header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
07 June 2024 / Michael Brown , Harriet Campbell
Issue: 8074 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Consumer , Financial services litigation
printer mail-detail

Right to redress for bank customers?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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
Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll