The Supreme Court (it doesn't feel right to be typing that, we're not American!) has ruled that UK banks don't have to repay charges levied on the current accounts of 1.2 million of their customers.
I suspect that the general view is going to be that this is a bad thing, and just another example of big banks ripping off the man in the street.
I don't really agree with that. I actually think that there's a moral argument to be made the other way. The customers concerned signed up to the terms and conditions of those accounts willingly. If they kept to the commitments they made - only spending money that they had, unless they'd arranged an overdraft in advance - then they wouldn't have to pay anything. If they reneged on, or overlooked, their commitment, they'd pay the charges that had been specified. It wasn't a complicated arrangement by any means.
And it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect customers to stick to the agreement. If they spend the bank's money on themselves - which is what an unauthorised overdraft amounts too - then surely they should stick to their side of the bargain and pay the agreed fees?
While there are certainly cases where banks do act unreasonably, and sometimes charges can lead to unauthorised overdrafts, which lead to more charges and so on, it can't be right to just tear up the customer side of the agreement for every single account holder who hasn't stuck to their side of the bargain and give them all their money back. Nobody forced them to enter into the agreement, and they'd have been pretty unhappy if the bank had suddenly decided that it wasn't going to stick to its own side of the agreement and, for example, refuse to release the customer's money to them.
The wider picture, I think, is a failure of people to take responsibility and ownership of their own financial affairs. It's unfortunate if someone doesn't have the money to meet an unexpected bill, but that's an issue around budgeting, saving and living within your means. Along with many other people, it does seem to me that somewhere over the last 10 or 20 years taking responsibilty for one's own financial decisions seems to be a concept that has been forgotten about by many - thought with the endless offers of cheap borrowing we've all been exposed to over that period, it's understandable to some extent.
There will be no doubt be a lot of comment about how this ruling hits those on lower incomes and benefits "rich" bankers. But, unfortunately, it's those who have the lowest incomes who are most in need of careful budgeting, and others can't be expected to take that responsibility away from them. No matter how low your income, you have to a) work out a way of living within your means and b) take corrective action if you see problems on the horizon.
Perhaps this verdict might encourage everyone to think a bit more about financial education and personal responsibility.