LEXLAW Solicitors & BarristersThis is Categories of News
Our client was awarded about £1 million in a swaps mis-selling settlement with Lloyds after being sold a complex multi-cancellable swap they did not understand. The product allowed Lloyds to cancel the contract if interest rates rose, removing the protection at critical times. The case highlights how banks have been settling many swaps claims discreetly.
Directors disqualified for 18 years under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 for selling but failing to deliver event tickets while continuing to trade insolvently. Lexlaw offers specialist legal defence for directors facing disqualification and guidance on court applications to act despite disqualification.
The FCA Swaps Review has faced significant delays since beginning in April 2013, frustrating many affected businesses. Latest FCA data reveals that only 50% of sophistication assessments are complete, 3.9% of cases have reached interviews, and 2.6% have had payments suspended. Delays risk customers losing legal rights due to the six-year limitation period. Concerns exist over banks bypassing the sophistication stage while fairness issues arise over banks self-assessing their mis-selling.
The FCA/FSA Hedging Review is conducted by the banks, not the regulator, and involves recorded interviews or fact-find meetings with customers. These interviews can be one-sided, with the bank’s lawyers asking questions designed to limit compensation. Customers often have limited rights to access bank records or challenge questions. A written statement, prepared with legal guidance, can be a safer way to present the sales experience without the risks of interviews.
The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards’ Final Report calls for radical reforms to restore banking trust, addressing LIBOR manipulation and derivatives mis-selling. Key proposals include criminal liability for reckless bankers, improved governance, stronger regulator duties, and wider access to the Financial Ombudsman Service for small businesses. The report urges greater financial literacy, transparency, and regulation to prevent banks from disclaiming advisory responsibility when selling complex products.
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) saw a 92% rise in new complaints in 2012/2013, with 258 cases related to interest rate hedging products (IRHPs) like swaps. However, the FOS can only handle complaints from microenterprises, excluding many small businesses. The FOS also has a £150,000 compensation cap, often insufficient for these claims. The FSA rejected setting up a special scheme for wider IRHP complaints, leaving the FOS as a last resort after bank reviews.
The Times Newspaper reports that banks are secretly settling swaps mis-selling cases with small businesses, often on the eve of court proceedings. These settlements are kept confidential, and the banks often make public statements denying wrongdoing. The number of claims is increasing as businesses become aware of the issue. Businesses argue that the swaps were too complex and that banks failed to explain the risks involved.
](https://lexlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/rbs-litigation-bank-solicitors-barristers-uk.png)
RBS announced a £700 million provision for Interest Rate Hedging Products (IRHP) mis-selling in their 2012 results, a 1300% increase from the previous £50 million. Despite this, RBS downplays its role in the scandal, highlighting court wins and Ombudsman rulings in its favour, which contrasts with the FSA finding over 90% of such products mis-sold. The provision remains inadequate given the scale of affected non-sophisticated customers.
Barclays Bank announced an £850 million provision for interest rate hedging product (swaps) mis-selling in 2012, with around 4,000 affected customers, approximately 3,000 deemed non-sophisticated. This suggests an average provision of £280,000 per customer. Lexlaw estimates that total liabilities for major banks, including Barclays and RBS, could reach several £billion pounds.
The FSA’s pilot review of swaps mis-selling reveals over 90% of sales did not meet regulatory standards, highlighting inadequate risk explanation, undisclosed break costs, and over-hedging. Banks prioritised commissions over clients’ interests. The proposed review process raises concerns about reviewer independence and incomplete redress. Lexlaw advises court action before limitation periods expire.