Professor Philip Lane:

With respect, let me reinforce this point. The reality of our enforcement power is that it would cause much delay if we took the route of saying we would use those powers to deliver outcomes. This has been seen with other cases where the bank is disputing the matter. Where the lender argues it is adhering to and in line with the contracts in question, any adversarial process would take a long time before somebody would be paid out. Our strategy now is not to get into a legal dispute that will take a long time to resolve. It is much better to persuade the banks to on a voluntary basis make a good and decent upfront offer. Those powers are in reserve. It is not a case that we can dictate, saying we believe a certain account and the banks must immediately change the charging policy.

Many cases are being picked up where banks are conceding points, indicating they will rectify, make redress and apply compensation in those cases. That is instead of going down a legalistic route. There remains cohorts where we believe banks should be conceding further but it will be much quicker if this process of engagement continues. If they review their positions and concede, it will be the quickest way to get a result.