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 Civil and Family Proceedings (Amendment) Fees Order has been approved in the House of Lords. This massively increases the court issue fee to £10,000 from £1,920 (raised last year from £1,670).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.