Tyrie (pictured) attacked both men for defending the anomaly in the fees, which he said constituted “overcharging” and put firms at a disadvantage, overcharged customers and made shareholders suffer.
He proceeded by demanding the chairman review the decisions taken by Wheatley and explained them in a letter to the committee.
Tyrie said: “The fee block A12 has a higher level of supervision and lower fees than the fee block A13.
“And if the people in A13 were acting logically they would respond to your curious fee blocks by opting to go into the cheaper A12 block, isn’t that exactly what you’ve said and what you published in October: ‘people in block A13 have pointed out they could lower their fees by taking on the additional task of holding client money even though they do not want it’?”
“This is overcharging fees isn’t it. You don’t like the term but it is.”
Wheatley defended the fees by saying: “We consult on our fees each year. They were charged in accordance with the fees that we set out in our consultation which reflects a broad range of activity not just supervision activity.”
But Tyrie countered: “I think it would be helpful if you wrote to us and explain how it is you’ve come to the view.”
He asked Griffith-Jones: “Would you be prepared to review this and consider what appears to be a decision by your chief executive, who on the basis of the evidence that I’ve seen, to me has a strong case for compensation?
“This money clearly should not have been charged once you look into the detail of it. And these firms have been put at a disadvantage, their customers effectively have been charged for more that they should and their shareholders too have suffered.
“I am surprised that you are so firm that this is not overcharging.”
Griffith-Jones agreed to reviewing the issue and said he would respond to the committee’s concerns in writing.
