Hi all I got into serious financial trouble 4 or 5 years ago £20k+, the banks made it a lot worse by charging £28 pounds for going over drawn and £39 for each bounced direct debit. When my wages were coming in I was paying back on average £200 - £300 in charges, arrears in loan payments that did not go through the previous month and then getting more charges because I could not afford the next months repayments which just made the situation 10 times worse then it should have been. Thankfully I have found a bank account now with the RBS that charges £12.50 a month and I do not get any charges and slowly getting out of debt as I no longer have to fork out upto £300 on charges each month. Banks are very quick to lend money but when a customer gets into financial difficulty quickly change their attitude and should be ashamed at that policy. I hope the courts rule in favour of the customer and realise the banks can no longer charge rediculous amounts for bounced direct debit

Chris, Milton Keynes, Bucks

If I pay interest on the overdraft, why does it cost 32 quid a month to administer it? I thought computers were supposed to make business efficient - you could employ a warehouse full of clerks with ledgers for the money the banks charge.

I strongly suspect that the interest charges are not base rate +2% either.

David, Dubai, UAE

I quite agree with Bill H. Nobody is forced to borrow money from banks. If they don't like the charges that they suffer for breaking the terms of their agreement with the bank they can close the account.

I have set up and run my own business, and cash has been extremely tight at times. When that happened I stopped spending on anything other than essentials, I didn't just keep on spending money I didn't have. How much of the money illegally borrowed has been spent on essentials as against clothes, CD's, entertainment etc?

This whole scenario is part of the compensation culture. Nobody wants to take responsibility for their own actions any more, and when, as a result of their own recklessness and greed people get into financial difficulties they expect the rest of us to bail them out.

Michael, Blackburn,

Bill H: You may not have sympathy, however it does not hide the fact that even big business (or especially even) should not be allowed to flout the law - the law of the land should be adhered be all in the land, not just the proles. This goes for banks too, or do you advocate one rule for them, another for us?

Derek, Kent, Kent

It would be much better if banks charged consumers explicitly for every kind of transaction. So much per debit card transaction, per cheque, per standing order, per statement page, per overdraft event, for monthly account maintenance etc. That way we could see how much they really charge and there would be proper competition. The present arrangement serves nobody except the banks (who are in fact charging us a lot) and the government should step in an legislate for proper competition.

colin forbes, malaga, spain

I am one of the many claimants, that have had the extortionate charges taken from an account that is used for my Benefit payments, which is given to ME and ONLY ME , by the Government an allowance which the LAW says I need to live on and under the "Social Security Act 1992" section 187... subject to the provision of this Act, every assignment of, or charge on,
[A] Benefit as defined in section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act ;
[B] any income related Benefit ; or
[C] Child Benefit,
And every agreement to assign or charge such benefit shall be VOID.
I am in my own opinion satisfied that Each and Every Bank knew of this particular legislation, but as the banks have been doing up to date Chose to ignore the Law in order to further line their pockets.

Michele Wheatley, Stanley , Ilkeston, Derbyshire

Andrew - I shall give you an example of an unfair scenario. A customer does not have an overdraft. The bank allows them to spend £20 more than what is actually present in their account, then stops allowing them to draw more money and charges roughly £20 for the privilege of having been allowed to overspend a little. Now, can the consumer be blamed for expecting their card to automatically stop working once their funds had been depleted? Can the consumer fairly, lawfully be made to pay £20 for using £20 of an entirely unauthorised overdraft? And in response to an earlier criticism, can the tiny amount of permissible overspending, for which such a huge charge is levied, really be referred to as a bank "bailing out" a customer? I guess the courts will decide soon enough.

Sonia, London,

It was illegal at the time of doing!!

It is theft and we deserve our money back!

If speeding became legal would people get all their fines back??? I doubt it!!!

You cant just change laws to suit certain people or businesses like that!

Barry, Middlesbrough, Cleveland

Purely and simply: the banks have stolen money, for decades, from (generally) its poorest customers.

Alan Howlett, Runcorn, Cheshire

I really don't understand why people think that it is unfair to pay charges when they exceed their overdraft limit. You arrange the limit with your bank, and they set aside a suitable amount of funds to cover this level of borrowing, based on the fact that some people will borrow up to their limit and others won't use their overdraft at all. If a significant number of people exceed their limit, then the bank will have to move funds out of medium/long term investments to cover this expense and incur substantial losses as a result, which are rightly passed onto the customers who breach their overdraft agreements.

If you boarded a train at Euston, with a ticket to Stoke-on-Trent, but stayed on till Manchester, because the train is going there anyway so you believed there was no extra expense incurred by the train company, you could expect to a penalty fair. Why is that different to arranging an overdraft for 500 pounds, but borrowing 550 pounds??

Andrew, Croydon, UK

To "Bill H, Pwllheli, Wales" whats your point, you being pompous and expect that you have eiher never run a business and experienced cash flow problems. I used to be an accountant and was dismayed at how a client of mine whos business closed due to the Banks accelerating problems for him. As his business folded no surprises they hit him with his personal banking for more charges despite holding the deeds for both properties.

With regards to the quote “If the court does find that banks have been acting unfairly we hope they will proactively compensate all consumers who have been charged for going over their overdraft limit in the last six years" I could not agree more.. The Courts should force the Banks to cough up and the FSA fine them if they don't.

Markus, Thorpe Bay Essex, England

In Reply to Howard of Sussex. I can agree with you in as much that What is Good for The Goose is Good for the Gander.

If The FSA has the Power to Tell the Banks to suspend Refunds of Charges until the court rules. Then there is not a rule to say that the Banks are legal and fair therefore they must suspend these charges which I for one regard as illegal and unfair.

The FSA has a duty to the consumber to regulate the finance industry fairly to both it's instiutions and consumers alike.

What is good for the Goose is Good for the Gander suspend Bank charges until the Case is ruled in Court.

Liam J. Duncan, Bicester, United Kingdom

For every one pound you pay on your mortgage they make two pounds. They charge you £30 to send you a letter and they make more money that most countries! Slavery by another name! Stop the Banks now!

Sohiab Rehman, Hemel Hempstead, herts

It has never been claimed that the charges are ILLEGAL only that they are UNLAWFUL and UNFAIR.

daren, worcs, england

I must just add that Lloyds 'victory' in May was nothing of the sort - the claim was thrown out of court due to lack of evidence supplied by the claimant - the case was not 'Won' by Lloyds at all - there was no case heard.

Derek, Kent, Kent

In response to Bill H, its not the fact of being charged its the charges themselves. The banking code states that banks are not allowed to make a profit by applying charges.. Now since it was proved that a charge actually only costs the bank £1.50 - £2.50 to administer the remainder is obviously profit, Claimaints are demanding their money back or an explaination to where the remainder of the fee goes.

Dar£n (CAG), worcester, england

In reply to Bill H from Wales, nice to see your lack of sympathy goes all the way there bud . . . it simply does not come down to people not managing their money, many of the claims going through are from people on minimal wages that simply cannot afford to not use an overdraft . . if we all had your money then we wouldn't have this problem.
Once again the Banks have shafted the consumer, I was in the middle of claiming £2600 . . not a great amount, but would help . . looks like thats on hold now :-(

Mark, Coventry,

The banks never hide their charges, people were aware that if the used the banks money without permission there would be charges, so I have no sympathy for people who failed to manage their money and expected the banks to bail them out.

Bill H, Pwllheli, Wales

If all claims are put on hold are all charges also put on hold until a decision is arrived at? Or are they allowed to keep ripping us off. And if the decision comes out in favour of the consumer will all charges be automatically refunded to everyone who has ever been charged these astronomical fees.

Angela Wilson, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire

This is absolutely disgusting...I have been waiting nearly a year already for over £3,800, and don't feel I should wait any more..the banks have had enough time to get their act together.

I don't see why the existing claims should be put on hold, they should all be decided on their merits, it is another example of how the Legal system is being manipulated - a complete 'abuse of process' to say the least.

Howard Rutherford, Eastbourne, Sussex

Yet again the banks with their millions (bought from illegal levies) so it costs them nothing are ripping off the public . Hopefully they will fail and have to pay out even more .

Paul, trent Vale, Staffordshire