´óÏó´«Ã½

The Supreme Court is expected to decide on Wednesday if fair trading watchdogs have the power to supervise bank charges.

It's been a long-fought case. And if the banks lose, it could cost them billions.

First, they may be forced to refund many customers who have already paid charges in the past.

And it could also cost them a regular flow of income in the future; they make more than a pretty penny from those charges.

That's money the banks will want to replace - possibly by putting new charges on everyday services, like cash withdrawals or cheques.

This is why some experts have warned we may see the end of free current account banking.

Unsurprisingly, you're not very happy about this - and made it crystal clear in your emails after Monday's programme..

Paul in East Dulwich wrote, "the major banks have just made huge profits, in the billions, and they seek to charge for use of a current account? Where will their greed stop?"

But if there's one thing Working Lunch viewers hate more than the banks and their profits, it's other bank customers. Especially those who dip into the red without permission, and then moan about charges afterwards.

Stuart wrote, "people who ran up overdrafts were informed before they did so of the charges to be incurred. Why then can they renege on their contract and force those of us who have acted responsibly to pay their debts?"

John White emailed to say, "someone who spends more money than authorised is stealing. Why should those who remain within spending limits subsidise the greedy?"

And E Lawrence noted, "unauthorised overdraft is tantamount to theft."

The banking expert on Monday's programme said the high street banks would think they're entitled to charge service fees for current accounts, as they provide a service of considerable value. Many of you said we already pay the banks - by letting them use our cash.

Alan Hall emailed, "the banks hold our cash deposits free of interest. Why should we pay to withdraw money when we need it?"

Andy said, "I agree that using the cash machine and writing cheques certainly cost money. But when you use your credit or debit card the banks do charge. They charge the retailer."

You also think we've paid a price in lower standards of service, as the banks cut their costs of doing business.

From Brian in Devon - "the banks introduced cash machines in order to save money. Local branches were closed all over the country and replaced with machines. To suggest that it provides a service that should be paid for, when the banks save money via the machines, is quite laughable!"

As a child of the 70s, I've only had two jobs in my life where I was paid in cash. (Oh those heady days as a hotel toilet cleaner.) Everything else has been paid by cheque or direct transfer into my bank account. It's the same for almost everyone else, either in work or in retirement. The banks are the conduit for our income - making us utterly reliant on them, and making it difficult to avoid any charges they might bring in.

Michelle notes, "this is a captive market. We have no choice but to use banks to lead an ordinary normal life. It is compulsory. So this gives the banks an unfair power over the consumer. It should be a public service."

Jon and Martin both say if the banks bring in charges for essential services, people should have the option of receiving their pay packets in cash once again.

Tom O'Connor: "It was the banks who encouraged employers to move from wage payments in cash to salary payments directly into bank accounts. They have access to our funds and make a nice earning off them. Don't let the apologists for the bank present this as a response to our irresponsible behaviour as customers; they brought this situation about themselves."

Rita adds, "my pension is paid into my bank account. I have no choice. If it comes to pass that fees will be added to current accounts, might there be an alternative for me if I do not want to pay?"

But there was at least one person who thoughts the banks might have a point.

Dorothy wrote, "I recall from my early days in having a bank account - over 50 years ago - that there was a small charge for having a bank account. A reasonable charge might be acceptable," she says.