11th-hour bank charge settlements
A High Court judge has failed in his bid to find a bank-charge “test case” after dozens of claims were settled at the 11th hour.
Judge Grenfell concluded that there was “no mood” among banks for a definitive ruling after scores of claims over “unfair” unauthorised overdraft fees were paid off during the day.
The lack of a suitable test case deprived the court of a trial in which banks would have had to defend charges that campaigners say are disproportionate, unfair and unlawful.
More than 200 bank customers had originally been listed to appear at Leeds Mercantile Court for a case-management hearing in relation to their claims. However nearly 100 settled overnight reducing the number to 75.
Despite only 24 individuals turning up or being represented at the hearing, Judge Grenfell said he was hopeful of finding one or two that could go to trial.
Such a move could have led to an “authoritative ruling” being made by the courts over the legal status of charges that can go as high as £39, but, campaigners claim, cost banks as little as £2.50.
At the hearing, Judge Grenfell indicated that finding one or two people to go forward to trial would be the best way to cope with the matter, amid thousands of similar cases being heard in courts across the UK.
He told the claimants and bank representative present that dealing with all cases one by one would be cumbersome while group litigation would be expensive.
The judge said: “What we want to achieve is to pick a few cases that are likely to bring the issue before court so that there is an authoritative ruling.” Such a verdict would not be binding on all other cases but it would be “persuasive”, Judge Grenfell said.
However, during Thursday afternoon it emerged that the majority of the remaining claimants had settled with their banks, with a handful having their cases held over while an agreement was sought. Confronted with no suitable claims to move forward with, Judge Grenfell said: “I think it would be fair to say that the message is that there doesn’t appear to be any particular mood to make a definitive ruling on matters of fact and law in this case.”