And you base this absurd opinion on what? Time and time again the judiciary has proven without a doubt that it is not in cahoots with the government. Honestly, your line of thought makes about as much sense as claiming 9/11 was carried out by the US government Mailman

You can still argue that the charges bear no relationship to your infringment. buried away in the ruling is a nice little fact that the banks have made around £3bil profits from a mere £.6bil of debt! Mailman

So surely now the FSA must put halts on all new bank charges until the OFT has reviewed what level is fair and not fair? Mailman

The banks, like us mere mortals, want clarity on what is and is not kosher. Can you blame them though since they have been absolutely hammered in over 99% of the cases brought against them! Now that the banks have lost the first case do you reckon this is a set up so they can go to appeal, win that and then look squeaky clean there on in? Mailman

"A judge has decided that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) can apply consumer contract regulations to decide if bank overdraft charges are fair or not. BBC NEWS | Business | Banks lose overdraft charges case" BUT dont hold your horses because you still cant have your money back...just yet! "Mr Justice Andrew Smith said his judgement, "does not necessarily mean they [the charges] are unfair." He also decided against the OFT, saying that the banks' terms and conditions were plain and intelligible." Actually, I think this is a bit of a red hearing because now at least the OFT can apply common sense to bank charges! Now all we need is for me lord to either lift the stays OR impose a blanket ban on all further charges until the eventual appeals are dismissed! Mailman

I think we are mostly in agreement Photoman...and I certainly stand to regain nearly £1000 in bank fee's once the banks lose their case! However the judiciary has time and time again proven it is beyond the grasp and control of the Government. As I have maintained all along, the only thing that will lose this case for us will be the OFT's borderline performance during the hearing. Mailman

You dont want this to happen...if banks started to fall over the people who will be affected the most will be the small people! With banks falling over and other banks not lending money to each other then no one will be offering mortgages OR only offering mortgages to the rich, which in turn means property owners lose out (again, the most affected will be the small people), people will lose jobs...and unlike what Photoman is saying, money will be sucked out of the economy, not invested in to it! Banks falling over, no matter how satisfying personally this may be...would be a very bad thing for the economy. Mailman

Hence why thank banks were argueing the UTCCR doesnt apply to bank charges hey? Mailman

You are not getting what I am trying to say. You say there is a conspiracy going on here...Im saying bull pucky, if there was one there wouldnt have been a court case to start with AND the FSA would have ruled years ago that bank charges were lovely jubberly. The very fact the banks have had to front up to court and face the music should tell all but the most challenged individuals that any talk of a conspiracy between the banks and the OFT, FSA and Elvis is absolute crap. Crap on the 9/11 conspiracy magnitude! Mailman

Have you actually spoken to the child minder and tried to find a amicable solution to your problem? Mailman

No it isnt because all those days in court, not to mention all the work required to get there actually costs the banks a bomb! If this was a sham, and if the banks were REALLY in collusion with the OFT, the FSA would have announced years ago that the bank charges were legal, fair and just. What will lose this for the OFT would be the mickey mouse outfit they had representing their side of the case. Mailman

Oh gees [insert rolling eyes] IF this was as sham between the OFT and banks there wouldnt have been a court case [insert more rolling eyes] Next you will be telling me the US Govt was involved in the 9/11 attacks [insert more rolling eyes] Mailman

I thought the original timeframe was around easter for a decision? Now its June/July...which in reality means August/Septeber before we hear anything? Surely if this thing is going to drag on much longer the FSA will have to either lift their stay OR force the banks to stop charging over drawn charges? Mailman Mailman

The waiver would have been fair if it had applied to both sides of the arguement. Ok, banks dont have to deal with complaints now BUT at the same time, banks should have been forced to stop taking money from accounts for being as little as 1p over drawn! Mailman

Again, its not chip and pin that is the problem, its the bloody magnetic stripe! There arent any retailers in my home that use the mag stripe, its all chip and pin baby! Actually, the last place I went to where a card had to be swipped for payment ended up with that card being cloned and someone trying to use it in Canada! And, retailers are just as much a victim as you are, so why should they be disadvantaged by credit card fraud? Mailman

This is an inherent fault of the signature cards...however what you are whinging about isnt a fault of the chip and pin system itself BUT of the banks who have managed to slime their way out of compensating victims of crime (and at the same time looking after their customers). The problem, which Ive said before, is that banks continue to use the magnetic stripe on chip and pin cards to store all the information a fraudster needs to hack in to your bank account. Now, if banks got rid of the magnetic stripe and instead relied solely on the security provided by the chip then you would find that just by having your pin number, crims would couldnt do anything anyways as they dont have your account info and cant, for the moment, crack the encrypted data on the chip. Mailman

The problem isnt chip and pin security BUT the banks weasling out of their responsibility to victims of crime! For the record, its far easier to "ninja" money off a card if you have to sign it because in reality no one ever checks that signatures match! Mailman

Josh, Have you a single court case which has made this a criminal issue? Until then, unfortunately, you are barking up the wrong tree. Mailman

The problem isnt chip and pin BUT the banks retaining the magnetic strip on the back of cards! This is what is giving people access to your account. If banks got rid of the magnetic strip fraudsters would be forced to try to "decrypt" the info on the chip...and although there is a lot of talk from a lot of people, this hasnt happened yet I believe. Anyway, chip and pin is more secure than signature its just a pity that banks are using an easy out which is not helped by the government "decriminilising" credit card fraud. Mailman

Of course they could also win because their arguements were much more robust than those of the OFT? [insert rolling eyes] The judiciary has time and time again proven they are not at the beck and call of the Government [insert more rolling eyes] Honestly, some of you people need to lay off the stuff them 9/11 goons smoke [insert yet more rolling eyes] Mailman

Thanks guys. What I also forgot to mention is that HSBC had called my home number several times earlier in the day when I was at work! Since then though, I havent bugger all from them! Mailman

And lets not forget that in a lot of cases where people are going over drawn, they are going over drawn only because bank charges keep taking them over drawn! Now, if I could run my own business like that, where I can print my own money Id be a fecken billionaire by now! Mailman

I think if you do that you MUST tell the other party they are being recoreded, otherwise you wont be able to use the conversation in court or as evidence? Mailman

Was sitting at home, enjoying a quiet evening with the family out of the house when the phone goes off 2 nights ago...I answer and its one of those Indian call centre lackies from HSBC calling to to ask me to identify myself. I refused to identify myself and asked her to identify herself, I asked her who she was, how do I know who she is and all she could say was, in broken english "Ive proven who I am when I said Im from HSBC" and then started to read a form letter to me demanding me to identify myself and trying to ask why my account had been £21 over drawn [for 1 day before fund went in to it]. I refused to continue talking to her, hanging up while she was repeating her form letter! Anyway, last night, the family was out again and low and behold the phone rings again and its another Indian call centre lacky from HSBC calling asking me to identify myself, which I duly refused citing that she could be a phisher for all I know trying to get info on my bank account so they can steal from me. Again she started to read a form letter to me, demanding I identify myself and asking why my account was over drawn. It was at this stage that I really lost my rag with the poor woman and just started ranting and raving, trying my hardest not to swear, but being very short with her and letting her know how ****ed off I was! In my exasperation I demanded she remove all my phone numbers from the system and that all further discussions between HSBC and myself, due to the rather harrasing nature of their phone calls, will have to be done via post. She then started going on about leaving a note on my account but couldnt guarantee that someone wouldnt call in the future if they wanted to get ahold of me. Again I asked her to remove all phone numbers they had for me, but she kept on talking about not being ale to guarantee I wont get called again...at this point I just hung on up her in a real huff!!! The phone call actually ruined my entire evening, how the woman wouldnt shut up and just kept repeating the form letter she had demanding I identify myself and why my account was over drawn! Just wondering if I can sue them for mental anguish? Oh yeah, the point of this rant...am I legally able to demand they remove my phone numbers from their HSBC customer system? Regards Mailman

If these are new charges, how come the FSA extended the waiver? I thought new charges was meant to be a no no??? Mailman