header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Right to redress for bank customers?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
07 June 2024 / Michael Brown , Harriet Campbell
Issue: 8074 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Consumer , Financial services litigation
printer mail-detail
176259
Banks have new duties to protect consumers —so why can’t consumers sue for breach, ask Michael Brown & Harriet Campbell
  • Considers the new duties on banks, the apparent policy shift away from the private right of action, and looks at the potential consequences for both consumers and financial institutions.

Fairness to consumers and the integrity of the financial markets underpin the new duties being imposed on financial institutions in 2024. But is it fair that a consumer can only seek redress for breach from an ombudsman and not the court? And why can’t consumers have a private right of action for breach of these duties when such a right exists for breaches of other Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) rules?

The Consumer Duty & the reimbursement rules

The Consumer Duty came into force for most financial products in July 2023, and by July 2024 will be fully in force. The duty is intended to promote fairness and is ‘outcomes-based’. But if the outcome is not what

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Sports disputes practice launchedwith partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

Tax and succession planning offering expands with returning partner

NEWS
Read All
Who’s on the 2026 silk list?
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
NLJ this week: When your brain signs the contract
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
NLJ this week: Comparators—how close is close enough?
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
NLJ this week: Domicile—more than where you live
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
NLJ this week: Police, contempt and the rule of law
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll