OFT letting banks of with robbery

BBC News reporting that OFT have given up trying to prove that bank charges are unfair.  I don't actually blame them for this as it's obvious they won't win because the law has never been about common sense.  I do wonder though whether the case would have stood a better chance before the banking bailout as lets be honest the Government must privately have hoped the banks would win so that they wouldn't have to pay back the money they've stolen from their poorest customers.

The point was always if a £30+ admin charge was fair, and this was to be investigated under fairness rules.  An independant team of academics, business people (including retired banking execs) were asked by BBC to calculate for themselves exactly what the maximum ADMIN charge could be.  They derived it would be at most £4.50 for the administration of a bounced cheque and £2.50 for admin of unauthorised overdraft.

If its £2.50 to administer an unauthorised overdraft then how in gods name is it fair that the banks are allowed to charge £30+ for administration, and its important to be aware that admin is the key word, if the charges don't cover admin then they must be punitive and the banks do not have the right to issue punitive charges.  

These charges hit the poorest people in the UK, and illegally raised £2.6 billion each year for British banks.  Its got to the stage that you think of a billion as a trivial amount of money, its worth going to google and entering "1 billion seconds in years" just to see how many years there are in a billion seconds, this will put into context exactly the scale of the revenue being unfairly generated.
They have essentially been robbing the poorest sector of the british public of a minimum of £27.50 each time they went slightly overdrawn, and now the courts have allowed them to get away with daylight robbery.

Banks now admit the levey raised from these charges cover the cost of banking and allow banking to be free for the general public.  Many of my friends think this is fair enough and don't see why they should pay for other peoples banking because other people can't manage their money but they need to take a step back and ask is it fair that the poorest people in society pay for their free banking, why stop there, why not get these people to subsidise their Sky TV.

A huge knock on problem with banks being allowed to get away with this is that all Corps are now in position to essentially levey these illegal charges on all customers who are late in paying a bill, fair enough if you're a month late but most of the time they're going to be no more than a few days late in paying it.  Whats needed now is another bright spark Student Lawyer like Steven Horne who brilliantly and single handedly started this whole movement by questioning the fairness of the charges, there might be a law student out there who can find the next loophole in this mess and get the ball rolling again.