Onside | Page 7

ONSIDE / BANKING Q & A  Q: Haven’t the banks settled most cases now? A: They are more receptive to settling small claims, but for the ones involving larger numbers they are far more obstructive and likely to offer alternative products as part of the so-called compensation offer.   Q: There was always a time limit on these claims, where are we on that spectrum? A: Deadlines for settling these claims are routinely missed by the banks, the last one passed in May 2014. We continue to receive new enquiries every week and continue to submit new claims to the banks, dating back as far as 2001. In summary the compensation scheme is still open to new claims and we have not been advised when it will “close”. In terms of cases that will need to be litigated, it is essential that claimants do not let their claims drift. Whilst there are always exceptions, a key date is six years from the day they entered the product, or to be even safer six years from when the bank commenced “advising” the customer to execute the swap. If these dates have passed all is not lost as there could be a “date of knowledge” argument. The best advice is to speak to a specialist in this area.     Q: Has the Financial Conduct Authority stood up to the banks on this issue? A: Yes and no. They did push through the compensation scheme, but the exclusions are wide and in our view unfair and they have failed to address these shortcomings. In addition, on numerous occasions the banks’ behaviour within the scheme has been highly questionable, such as offering a different swap as compensation for mis-selling a swap. In our view, the FCA has failed to tackle this.   Q: What about the companies in administration? A: This is a major area of contention particularly as the cost of the swap may have contributed to the demise of a company, which is often the view expressed by the relevant shareholders and directors. In these cases banks are usually setting off any compensation they otherwise would be paying to the company against their outstanding debt; they are effectively benefiting from the compensation as opposed to unsecured creditors or other stakeholders. Furthermore, they know there is generally no cash available to pursue litigation against the bank linked to a consequential loss claim which potentially could be very large in the case of an administration. In our opinion, they are not being held to account for companies that have entered administration due in part or entirely due to the cash pressure caused by the mis-sold swap.   Q: Are politicians on the side of businesses? A: In terms of addressing the shortcomings of the FCA scheme and the banks’ conduct within the scheme, certain MPs have been excellent in standing up for their constituents, such as Jack Straw in Blackburn. Others are clueless. As a body they could have done much more on this issue, whilst they continue to talk, the clock ticks down in the banks’ favour in terms of the time limits for being able to litigate cases, the banks are fully aware of this, the politicians haven’t acted fast enough, so clearly they haven’t understood the point. « The FCA did push through the compensation scheme – but the exclusions are wide and unfair. Banks’ behaviour has been highly questionable, such as offering a different swap in compensation. In our view the FCA has failed to tackle this. » 7