Claim Bank Charges Back

Big banks have been urged to back down on their multimillion pound court case on rip-off overdraft charges.

Taxpayers have now pumped hundreds of billions of pounds into the banking system, and are major shareholders in Lloyds TSB and Royal Bank of Scotland.

If the seven banks and one building society dropped their High Court action it would put an end to the misery being piled on those customers that have now had to bail them out.

The banks have spent millions on expensive lawyers already.

They could accept a ruling made by the High Court last April which gave the Office of Fair Trading the right to decide at what level unauthorised overdraft charges should be.

This would put an end to the wait to the estimated 10m customers who have had their complaints about these fees put on hold since the legal case began in July 2007.

Campaigner Marc Gander, founder of the Consumer Action Group, says: 'We ought to put this nonsense to bed quickly. Many have got black marks on their file, and debt collectors on their backs.

'Some even face being repossessed for these unlawful charges. It's a disgusting injustice that is being done by banks that we now own.'

Banks are said to be raking in around £3.5bn a year in fees paid by customers who accidentally go in to the red. These charges were as high as £39 a time and were imposed for using an unauthorised overdraft, or bouncing or allowing payments when in the red.

They frequently spiralled so that consumers built up debts by incurring fees because of their existing fees

Our Fair Play on Charges campaign has been challenging banks fees since 2005. More than a million people have used advice provided by Money Mail and our sister website thisismoney.co.uk to reclaim charges.

They did this by using consumer regulations to claim that the charges were excessive and did not reflect the cost to the bank of your transgression.

It is these consumer regulations that the banks - Abbey, Barclays, Clydesdale, HBOS, HSBC, Lloyds and RBS/NatWest - and Nationwide Building Society are contesting with the Office of Fair Trading.

The OFT argues the rules allow it to make a decision on whether bank charges are fair. The banks say that the OFT has no authority.

Since this court battle was announced 18 months ago, banks were granted a waiver by the City watchdog Financial Services Authority to put all bank charge complaints on hold. Consumers can still begin a reclaim, but the banks do not need to investigate it until the court case is resolved.

At the moment there is no sign of this happening. Every ruling made by the High Court is appealed against. It means that thousands of customers still in the red because of the charges they have racked up have little sign of getting their money back.

Even if the banks do back down, this will not mean an immediate end to this case. But it will give the OFT the chance to decide once and for all on what is a fair fee to pay for accidentally going overdrawn.

It published an in-depth study into the current account market last July, and is in discussions with the banks about seeking a remedy to some of the problems it discovered.

A spokesman for the OFT says: 'Our investigation into whether bank charges are unfair is ongoing and we are awaiting the result of the appeal court.'

Read Full Article...

Thousands of current account switchers face greater confusion and higher charges as banks scramble to make their account fees more transparent ahead of an Office of Fair Trading penalty charges ruling.

Instead of offering transparency the different methods that banks now use to charge for overdrafts are leaving consumers facing a harder task to compare like-for-like, consumer bodies warn.

Halifax has just unveiled a revamp that will see new standard current account customers shell out a daily fee of up to £2 for an ordinary agreed overdraft, and £5 a day for any unauthorised borrowing.

The bank's Reward account, to be offered from early February to all new customers paying in at least £1,000 a month, will effectively punish those who only dip into their overdrafts because the monthly cost of a £10 overdrawn balance will be the same as for £1,000.

The new fees will also be foisted upon all the bank's existing Moneyback current account customers.

"For anybody with a small monthly overdraft of £100, say, the cost of this from February will be as much as £20, a very expensive sum," warns Michelle Slade, spokeswoman for financial data analyst Moneyfacts.

On the plus side, those who stay in the black will now receive £5 every month in their account instead of interest.

Halifax, shortly to be swallowed up by Lloyds TSB, is the latest bank to abandon its existing interest and fees structure and impose what it calls a new, easier-to-understand set of sheet of charges. "The idea is to get rid of confusing interest rates and make it much more transparent," a spokesman said, stressing that the thrust will be on "simplicity". It is expected that all its current account customers will move to a daily overdraft charging fee in 2009.

Shake up

Halifax is the latest bank to shake up the way it charges customers to run their current accounts, and follows similar moves made over the past 12 months by Barclays and Alliance & Leicester.

A&L customers with authorised overdrafts have stopped paying monthly interest of up to 17% and now pay a daily 50p charge instead up to a maximum of £5 a month. Barclays has launched its Personal Reserve where, for a flat £22 fee, customers have a safety net embedded in their accounts giving them five days without extra charge if they bust their agreed overdraft limit.

Sophia Ostler has been in a bitter wrangle with Barclays bank for months. The 24-year-old charity worker is disputing a series of charges and overdraft penalties unknowingly racked up over a number of years, and has come to the end of her tether.

"I was going nowhere and turned to the ombudsman, before Barclays offered me £200; it's not as much as all the charges but I decided to accept it. I am completely fed up and will definitely switch to a different bank as soon as I can in the future; the 'least worst' that I can find. My experience has really set me against banks."

Although each bank has denied its overhaul is linked to an ongoing OFT investigation into penalty charges on current accounts, many in the industry think otherwise. "All these moves are due to the drive for much more openness and transparency ahead of the OFT court case with banks over penalty bank charges, to show that such changes are now being made," says Andrew Hagger of price comparison website Moneynet.co.uk.

It is a bid to show willing and soften the impact if the OFT wins, agrees Slade. "It's a preventative move, with more banks moving towards this kind of account to simply get something in place to show regulators if they come down heavily on them," she says.

The high court case has set the OFT against banks over the size and legality of current account penalty charges of up to £38 for breaching an overdraft by as little as £1. Earlier in the year the first victory was given to consumers as judges ruled that current account fees were subject to rules of fairness. The banks have lodged an appeal against this decision and a ruling is expected early in January, although the full court case is expected to drag on for months.

There is concern that an eventual victory for consumers could prompt the banks to introduce charges for all daily banking transaction to claw back lost cash. However, attempts by Halifax and others to introduce different charging patterns are in danger of bamboozling customers, says Kevin Mountford, head of current accounts at Moneysupermarket.com.

"We've had Halifax's plans, which are different from Barclays that are different again from A&L," he says. "It's getting harder and harder to do a like-for-like comparison, which is what most consumers rely on to choose between one financial product and another."

With a straight comparison of the interest charges on overdrafts, consumers can rely on a simple compare-and-contrast test, he adds. "There's a danger that current accounts could carry on down this route and end up like the credit card market where there's just too much confusion," he says.

These growing layers of complexity are a key reason behind the still sluggish current account switching market.

An OFT study found that just 6% of customers had actually bothered to switch current accounts in the 12 months to July 2008. This was "one of the lowest rates in Europe", it said. Relatively few of the UK's 54 million current account holders actively monitored the relative competitiveness of their current accounts, it said. Worse, only one in 20 said they always on the lookout for a better deal and made an effort to keep up-to-date with changing offers.

Mountford suggests that fear of a chaotic administrative spell for your bank account, with direct debits disappearing into a black hole, lay behind the shockingly low numbers. "Switching bank accounts is sadly still a clunky process with worries of salary payments going missing."

Such fears continue to deprive consumers of major savings. The OFT study shows how a customer typically in credit without an arranged overdraft who regularly switches from an average current account to the best-performing rival will save £56 over a year, and a switch from the worst-performing account to the best would bring in £63. Even better, a switch for a heavily indebted customer without an arranged overdraft from the most expensive account to the cheapest would save £112 over the year.

Anyone who has stuck with the same provider for several years should run a keen eye over their account details, and be prepared to put in some hard research; if you're getting the risible 0.1% on any credit balance or being charged an overdraft rate in excess of 16%, it's probably worth looking at the possibility of an instant switch.

Read Full Article...

A Suffolk woman who tackled a banking giant over excessive charges has ended up sending a bailiff to the firm's head office in Nottingham.

Jacqueline Reynolds, from Lowestoft, was so upset with Capital One Bank over its charges that she started a claim for £1,500 in January.

She won the case when the firm did not dispute her claim, but it failed to pay promptly despite several phone calls.
The bank said an error delayed payment and the money had now been sent.

Mrs Reynolds, 53, originally from Strathclyde, launched the legal action after consulting the Consumer Action website, which offers advice on bank charges.

"I wrote to them (Capital One) saying I would take them to small claims court - but they said their charges were fair and I said 'no they are not'," she told the BBC.

Ms Reynolds resorted to sending in the bailiffs when Capital One did not pay her within two weeks after the case was concluded at Lowestoft County Court.

"I spent days phoning them and trying to resolve the matter without having to resort to bailiffs going in but Capital One did not return one single phone call."

Mark Gander from Consumer Action said: "We have had to put the bailiffs into a number of banks and financial institutions over the past two or three years as they do not come quietly.

"The banks are only entitled to charge a fair and non-extortionate amount. To charge customers anything between £20 or even £38 in some cases is a mark-up of many thousands of percent and is unlawful."

The bailiffs - who visited the premises on Tuesday - were told the account had been paid by cheque.

The firm later confirmed problems had delayed it.

A spokesperson for Capital One said: "Unfortunately there was an administrative error in sending the payment to Mrs Reynolds on the 3rd December, however I can confirm that it was made by CHAPS payment today."

Read Full Article...

Halifax current account customers could find themselves paying up to £2 a day for authorised overdrafts, it emerged today.

The bank, which is set to become part of Lloyds TSB, unveiled the Reward current account at the weekend, claiming it was "based on simplicity" and offered "an even better deal for customers". However, customers with small overdrafts could lose out as a result of the change.

The account, which will be launched in February, will favour borrowers who rack up hefty overdrafts as the monthly cost of a £20 overdraft will be the same as one at £2,000.

The account, which replaces the standard current account and high interest current account from 9 February, will also abolish the old fees and interest structure and implement a new £5 "post-tax" credit to all customers who pay in at least £1,000 a month, regardless of whether they are in credit or overdrawn.

Existing cutomers with the Moneyback account will be switched to the new deal.

A Halifax spokesman said: "The idea of the account is to get rid of confusing interest rates.

"All the traditional arranged and 'unarranged' overdraft fees and interest rates will be replaced with a daily fee."

These fees are currently as high as £28 a month for an unauthorised overdraft with Halifax's existing high interest current account, or £35 for a paid or unpaid item charge.

With the Reward account a customer with an arranged overdraft will pay £1 for each day they are overdrawn, regardless of the size of their debt, up to £2,500. Above this limit the cost will double to £2 a day. Customers with unauthorised overdrafts will face a fine of £5 a day.

Plenty of careful current account customers with small debts could lose out, warned Michelle Slade at financial information provider Moneyfacts. "If you had a £100 overdraft, then it will cost you £20 a month - that is very expensive," she said.

Slade said the offer of £5 a month credit would benefit anyone with up to £2,500 in the account, but account holders with more money would be better off elsewhere. At Alliance & Leicester, for example, current account customers can earn 6.31% on balances.

"Say you had £2,500 in your current account, you'd earn roughly three times as much interest each month at A&L; nearly £15 instead of £5," said Slade.

Halifax's new fee structure echoes those made by rivals earlier this year. Barclays, for example, introduced an unauthorised "personal reserve" overdraft charge on its current account, whereby customers can dip into a personal reserve as often as they like over five days for a flat fee of £22.

The changes come as the banks appeal against the results of a high court case against the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) over bank charges, which found that penalty charges were subject to rules of fairness. If the banks lose their case the OFT could introduce a maximum level for unauthorised overdrafts.

"All these moves are largely down to a drive for greater transparency ahead of the court case with banks over penalty bank charges," said Andrew Hagger of price comparison website Moneynet.

Read Full Article...

Millions of customers with the Halifax and Bank of Scotland will see big changes to their current accounts in the New Year.

The standard set of overdraft fees, including interest charges, will be replaced by daily fees of £1, £2 or £5 when people are in the red.

The charges will start with the launch of a new account on 9 February 2009.

But most existing accounts will be moved to the new charging structure later in the year.

The changes are a response to last July's critical report by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) into the operation of personal current accounts.

The report said that the way they worked was complex and opaque, with many customers not knowing how much they were likely to be charged in interest and overdraft fees.

"It will reward good behaviour and is really simple and easy to understand" said a Halifax spokesman abut the new charging structure.

He denied it was part of any preparation by the bank in case it, along with seven other lenders, eventually lost their current High Court test case on the fairness of overdraft charges.

"This is nothing to do with the High Court bank charges case," he stressed.

"This is still free in-credit banking - you can still pay nothing and get £5 per month after tax," he added.

The changes

The new account, dubbed the "Reward" account, will abolish the current interest charges for people in the red.

Also disappearing will be the existing overdraft fee of £28 per month, and the maximum three charges a day of £35 each for paying or bouncing cheques, or making other payments, while in the red without permission.

Instead, customers with an arranged overdraft of up to £2,500 will pay £1 per day; those with a higher arranged overdraft will be charged £2 per day; and anyone with an unarranged overdraft will have to pay £5 per day.

The new account will also be credited with a standard after-tax interest payment of £5 per month, regardless of how much is in the account, so long as at least £1,000 a month has been paid in by the account holder, and regardless of whether the account then goes into the red or not.

Transition

As part of the transition process, the Halifax will move people who still operate its now closed "Moneyback" account to the new format in February.

It will also close its ordinary and high interest current accounts to new applicants.

Its new account, alongside its more elaborate "Ultimate Reward" account, which comes with a £12.50 a month fee, will become the standard offering.

The bank's student and basic accounts will still be available and, for the time being, will not be included in the changes.

But the "Ultimate reward" account will also feature the new overdraft charges in due course, and Halifax customers will be able to switch their existing ordinary and high interest accounts to the new set-up if they wish.

Read Full Article...

RBS plans to "proactively" refund overdraft fees if it loses the ongoing test case over bank charges.

The bank, which also owns NatWest, confirmed today that it was making “careful contingency plans” after a document referring to the measures was leaked to the BBC.

According to the document, a team is "preparing systems and processes to proactively refund charges to the group's customer base" and "all customer accounts that are due a refund will be calculated as accurately as possible".

The bank is one of eight lenders fighting a High Court test case with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to decide the legality of unauthorised overdraft fees, which cost consumers billions of pounds a year. The banks appealed after losing the first round in April, when the judge ruled that the OFT could apply consumer contract regulations to decide if the charges are fair or not.

The case – which the banks could pursue to the House of Lords – has left up to one million savers who are pursuing their banks for refunds in limbo, after the Financial Services Authority (FSA) authorised an extendable waiver that allows banks not to pay out on claims until next January. RBS said today that the conditions of the waiver were behind the contingency plans leaked today.

A spokesman for RBS said: "As a condition of the waiver, RBS and the other banks agreed with the FSA in July 2007 and again in 2008, to deal 'efficiently and swiftly' with customer complaints on conclusion of the test case, irrespective of its outcome. This included 'making preparations for dealing with relevant charges complaints when this direction ends'.

"For an organisation of our size and our different brands, complying with these requirements demands careful contingency planning and this document merely confirms that RBS is taking its obligations in this respect seriously as it has done throughout the whole test case process. This workstream has absolutely no bearing on how we see the outcome of the test case."

Campaigners have criticised the banks for prolonging the legal process. Phil Jones, of Which?, the campaign group, said: "The banks have already lost the test case in the court of public opinion. Instead of stringing out the legal action, perhaps even to the House of Lords, the banks should admit defeat and repay their customers what they have unfairly charged. Only by doing this can they start to rebuild the trust they have lost amongst the public."

An verdict on the banks' appeal is expected before the end of the year. However, final resolution of the case is unlikely before the end of next year. As long as the waiver is in place, consumers can claim for refunds on charges dating back to July 2001.

Read Full Article...

The RBS NatWest bank is planning to refund overdraft fees to customers "pro-actively" if it loses the continuing test case over bank charges.

An internal bank document reveals for the first time the preparations banks are making should they lose their case.

The document acknowledges the group may have to refund past charges, which could run to many millions of pounds.

The bank said it was just drawing up contingency plans to deal with one possible outcome of the test case.
Refunds

The RBS NatWest is waiting, with seven other banks, for an Appeal Court judgement on whether or not the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) can decide if their overdraft charges are unfair.

The bank document, passed to the BBC, indicates that many customers can expect refunds if the banks eventually lose their case.

It says a team from the bank is "preparing systems and processes to pro-actively refund charges to the group's customer base."

The bank currently has about 13 million customers, though not all will have been charged overdraft fees in the past few years.

"All customer accounts that are due a refund will be calculated as accurately as possible," the bank document says.

"Any monies will be accurately accounted for and reconciled," it adds.

The document says the bank aims for "avoidance of group reputational damage and/or loss of funds."
Contingency plan

An RBS spokesman denied the bank was planning to throw in the towel if it lost the current appeal.

He said its plans simply reflected the fact that it was obliged by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to deal "efficiently and swiftly" with the customers' complaints if it eventually lost the legal argument.

"This work stream has absolutely no bearing on how we see the outcome of the test case," he said.

"With an organisation of our size and our different brands, complying with these requirements demands careful contingency planning and this document merely confirms that RBS is taking its obligations in this respect seriously as it has done throughout the whole test case process," he added.

Sharon Coleman of the campaign group Legal Beagles said: "We would welcome a pro-active approach if they intend resolving the matter without further appeals."

"Consumers have become increasingly frustrated by the apparent lack of progress in the test case, especially those affected by financial difficulty," she added.

Unfair?

For the past three years the UK's banks have been besieged by hundreds of thousands of angry customers aided by high-profile internet and media campaigns.

The customers have been demanding the return of high charges, levied by the banks whenever customers go overdrawn without permission.

In 2007, eight financial institutions and the OFT agreed to stage a test case in the High Court to resolve the legal issues.

At that point all cases in the county courts, and with the Financial Ombudsman, were suspended.

The first round of High Court hearings, earlier this year, was a defeat for the banks.

Mr Justice Andrew Smith ruled in April that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) had the power, under the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR), to decide if the banks' charges were fair or not.

A subsequent appeal was heard in October and the judgement is now expected in the New Year.

None of the other banks involved in the test case was prepared to describe exactly what it would do if it lost.

But HSBC and Lloyds TSB acknowledged having some sort of contingency plan in place.

And there is no doubt the others have them as well.

One of the conditions the FSA has set down for the banks is that they make "preparations for dealing with relevant charges complaints when this direction ends and updating those preparations as the outcome of the test case becomes clearer."

Losses

An analysis of the 2007 annual reports for the five biggest banks suggested that up until the summer of that year, all UK banks had between them paid out £784m in refunds to nearly 378,000 customers.

In its half year results, the Nationwide warned its investors recently that losing the court case could cost it a lot of money.

"Depending on the court's determinations, a range of outcomes is possible, some of which could have a significant financial impact on the society," it said.

Marc Gander of the Consumer Action Group (CAG) said that it was worrying that RBS NatWest was planning to take its own responsibility for calculating its customers' losses.

"We will be watching this very closely. The banks have shown that they are not to be trusted," he said.

"We will be encouraging all bank customers to calculate their own losses and to insist on getting all of it back plus interest."

Read Full Article...

The Royal Bank of Scotland will refund millions of pounds in 'unauthorised' overdraft charges if it loses the current High Court test case, it has confirmed.

An internal document seen by the BBC reveals that the bank is drawing up contingency plans in case the current legal proceedings go against it.

In it, the group acknowledges that if it loses the case, it may have to refund 'millions of pounds worth' of past charges.

RBS, which includes NatWest, is one of seven banks and a building society that jointly brought a test case to the High Court with the Office of Fair Trading over unauthorised overdraft charges.

A judge ruled in April that the fees levied by the banks were subject to regulation by the OFT, paving the way for a second hearing into whether the charges are unfair and what a fair charge would be.

The banks have since appealed the judgment.

The RBS document says a team from the bank is 'preparing systems and processes to pro-actively refund charges to the group's customer base'.

It adds: 'All customer accounts that are due a refund will be calculated as accurately as possible' and 'any monies will be accurately accounted for and reconciled'.

But an RBS spokesman stressed that the document related to contingency planning in line with a commitment the banks have made to City watchdog the Financial Services Authority, and it did not reflect its expectations of the outcome of the case.

He said: 'This planning has absolutely no bearing on how we see the outcome of the test case.

'Along with the other banks, we agreed with the FSA back in July 2007 to deal 'efficiently and swiftly' with customer complaints on conclusion of the test case, irrespective of its outcome.

'Given the size of our organisation, complying with these requirements demands careful contingency planning and this document merely confirms that RBS is taking its obligations in this respect seriously.'

RBS has so far refunded £119 million to people who have complained to it about unauthorised overdraft charges.

The FSA has granted a stay on outstanding claims until January 26 next year, and it is expected to continue extending it until the end of the case.

Fees for people who go into unauthorised overdraft or who breach their agreed limit can be as much as £35 for a single bounced payment, although campaigners claim the cost to the banks could be as little as £2.50.

If it is upheld, the judgment could cost banks £2.6 billion a year in lost revenue and lead to them having to make refunds of up to £1 billion at a time when they can ill afford it.

Members of the industry have also warned that losing the case is likely to lead to the end of free banking in the UK, with consumers instead having to pay a monthly fee or a fee for every transaction they carry out.

Read Full Article...

The code will ensure that banks make customers aware of the best deals available and do not withdraw credit or other facilities without good reason. It will be policed by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the City regulator.

Ministers have decided to intervene amid growing concern among consumers and small businesses that banks are behaving unfairly during the current financial downturn - despite many of them being bailed out with billions of pounds of taxpayers money.

Small businesses have complained that banks have suddenly increased fees or charges. Consumers have not benefited from interest rate cuts.

Although the code will stop short of ordering banks to cut rates in line with the Bank of England base rate, they will have to alert customers to any cheaper products available.

If banks continue to block access to cheap credit, the code may be strengthened to set the maximum interest margins that banks can levy for different products.

Currently, most banks sign up to an industry-wide voluntary code of conduct. However, Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, is concerned that anecdotal evidence suggests that individual branch managers may not be abiding to the code.

Therefore, the new legally-enforced code will be at the core of a new "Banking Reform Bill" to be announced in this Wednesday's Queen's Speech. The Bill will also contain measures to speed up and increase the compensation paid to savers in failing banks.

Speaking to Labour activists over the weekend, Gordon Brown pledged that there would be "new measures in the next few days" to force the banks to help consumers during the downturn. A Downing Street aide confirmed that the new legally-binding code of conduct was being studied.

The Government is thought to be particularly concerned about the decision of some banks to "unilaterally cancel" overdrafts, loans and credit cards, often without warning.

The new code may also set out safeguards for consumers who face having their homes repossessed. Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, recently said that banks should wait at least three months before launching repossession actions.

Ministers have been angered by the refusal of banks to increase lending levels again which has plunged small businesses into financial trouble. The Government has spent £37 billion buying stakes in several banks in an attempt to improve their financial position.

However, there are fears that the banks are simply storing the money and speeding up the repayment of outstanding loans to allow them to pay-off the Government investment. Banking insiders claim that Northern Rock, the state-owned bank, has dramatically reduced lending and thousands of their customers are now trying to obtain credit elsewhere.

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, has called on the Government to introduce a scheme underwriting loans made by the banks to small businesses. He believes this will kick-start the credit market.

Mr Darling indicated that he may have to plough more money into the economy as Britain struggles to cope with the impact of recession. Last week, the Chancellor announced a controversial £20 billion fiscal-stimulus package of tax cuts and increased public spending. However, the pre-Budget report, including a Vat cut which comes into effect today, has failed to win over voters.

Read Full Article...

Millions of us will go into the red to pay for Christmas - and with banks busy hiking overdraft rates, the New Year could bring a painful financial hangover.

Even though the Bank of England base rate has been cut by 2.75 per cent in the past year, interest rates on overdrafts have continued to go up, with some banks increasing rates by as much as 7.31 per cent.

The rises couldn't come at a worse time. One in 12 people say they will make "heavy use" of their overdraft facility around Christmas and may exceed their agreed limit, according to the Alliance & Leicester.

And one in five believe they are more likely to go overdrawn this Christmas compared with last.

Michelle Slade, of Moneyfacts.co.uk, said: "The base rate has decreased significantly in the last year but Abbey, Barclays, Clydesdale, First Direct, HSBC, Nationwide, Norwich & Peterborough, Royal Bank of Scotland, Smile and Yorkshire Bank are all charging their customers more than this time last year."

And this isn't the only bad news. Charges for exceeding an agreed overdraft limit have risen by a massive 20 per cent in the past year, with the typical charge now £30.

The increases come despite an investigation and court case by the Office of Fair Trading into the legality and justification of these fees.

The changes could affect as many as one in four adults, according to comparison website MoneyExpert.com.

Read Full Article...