A supreme court ruling which means people will not be repaid unfair overdraft charges has come as a blow to consumers, it has been suggested.

Martin Bamford, chartered financial planner for Informed Choice, believes most people thought the judgment would work in the favour of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).

Nonetheless, a ruling against the banks may have hindered their financial strength, he suggested, which could in turn hamper their future profitability.

"Banks make massive profits, even during recent months when the economy has been on its knees. They do this by charging customers for everything, not just making charges when you enter an unauthorised overdraft," he revealed.

Even though the ruling benefited the banks, it is possible that financial practises will become more transparent as a result of the supreme court's decision, Mr Bamford predicted.

In his summing up of yesterday's (November 25th) decision, Lord Walker identified that the overdraft charges had not been imposed outside of the regulations and that they were not concealed to consumers.

Figures from Which? show that 12 million people have been hit with bank charges since July 2001 and 63 per cent of this number have not asked for their money back.

Of the claims which have been made, 42 per cent are for amounts of at least £500, the consumer watchdog found.

Some of those questioned revealed how they would use the money to pay off their debts if it was reimbursed, while others intended on splashing the cash on a holiday or a shopping spree.

However, the case may not be over yet, if Mr Bamford's predictions are realised. "It is difficult to predict what steps the OFT might take next, although I imagine they will keep pursuing this cause," he suggested.