Penalty charges; the saga continues.
The UK's banks have finally gotten round to formally defending themselves against the accusations that they levy unfair charges on customers who go overdrawn without their permission.
Yes at long last, the seven banks and the Nationwide building society have filed their defences with the High Court for the much heralded test case to be heard next January.
The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has accused the banks of imposing unfair terms in their customers' contracts, and so have a lot of the bank customers!
The banks counter argue that current consumer regulations do not apply.
As a result, this childish spat has morphed into a hugely contentious issue and thus it needs a test case to decide what happens next.
The High Court hearing will thus endeavour to settle an unprecedented wave of litigation which has swamped courts around the UK this year.
Hundreds of thousands of you have been suing your banks, often successfully, for the return of your overdraft fees levied when you went into the red without permission.
So far banks are estimated to have refunded about £570 million to 329,000 customers, almost always as gestures of "goodwill" and without admitting any wrong doing.
Banks admitting wrong doing? Hmm, and pigs might fly...
The whole legal issue is centred on the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, which the OFT argues gives it the power to decide that the banks' charges may be unfair and should be reduced.
But banks argue that the law does not apply as the charges are in fact fees for them providing us all with a "core service".
The banks also argue that as their charges are fees for a service, they cannot be judged as unfair penalties under common law. Many of them back this up by pointing out that they do not oblige customers to stay in the black; if the person wants to go overdrawn without permission they simply have to pay extra for the privilege.
They also claim that to be found guilty of charging unfair fees then under the rules they have to be shown to have been acting in bad faith. This they deny, saying they tell their customers in plain English exactly what they are signing up for.
"The charges cannot be contrary to the requirement of good faith or unfair provided that the bank deals with the customer fairly and openly at the time of the conclusion of the contract," says HSBC in its defence.
Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group, disputed the banks' claim saying:
"The fact that they have paid out about half a billion pounds to prevent the issue going any further in the lower courts does not show much good faith".
Many of you campaigning against bank charges say the banks' arguments are false and are there simply to cloak the fact that the fees really are unfair penalties.
There is some merit in what many of you have been saying especially as estimates suggest the real cost to most banks of bouncing a cheque, or sending a customer a letter telling them that they are overdrawn, is probably around £2 each time.
No bank (as yet) has provided a detailed explanation of how they calculate their bank penalty charges, although it is likely to be a key feature of any argument in court.
The Clydesdale bank, along with some of the others, comes close to mounting a defence of their charges, saying "they have a justifiable commercial purpose" and that "such terms or charges are neither unconscionable nor extravagant".
Hopefully, everything will be revealed in court and then it's in the hands of the legal system.
But do you have any confidence in them to make the right decision?
Tom Brennan case dismissed