(For more future updates, kindly subscribe to this blog's feeds via RSS reader or via e-mail.)

The fervent hopes of homeowners that their energy bills may fall are in the balance after the regulatory watchdog was called in to monitor the activities of utility companies.

The fear of a global recession has pushed down the price of crude. A barrel of oil has fallen from a high of around $147 in July to around $70. This has led to the price of petrol for motorists dipping below £1 a litre at some retailers for the first time since December last year.

The pressure group Consumer Focus is a new merger of Energywatch and the National Consumer Council. They want to see domestic energy bills, which are linked to the price of oil, also dropping as a result. However, domestic bills show no sign of falling.

The Energy Retail Association says bills will not fall immediately as gas wholesale prices remain high.

‘Oil prices have been falling since July, yet consumers have seen unprecedented rises in their gas and electricity costs. Consumers must now be wondering why they are left waiting,’ said a spokesman for Consumer Focus.

‘We want immediate action from energy companies to reduce their prices in line with falling oil prices. This will be good not just for consumers, but for the whole economy.’

Consumer Focus said that gas prices have risen by 51% since the start of the year, and electricity bills up by 28% which puts the average annual household energy bill at £1,308.

However, analysts say that although the two are linked, gas prices did not rocket as much as oil prices earlier in the year and so now did not have so far to fall.

Also, gas and electricity supplies are bought in advance for the winter, so there will be a lag on any changes in tariffs.

Politicians have also joined in the debate. The Energy Minister has stated that he wants to see the oil price fall fed through into gas and electricity prices but gave no indication of any action he would be willing to take to see this happen.

The pressure on consumers will ease, although it will take longer than for motorists. The market mechanisms, closely watched by regulators, will ensure that prices fall for consumers along with the wholesale prices.

Competition is the key for consumers in this situation. As the wholesale price falls companies will get the chance to undercut their rivals in order to increase their market share. Consumers can then wait until their provider responds or switch.

(For more future updates, kindly subscribe to this blog's feeds via RSS reader or via e-mail.)

There has been a set back in the ongoing court case against unfair bank charges since the banks have won the latest round of the High Court battle.

Judge Mr Justice Andrew Smith says most customers will not be able to use common law to challenge bank charges levied mostly between 2001 and 2007. However, NatWest customers might still have this legal avenue open to them after he failed to give their terms a clean bill of health.

The OFT wants legal confirmation that it can rule if these charges of up to £35 are fair or not. Customers have complained they have been unfairly overcharged hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of pounds when falling into the red.

Strangely, the banks want to protect the estimated £2.6bn a year of income they gather by charging people for going overdrawn.

The judge’s ruling followed a three-day hearing in July. His ruling has an impact on the thousands of claims for the refund of overdraft charges which are frozen in county courts.

These county court hearings were suspended last year when the Office of Fair Trading and eight banks agreed on a test case to clarify the situation with overdraft charges. After today’s ruling, they are likely to remain frozen for the foreseeable future.

The judge’s latest ruling focused on whether historic bank terms were unfair penalties under common law, and if customers who had been charged for going overdrawn could challenge them.

He decided that customers could not challenge Barclays, Clydesdale, HSBC and the majority of Abbey’s terms. A Barclays spokesman said they were ‘pleased’ with the decision.

The same was true for HBOS, except for Intelligent Finance’s terms which required more examination. More discussion was also needed regarding the terms and conditions of Lloyds TSB’s accounts.

The judge said that Royal Bank of Scotland Group, which owns NatWest, needed to provide clearer arguments about their terms before he could give them clearance.Bank ‘relief’

‘Some banks will be breathing a sigh of relief as the judge appears to have decided that these charges were not penalties under common law,’ said Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group.

An OFT spokesman said: ‘This is another staging post in a complex legal process. We are progressing our investigation as quickly as possible and are in continuing discussion with the banks about our provisional views on the issue of fairness.’

The judge did indicate that, even though common law largely could not be used to challenge historic overdraft fees, the OFT has the authority to examine these fees under the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations.

There are other legal avenues for customers to explore and they may still get their money back.

The banks will appeal against the OFT’s initial High Court victory in April . The High Court ruled that the OFT can assess whether fees are unfair. Another High Court hearing is expected to start in the new year on the substantive issue of whether or not bank overdraft charges are unfair.

Only after these hearings, and any possible subsequent appeals, will people finally know whether they can claim back overdraft charges.