Client emails to be evidence in mis-selling claims
Emails between bank staff and owners of small businesses who bought interest-rate hedging contracts will be evidence in mis-selling claims totalling up to £1bn, the Gazette can reveal.
Norton Accord, the company that has secured funds to launch up to 4,000 cases, said that client emails are among the criteria it is using to assess the strength of optional claims.
Meanwhile, claimant lawyers have accused some banks of deploying ‘strong-arm tactics’ against customers who have raised mis-selling of hedging contracts as an issue.
Chris Hale of Bracewell Law, whose firm is advising clients on funded claims arising from hedging contracts, told the Gazette banks were taking a ‘tough line’. ‘Where clients are raising mis-selling as an issue, it seems to be a tactic – banks are not above withdrawing facilities from those customers,’ he said.
Hale also accused the banks of delaying tactics, such as ‘providing transcripts and emails in their possession as late in the process as they can’. The ability to fund cases has been important, he added, where banks might ‘rely on our clients running out of money’.
Paul Crawford, director of Norton Accord, said he expects banks ‘to draw these cases out, but then settle before they reach court’. Norton Accord panel solicitors will issue the first proceedings in the next seven weeks, with each case expected to last 12-18 months.
Comments
Client emails
Why wouldn't they be in evidence, if they're discosable documents?
Strong Arm Tactics
That is quite amusing. Claimant lawyers accusing banks of deploying strong arm tactics against customers.
Naturally they may well be right - but .........pot calling the kettle black?
Bank-Customer emails, tape recordings and strong arm tactics
All bank to customer emails and indeed letters and audio recordings (deal calls must be recorded) are evidence of the sale process and so vital documents in a mis-selling claim. They are obtainable under the standard disclosure provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 part 31.6. These documents are also obtainable pre-action by way of subject access request under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Litigation in this arena is growing (we have issued multiple claims for clients in the last two weeks including a protective issue to avoid the client's claims running out of time). The bank's responses to complaints, SAR disclosure requests and even litigation are often strong-armed. We have been alarmed at some mis-selling settlements clients say they were (historically) coerced into agreeing. We have recently advised clients on the legal routes with which to set aside such settlements dependant on a full review of the bank's conduct in and around negotiations.
Alleged Mis-selling
I suppose that's fair enough if the allegations in your cases are proven and it is true that mis-selling of financial products was very common and perhaps still is. But I do have one or two reservations about claims which are brought on mass in these situations. Can you elaborate on how these clients came to you? I have heard of a few examples (often involving claims management companies) where complainants seem to have been approached and complaints generically manufactured. In some cases no financial product was actually sold which suggests that no investigation was carried out into the merits of the claims by the CMC.
I would imagine you would not take the risk of issuing a claim which lacked merit so naturally would investigate each case individually. However, it would be interesting to know a bit more and the type of product involved here.
Re: Alleged Mis-selling
The above commenter is correct that it is imperative to assess each case individually by doing a full investigation of the sale process and to compare the same to the FSA Conduct of Business Sourcebook. We do not usually (save to avoid limitation) commence litigation without having done an individual case assessment.
These are not low value and non-complex claims (such as PPI mis-sells) and it is therefore vital to ensure the right (and experienced) legal and expert team are deployed in cases of this nature especially given the likely bank response and the resources (read legal minds) at the bank's disposal.
We have not accepted any cases from Claims Management Companies.