Besides ALL of that - banking isn't free - they use your money to earn interest for the bank & make millions, nay BILLIONS, of pounds out of money that you earn a poxy 6% on - at best. Why should we then be penalised on top of that when we've already contributed to the wealth of the company as a whole??
Banks need to run at a profit, the same as any business, but it's the sheer magnitude of the profit that turns your stomach when you realise how it's being made - people have lost their homes and livelyhoods over fatcats not wanting to lose a couple of million in sheer profit. yuk!

Tiffany, Kettering,

The banks are entititled to charge for the returned cheque or refusing to pay a direct debit etc. However that charge has to be fair and reasonable and it has been the view of many that this chare has not been fair and reasonable but has been excessive to the point were the charge has been called a penalty. This has been known about for years, but it is only recently that the OFT has go off its backside to do something about it. The matter has finally come before the courts, but this is taking time, but why should he banks, in the meantime, be permitted to continue imposing penalties. The FSA has told the banks that hey can put claims on hold. The FSA is no more above the law than the customer. The County Court Judge was right, but let, say, the Court of Appeal decide so that customers may be placed on an equal legal footing with the banks.

The issue about customers keeping their financial affairs in
order is, generally, irrelevant to the main issue - penalty
charges.

Rodney Barker, Gainsborough, England U.K.

All the people apparantly blaming customers for charges are missing the point. These charges do not reflect the actual cost to the bank of refusing a DD etc, therefore they are unlawful. Furthermore, why don't they just refuse the DD instead of refusing it, charging £39, then allowing payment and charging another £39 because you're even more overdrawn?
One mistake such as forgetting that a DD is due to go out of your account can suddenly leave you nearly £80 overdrawn which, if you're on a very limited income, you cannot pay back in one go. So the next month you're still overdrawn and get more charges which you can't afford to pay, so you go even further overdrawn and can quite easily end up owing 4 figures! Is that a reasonable consequence of one mistake which often only puts you overdrawn by less than £50?

Angie, Dorset,

Let me make one fact. A well known utility company took money from my bank account for the sum of £45.00. The day they took it was wrong (they have since agreed this) however the taking of money from my account not on an authorised date led to my bank charging me £260.00 in penalty fees!

Is this justifiable? If you think it is then you have no morales!

My bank should be returning the £260.00 to me but have they? Cause they havent hence, I look forward to the day the OFT win their case.

With regards to the free banking issue. YES THEY MAY STOP FREE BANKING, BUT IT ONLY TAKES ONE BANK NOT TO CHARGE and that bank will draw in customers, then the banks loseing customers will offer same service therefore ID SAY FREE BANKING IS HERE TO STAY!

Peter, London,

I and probably a majority of careful and sensible bank account holders have little or no sympathy for the incompetant minority who cant manage their lives and expect as a right that they should be bailed out by others. If I were a bank I would just dump the customers causing the problem. Presumably there is no law against choosing to who you provide your services

mike gilbert, bournemouth, uk

James, Cambridge - you say "..the banks just help themselves from your account without your consent - this is effectively theft.." Thats exactly what customers taking unauthourised overdrafts are doing and a customer who abides by the rules will have to pay for this "theft" if the bank does not pass on ALL the costs. It is just a question of calculating an equitable cost to be passed on.

brainwashed, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear

"If the Banks are not now allowed to charge for unauthorised overdrafts, then they will refuse to make payments if those payments will take the customer over the agreed overdraft limit."

Erm I think you will find that if banks do refuse a payment they do charge. Yes that's right Natwest charge £38 for an UNPAID direct debit. Let me spell this out, a customer is charged £38 for Natwest to NOT do a transaction. Am I missing something here?

Look we all know people who don't pay attention to thier finances but my argument is that the system is very much set up to promote confusion. Look at companies now trying to force people to pay by direct debit. I work in a financial institutions and I only allow companies I have had a good expereience with access my account. How did we ever allow a system of varying amounts and dates? Its madness!

David, Darlington,

James, Joe.

The simple answer is why should the Banks keep providing free banking?
They provide a service that costs money to provide, why should they not be able th charge for it.
Free banking will not end completely, just beyond all recognition.
Anyone using cash, cheques especially will see the highest charges as the cost is higher to the bank.b

Richard, Sheffield,

I beleive that balme lays on both sides in these cases. Customers should use their accounts more wisely- it is their responsibility to avoid going into the red and to know the terms of use for accounts.

However at the same time banks should be more responsible and work with customers minimising the risk of customers going into the red. Furthermore Banks should make their charges reasonable.

At the end of the day the blame lyes with customers though- it is their fault for poor financing and allowing themselves to go overdrawn and into debt.

As a whole society should accept that since banking is free, customers are liable to come into contact with charges if they go into debt. Besides it is the customers faults for going overdrawn and for those who look after their finances carefully, they are in no danger of charges. The system in principal is fair, the banks just need to even the odds by being more open with customers and lowering charges.

Steven Warburton, Southampton, Britain

I beleive that balme lays on both sides in these cases. Customers should use their accounts more wisely- it is their responsibility to avoid going into the red and to know the terms of use for accounts.

However at the same time banks should be more responsible and work with customers minimising the risk of customers going into the red. Furthermore Banks should make their charges reasonable.

At the end of the day the blame lyes with customers though- it is their fault for poor financing and allowing themselves to go overdrawn and into debt.

As a whole society should accept that since banking is free, customers are liable to come into contact with charges if they go into debt. Besides it is the customers faults for going overdrawn and for those who look after their finances carefully, they are in no danger of charges. The system in principal is fair, the banks just need to even the odds by being more open with customers and lowering charges.

Steven Warburton, Southampton, UK

Fantastic news. Its frankly insane that while the legality of these charges is under investigation, they're still being applied. You wouldnt allow a weapon to be used in war until it was investigaeted and approved. Its nice to see at least an iota of common sense emerge from this issue. This should without a doubt be a precedent for all cases on hold at the moment.

MPS, London,

The biggest issue is that the banks just help themselves from your account without your consent - this is effectively theft. All other companies that have disputes with customers over charges have to negotiate or go to court for enforcement. Why are banks treated more favourably ?

James, Cambridge,

If the Banks are not now allowed to charge for unauthorised overdrafts, then they will refuse to make payments if those payments will take the customer over the agreed overdraft limit.

david cooper, aylesbury, bucks

Umm, pensions review all over again. The banks should be forced by the ombudsman to review the charges for all their customers' accounts, automatically refund the money for the last 6 years and stop wasting the time of the courts who are busy enough as it is.

Ben, Palma de Mallorca, Spain

"It could also lead to the end of "free" current accounts as banks try to recover costs. " The journalist is missing the point. The Banks are allowed to cover their costs, but not make a profit on bank charges - so why will free banking have to end ? Only because the banks will need to make up for the lost revenue to maintain overall profits.

James, Cambridge,

"It could also lead to the end of "free" current accounts as banks try to recover costs."

What the hell does that mean?
The top executives on stratospheric salaries won't consider any reduction because Barclays isn't as rich as it was??

This expoitation of people makes me sick. We need a more level society, not one polarised into the rich and the not-rich, and issues like this raise this topic for debate. Banks have had it their way for too long, and now they're being challenged - hurrah.

Joe, Manchester,

In my opinion the current system is really good. People should themselves look at their earnings and spend accordingly. Its not and it should never be the bank's duty to tell each and every of its customer that he/she is going over board. People should review their statements themselves regularly. Furthermore I would add that when opening an account people should read the words in the terms and conditions carefully e.g if their account becomes over drawn they will be charged, so basically it should never be an issue. If you run your account well the banks automatically give you an overdraft facility without any charges.

Ahsan Mahmood, Manchester,