Back to Blog

Advice for Unhappy Interest Rate Swap victims after FCA Review Scheme

By Associate, Group Litigation

We are now seeing more and more offers come in from the various banks admitting that the regulations which applied at the time of the sale were not adhered to and that as such, redress is owed. Clearly, this is welcome news for our clients.

Slater and Gordon has been successful in getting the vast majority of these products torn up, and where there was an obligation on the customer to hedge, replaced with a risk free cap.

However there are occasions when the banks have not produced the outcome a customer hoped for; either by deciding that there was no mis-sale, or by substituting with a vanilla version of the same product, or merely reducing the term; so what are your options?

Although there is no appeal process to the banks’ decisions into their own mis-selling (a fundamental flaw to the FCA Review Scheme) the banks will look at their decision in light of evidence which they have previously not been aware of. If there is anything you did not tell the bank, or if you simply trusted the bank to come to the proper conclusion without providing them with any information, then you might want to consider setting out in detail the events that occurred and ask them to reconsider the redress outcome in light of this new information.

Meetings with banks following the redress decision can be useful to understand how the bank came to the decision they did, but don’t expect them to be forums for negotiation, because they aren’t. Caution should be taken, however, as these meetings are typically ‘on the record’ and so can be used to possibly disadvantage you in any future litigation.

So assuming that you have exhausted the FCA Review Scheme, and as long as you are still within the 6 year limitation period from the date of sale of the swap (not the effective date which may be some time after the trade took place) you still have the option to litigate.

It is important to note that just because the bank determined that there was no mis-sale in the Review, it does not necessarily follow that a court would come to the same conclusion.
We are now working with leading barristers to bring court cases against the banks in situations where the bank has decided (incorrectly, in our view) that no mis-selling took place or has proposed unsuitable settlement terms under the Review.

If you haven’t got the outcome you were hoping for in the Review, speak to us about your prospects for litigation by calling freephone 0808 175 7793 or contact us online and we will call you.

Comments