LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
The Court of Appeal recently analysed a swap mis-selling complaint submitted by the Claimant under the FCA Dispute Resolution scheme (“DISP”), which complaint would stop time running for the purposes of a making a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”).
The High Court has dismissed a claim against Lloyds Bank alleging the bank’s failure to respond to an individual’s data subject access requests (“DSAR”) following possession proceedings.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group (“APPG”) have submitted a lengthy complaint to the SRA against Herbert Smith Freehills, legal advisers to Lloyds Banking Group during the lender’s compensation review scheme in relation to fraud at HBOS. The scheme is due to reopen following Sir Ross Cranston’s report that Lloyds’ original customer review had ‘serious shortcomings’.
From 1 April 2019, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) can make awards against regulated firms of up to £350,000, which represents an increase of 133%. The following award…
Ali Akram and Jaron Dosanjh attended Parliament on LEXLAW’s behalf at the New City Agenda Event, Tuesday 10th July 2018, Committee Room 14, House of Commons
The door has been opened by the Court of Appeal in PAG v RBS [2018] for misrepresentation claims to be brought by a counter-party to a derivative which…
The Times Brief reports that we have launched an online petition in an attempt to apply public pressure on banks to settle compensation claims for financial product mis-selling.…
Major banks and other financial services institutions are often in dispute with customers who deserve protection. Access to court is costly. The FOS ombudsman scheme is inadequate. The…
RBS has been accused of deliberately destroying small businesses In the past five years, LexLaw has issued more High Court litigation over bank misconduct than all other law…
The Court of Appeal has allowed WW Property Investments Ltd to appeal against NatWest over mis-sold interest rate derivatives and the negligent conduct of the IRHP review. This landmark decision challenges banks’ redress offers and recognition of consequential losses, encouraging affected customers and SME victims to seek legal advice for potential claims. The ruling could impact limitation periods and existing non-advisory defenses employed by banks, with major implications for financial services litigation and previous IRHP Review outcomes.