November should mark a brighter dawn for all of us with a bank account. That it will probably do little to curb the banks’ bad behaviour will be yet another black mark on the stained copybook of the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

The first of the month is when the chief City watchdog will take over the policing of retail banking. The Banking Code, the cosy system of self-regulation that has allowed poor service and bad practice to flourish, will be consigned to the dustbin.

Few will mourn its passing, as tighter regulation is long overdue. But what is the point of replacing a broken system with a replacement that looks fundamentally flawed?

When the FSA announced that it was taking over banking regulation, it promised greater transparency for consumers. A noble goal, but one that, on November 1, it will singularly fail to achieve. There are few things to commend the Banking Code but, in its favour, it is clear and easy to understand. At 37 pages of large print, you can just about absorb it in a single sitting.

Under the new regime, the code will be replaced with three separate directives. I can’t be the only one to think that one into three sounds like a recipe for befuddlement. The FSA will oversee two of the strands — the Banking: Conduct of Business Sourcebook and the Payment Services Directive. These broadly cover how banks deal with customers with cash deposits. Overdrafts, loans and credit cards will continue to be policed by the Banking Code Standards Board in its new guise of the Lending Standards Board.

If you are keen to acquaint yourself with the rules, prepare for more than 100 pages of the finest legalese. The FSA has promised to publish reader-friendly guides before the November deadline, but this week was unable to confirm when.

Why do we need three sets of rules in any case? This cobbled-together compromise results from a decades-old division between the regulation of banking and credit that should have been binned long ago.

It is a shame, because the new rules contain some good ideas. In fraud cases banks will have to prove that the customer was at fault. Currently the onus is on customers to prove that they did nothing wrong. Another positive move will require banks to give most customers two months’ notice of any interest rate changes.

The FSA will also be able to fine banks and building societies that fail to treat customers fairly — although that has not proved a deterrent to bad behaviour in the past. It may stop the big institutional abuses, but many more cases will continue to slip through the net.

All in all, this looks like a missed opportunity to swing regulation decisively in the customer’s favour.

Aviva’s radical pensions proposal may be a winner

Radical thinking on pensions is the order of the day. But amid all this week’s hoo-ha about Tory plans to increase the retirement age, you might have missed a call by Aviva to abolish higher-rate tax relief on pension contributions.

Britain’s biggest insurer reasons that a single rate of 30 per cent for all taxpayers would simplify pensions and encourage people to save for retirement.

It provoked a predictable response: such a move would be “disastrous” and discourage higher-rate taxpayers from saving in pensions. But would it? And — here’s a more radical notion — should we care?

For the 25 million basic-rate taxpayers, millions of whom do not save at all, the measure looks like a winner. The rate would be a halfway house between the 20 per cent relief paid to basic-rate taxpayers and the 40 per cent available to those paying tax at the higher rate.

Aviva reckons that it could add up to £50,000 to the pension pot of a basic-rate taxpayer. At a stroke, it would redress the imbalance by which 55 per cent of tax relief goes to the 2.5 million higher-rate taxpayers, most of them men. Everyone would receive the same incentive for the same level of saving — a fairer system. Higher-rate taxpayers would certainly lose out, but wouldn’t a government contribution of 30p in every £1 still be enough incentive? If not, the chances are that most will save in a different form, such as Isas or other tax-favoured products.

A harmonised rate would make things simpler all round. There are bound to be problems when it is introduced, but the pain would not last long. And according to the Pensions Policy Institute it would cost about the same as the existing system — passing the austerity test.

It may not be the answer, but Aviva deserves to be listened to.

Bingo ... take a punt on your pensions pot

Mixing gambling and pensions usually ends in disaster. But there are exceptions to every rule. To encourage greater take-up of the pension credit, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is touring Mecca bingo halls across the land. A shocking £5 billion of pension credit goes unclaimed every year.

Since the people won’t come to the pension credit, the DWP has decided to take the pension credit to the people. The credit clearly isn’t working and should be abolished, but there is no point missing out on the top-up in the meantime. Check if you qualify at direct.gov.uk.