are saying let the board go and what with the recent Supreme Court decision on unfair bank charges, the Govt. need to give joe public a sign that the banking world is getting fairer.

It’s been 5 days since the bank charges test case result and those 5 days have been used by many to disect the decision and find out what it really means for bank charges claims. We’ll tackle this in three questions

How did the banks win?

The Supreme Court were not deciding on the fairness of bank charges, they were deciding whether or not the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) could investigate the fairness of bank charges. The 5 Lords, led by Court President Lord Phillips said that overdraft charges are part of the core charges and services outlined in the contract of a bank account and therefore are accepted by the consumer when they sign for the account. For this reason, there is no legal basis to investigate under Regulation 6 but the OFT are free to try all other routes.

What happens next?

The Judges stated that a fairness claim could not be brought under Regulation 6 but it might be brought under Regulation 5. Regulation 5 concerns contracts and negotiations, including the point that: “charges not agreed individually should not cause a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer.” So when the OFT release their statement on the matter in December, they may discuss using Regulation 5 as the basis for their case next time round.

Will I get my bank charges back?

Top and bottom of it… It doesn’t look good for bank charges claims. The banks at least have to process all claims but they have no need or obligation to repay any money. Martin Lewis said yesterday that he expects only 10 – 20% of bank charges refund claims to be successful, but it’s still worth claiming.

Does the decision impact on other unfair charges claims?

In short: No. The Supreme Court decision only relates to bank charges claims and all mis-sold PPI, unfair credit card charges and mortgage exit claims are unaffected.

The next month will be a crucial one in the fight to get back bank charges, as campaigners figure out the way forward and legal teams find a way to use Regulation 5 to help claims. Hopefully the OFT will continue the fight and many sources are saying that they have support from No. 10 to ensure the banks start treating customers fairly.

Two days on from the Supreme Court decision to not allow The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to investigate the fairness of bank charges, the mist has settled and there is some hope for those with a claim. Here’s what Money Saving Expert, Martin Lewis had to say:

“We were winning 2-0, with this decision the banks have scored 3 quick goals and are leading 3-2 but there’s still extra time to play”.

As Lewis intimates, there is still hope, the bank may have won this battle but we haven’t lost the war. Here’s the good news:

- The OFT is still expected to fight against unfair bank charges under Regulation 5 which relates to the negotiation of contracts.

- With the test case coming to a conclusion, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has lifted its waiver on bank charge claim processing which means the banks are now obliged to consider and assess all outstanding claims.

- Plus: Bank charges refunds may be on hold but unfair credit card charges and mis-sold PPI (Payment Protection Insurance) claims are unaffected by the decision and can still be paid back.

Check out this video from the BBC show ‘Working Lunch’, in it finance expert Simon Gompertz outlines why there is still hope for bank charges victims…Take a look.

Ok, here we are – less than an hour to go until the bank charges test case result, you’re excited, right?

If the Office Of Fair Trading (OFT) win, just think of all the unfairly treated consumers that will be able to get a bank charges refund and get their hard-earned back. But… chickens before they’ve hatched and all that – there could be a delayed decision or even one in favour of the banks.

Although; seeing as the banks had already paid back over £1billion in unfair charges before the test case started, plus the local, High and Appeal Courts have all backed the OFT, the banks actually winning this case seems unlikely (but not impossible).

Whatever happens, remember: the BankCharges Blog will be all over the latest test case news throughout the day, so keep this window open!

Many are calling it D-Day although the ‘D’ in this case most definately stands for ‘Delayed’.

Nevertheless, we now have a date and time for the Supreme Court Judges ruling on the fairness of bank charges:

Wednesday November 25th 2009: 9.45am.

So far, the Court of Appeal and High Court have already told the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) that charges can be assessed for fairness. But the banks have consistantly appealed, which is why the bank charges test case has ended up in the Supreme Court. Any higher than this and we’d be asking JC himself for his thoughts on the matter.

If the Supreme Court gives the green light, the OFT can investigate whether bank charges of up to £39 for going into your overdraft are fair. If the banks lose, the number of new claims will explode and add a sizeable amount to the £1billion that has already been paid back to victims.

And now for a ‘let’s hope they mean it this time’ moment…

‘Bankers who take “reckless” risks could be stripped of future bonuses’.

These are the words of HM Government and are echoed by the City minister Lord Myners who said that banks now have to be more secure and must never rely on taxpayers money again.

Naturally, the bankers are worried how they’ll cope without an extra £mill round the tree at Christmas and the British Bankers’ Association have spoken out. They say that the UK’s future as a major global centre for finance could be threatened. That’s as maybe but at least 2 million jobs, hundreds of thousands of homes and countless families will no longer be threatened by the financial conceit of high street banks.

People: watch out. They’re round every corner, on every main street, long established institutions with high levels of security – no, I’m not talking Goldsmiths and H Samuels, I am of course talking about banks. And it seems they all may have a sneaky plan to claw back the money they’ve lost/been fined/ran out of/paid in bonuses/paid out in bank charges (you choose) in the form of increased credit card fees.

According to industry sources, UK banks are planning to hike credit card charges by introducing annual payments and rising interest rates. There’s no doubting it will fill some of the gap they’ve created but experts at PricewaterhouseCoopers claim the increase is necessary for another reason. The recession, unemployment and all the rest has led to bad credit card debt rising by 50% to almost £5billion and these fees, they say, will encourage people to ditch credit or pay it off earlier.