The High Court Test Case has entered a strange world according to Brian Doctor QC representing the Office of Fair Trading against 7 major banks and Nationwide Building Society. He accused them of using ‘strange language’ to convince customers their charges were fair. And further accused them of rewriting their terms and conditions to avoid them falling under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. "We are entering a strange world in which the banks speak a strange language, in which customers are deemed to have done one thing by doing another," he said.

Mr Doctor went on to say "that the services provided by the banks are not services as normally understood and the charges are not prices in most people’s language". The OFT is seeking a ruling that would allow itself to rule on the fairness of overdraft charges. For this to happen, the High Court must rule that the charges are not 'fees for a service' provided under the core terms of the contract.

The banks however, maintain their charges are made in return for a service and that the service is fundamental to the way accounts operate, as such they claim the regulations are not relevant. Mr Doctor said "the charges could be investigated under the regulations as the charges were highly unusual, both in their contractual form and the way they operate".

The OFT though according to its QC have not reached a conclusion whether charges were fair or not but that it was its public duty to investigate complaints about unfair contracts and that’s what the OFT were doing.

The hearing is set to continue until the end of next week during which time the banks and Nationwide will be given the opportunity to respond to the OFT arguments.

Whatever the outcome of the case it is likely that the losing side will appeal possibly all the way to the House of Lords. A final decision may therefore not be known until next year but when it is known, the decision may change the face of UK banking forever.