Bank Charges Case: the Devil's in the detail (Part Two) - They think it's all over: it's not now!

By John Clancy on Nov 25, 09 03:41 PM in Finance

The Supreme Court in one of its later judgment paragraphs is very clear that, as I said in my last blog, it's not all over.

It even goes on to blame, as I did, succesive governments for not strengthening consumer protection. It implies that other EU member states have gone on to strengthen consumer protection beyond that provided by the European Regulations, as national governments were entitled to do so.

But that in a "light touch" era of regulation in the recent past governments decided not to.

Now, from a Supreme Court Justice that is a withering attack on government policy along the lines of my last blog-but-one.

Here's what it says:

"52. If the Court allows this appeal the outcome may cause great disappointment and
indeed dismay to a very large number of bank customers who feel that they have been
subjected to unfairly high charges in respect of unauthorised overdrafts. But this decision is not the end of the matter, as Lord Phillips explains in his judgment.

Moreover Ministers and Parliament may wish to consider the matter further.

They decided, in an era of socalled "light-touch" regulation, to transpose the Directive as it stood rather than to confer the higher degree of consumer protection afforded by the national laws of some other member states. Parliament may wish to consider whether to revisit that decision." [Emphasis and paragraph breaks mine]"

That's pretty explosive.

So we know who to blame. The justices seemed desperate to give the right moral decision, but had nowhere to go legally because of "light touch regulation".

So, see where "light touch" regulation gets us in this banking matter and in the matter of of the great banking fiasco of the last 2 years?

Time for Heavy Handed regulation, then?