You do not need to have been a homeowner for very long to remember when mortgage fees cost about the same as the average weekly shop. These days, even with food prices rising rapidly, such comparisons are no longer credible.

As we report this week, the average mortgage fee has increased tenfold in only 15 years to nearly £1,000. The fees on some mortgages are even higher. Indeed, it was only 30 years ago that you could buy an entire house for the cost of the fee on one of HSBC's mortgages today.

Yet the case against large fees is not clear-cut. The size of the fees tends to vary in reverse proportion to the interest rate on the loan. Generally, the higher the fee, the lower the rate. This means that borrowers seeking large loans will often find themselves better off paying a higher fee to obtain a lower interest rate.

As long as there remains a wide range of fees available, borrowers can benefit from the extra choice. Higher fees may even reduce defaults and repossessions. This is because struggling borrowers hoping to remortgage can opt for a cheap rate and lower repayments by adding the cost of the fee to their loan.

The downside, of course, is that they will end up paying more interest over the course of the loan.

Yet despite some persuasive arguments in support of high-fee deals, the sheer extent to which average fees have risen does suggest that lenders are taking advantage of borrowers. For a start, lenders are well aware that many borrowers do not understand that adding a fee to a loan will cost them more in the long run. Furthermore, fees of any description make it harder to compare the true cost of loans. It is also clear that the latest round of fee increases by banks such as HBOS are being used to disguise more expensive mortgages.

So on balance, the Chancellor was probably right last week to caution lenders that he may take action against ever higher fees. But as the Treasury now owns Northern Rock, which still charges fees of up to £1,000, Mr Darling may want to get his own house in order before criticising others.

Estate agents would not be the only casualties

After innocently venturing my opinion on the subject of house prices last Saturday, I have been inundated with letters and e-mails. Not all of them, I have to admit, have been entirely in agreement with me.

Trying to ignore the charge that I am actually an estate agent (that was one of the more polite accusations), I thought it best to clarify a couple of points.

Many readers suggested that as house prices have already fallen by more than 5 per cent in only six months, I was wrong to say that the market is sinking rather than collapsing. Their case was strengthened this week when Nationwide reported that prices fell a further 0.9 per cent in June, meaning that prices are now 6.3 per cent lower than a year ago. In my defence, I was considering a collapse to be when prices fall by a large amount very quickly. For example, by between 20 per cent and 40 per cent in the space of six months. As yet, we are not in that territory.

Many readers also wrote that I was wrong to suggest that a house price crash would be a bad thing. To a certain extent, I agree: an extended period of house price stagnation or a gently falling market would be a welcome development. After all, the only real beneficiary of ten years of rising house prices has been the Treasury, which has reaped a windfall in stamp duty and inheritance tax. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of young people have been denied access to the housing market or have had to overstretch themselves to buy a home.

That said, I still think an outright crash would be very bad. If prices were to plummet, it would send tens of thousands of homeowners - mostly young people - into negative equity. It would also undermine consumer confidence and entrench the credit crunch by forcing the banks to become even more reluctant to lend. The likely result would be the transition from economic slowdown to full-blown recession and all that entails.

The people who want to see a full-scale house price crash should be careful what they wish for.

Relieved savers still need to guard against complacency

The last run on a British bank before Northern Rock was all the way back in 1866, when Overend, Gurney and Company collapsed, owing about £11 million (that's about £1 billion in today's money). Hopefully it will be at least another 141 years before the UK witnesses another such episode.

To that end, this week's announcement that the Government intends to increase the amount of savers' money protected - from £35,000 to £50,000 - is a welcome development. Admittedly, much of the risk burden lies with the taxpayer rather than the banks, but in the current climate of fear, savers will be thankful for the extra protection, no matter where it comes from.

But while the likelihood of this protection ever being needed is small, savers should not be complacent. Even at £50,000, only 57 per cent of deposits by value are protected. Anyone with more than that in any one institution would be wise to spread his or her money among a number of different accounts. With so many good savings rates available right now, there is no excuse.