Charles Enderby Smith examines the role of the independent reviewer in the IRHP review
There has been an interesting development in the courts this year relating to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) instigated interest rate hedging product review, which may have significant consequences for any small business affected by the mis-sale of interest rate hedging products (IRHPs) over the last 15 years.
Judicial review
The administrative court has granted permission for the judicial review of a decision approved by KPMG not to award consequential loss to a claimant under the IRHP review agreed between Barclays Bank and the Financial Services Authority (now FCA) in 2013 (the review).
The application for permission was made by a nursing home operator, Holmcroft Properties Ltd, in relation to the conclusion of KPMG (acting as the independent reviewer of the review pursuant to an appointment under s 166 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000)) that the redress offered to Holmcroft in regard to IRHPs mis-sold by Barclays, was “appropriate, fair and reasonable”.
The application was resisted by KPMG, Barclays and the FCA.
Reminding himself
