LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
The High Court permitted a judicial review of the FCA’s Interest Rate Hedging Product (IRHP) swaps mis-selling review scheme. The case challenges the fairness and adequacy of the FCA’s redress process, arguing it fails to provide proper compensation and independent oversight. This decision marks a significant step for affected SMEs seeking accountability and more effective remedies for mis-sold swaps under the FCA scheme.
The Treasury Committee report criticises conduct in SME lending, focusing on four key areas: FCA’s IRHP mis-selling review, Tailored Business Loans (TBLs), hidden swaps embedded in loans, and RBS’s Global Restructuring Group (GRG). The report finds systemic failings, lack of transparency, and inadequate customer protections. It calls for stronger regulatory oversight, better redress schemes, and reforms to prevent banks exploiting SMEs through complex financial products and aggressive recovery tactics.
The FCA’s confidential agreement with major banks set up the Interest Rate Hedging Product (IRHP) Review to address mis-selling claims. The Treasury Select Committee criticized the scheme for potentially allowing banks to avoid meaningful redress for SMEs, favouring banks over customers. The agreement details the redress process, but concerns remain about fairness and effectiveness. The Committee continues to scrutinize the review and its impact on SME lending.
A KPMG whistleblower revealed that RBS pressured the FCA Interest Rate Hedging Product (IRHP) redress scheme to reduce compensation payouts, often challenging claims over £750,000. RBS preferred offering alternative products rather than cash refunds and frequently argued sales were compliant to avoid redress. The FCA’s review was criticised for lacking independence, allowing banks to self-assess wrongdoing, causing unfair delays and rejections of consequential loss claims. Many SMEs have been short-changed due to these flaws, highlighting the need for urgent legal advice and challenge of unfair redress offers.
The High Court judgment in Crestsign Ltd v NatWest & RBS ( EWHC 3043) deals with swaps mis-selling claims by Crestsign Limited against the banks. The case examined whether the banks properly advised Crestsign on interest rate hedging products (swaps) and complied with regulatory obligations. The judgment addresses issues of mis-selling, suitability of advice, and breaches of conduct rules. It forms an important precedent in derivatives mis-selling litigation against major UK banks.
Clydesdale and Yorkshire Banks have now begun a review of past sales of fixed rate loans often sold as Tailored Business Loans (TBLs). These are Fixed Rate Loan wrapper products with embedded derivatives.
HMRC has issued tax advice leaflets for banks to hand to customers receiving redress from mis-sold Interest Rate Hedging Products (IRHP), urging correct tax return reporting. Affected banks must review sales since 2001 under FCA supervision, leading to customer compensation. Redress payments, consisting of basic redress, 8% compensatory interest, and consequential losses, are generally taxable income or subject to capital gains tax. Individuals should account for tax deducted from interest. HMRC recommends consulting an accountant for complex scenarios.
The High Court dismissed Barclays’ attempt to strike out a swaps mis-selling claim as time-barred under the six-year limitation period. The claimant relied on section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980, which extends the limitation period by three years from when the claimant knew or ought to have known the relevant facts. The court held there was a real prospect that the claimant did not know enough to investigate the claim until later, rejecting Barclays’ argument that earlier interest payments triggered the limitation clock. This ruling supports claimants in overcoming time-bar defences in swaps cases.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Barclays’ appeal in the ‘LIBOR test case’ (Graiseley v Barclays), allowing claims that banks made fraudulent implied representations regarding LIBOR’s honesty to proceed to trial. The judgment rejects Barclays’ argument that there is no cause of action for failing to disclose dishonesty. The court held that banks proposing LIBOR-based transactions arguably represented the rate’s integrity. This ruling opens the door for LIBOR manipulation claims to be tried in court.
BBC Panorama featured LEXLAW as we helped expose a major bank swap scandal, with widespread mis-selling of complex derivatives to SMEs. Despite a Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) redress scheme reviewing nearly 30,000 cases, only 32 businesses had received payouts at the time of the report.