Assuming then that the OFT confirms its preliminary view that bank charges have been historically excessive and therefore unfair: --



Credit reference agency files

Most people who have run into debt will have been defaulted on their credit file either by their bank or by a debt collectionicon agency -- or both.

Where these negative entries relate to bank charges related debt -- wholly or substantially comprised of bank charges, how will be debt collection agencies and the banks deal with the removal of these credit file entries?

·Will removal be proactive?
·Or only on demand?

·Would removal mean complete deletion of the negative entry?
·Or simply some correction or some clarification or explanation?

Credit default entries placed by third party lenders

Bank customers who have been obliged to borrow money from sub-prime lenders to replace money taken unfairly by banks may have not been able to meet their loan obligations because of the high cost of credit. Had they not been the victim of unfair bank charges they would not have been faced with the problem of having to borrow money elsewhere or else they would not have been saddled with a very high cost of credit.

·Might there be any provision for the removal of such negative entries on the basis that “but for” the unlawful seizureicon of their money they would not have had to seek loans from the sub-prime market?

Without such a provision, customers would be obliged to litigate against the banks and include this circumstance as a head of damage.
My view is that in most bank charges litigation on these kinds of charges-related issues, customers are likely to get a pretty sympathetic ear from the judge.


After the heat - post test case issues in full