Skip to main content

July 3, 2022

Volume XII, Number 184

National Law Review
  • Login
  • FB
  • twt
  • link
  • home
  • rss
Advertisement
  • logo
  • Publish / Advertise with Us
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Join Our Team
    • Search
  • Trending Legal News
    • Most Recent
    • Legal News Podcast
    • What's Trending
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • NLR Blog
    • Search
  • About Us
    • About the NLR
    • NLR Team
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • NLR Thought Leadership Awards
      • 2018
      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Search
  • Contact Us
    • Contact Us
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Search
  • Quick Links
    • Legal News Podcast
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Search
  • ENEWSBULLETINS

 

New Articles
Bottom Row Image
Advertisement

July 03, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • You Heard it Here: The Word THE is Now a Registered Trademark, Owned... by: Jeanne Hamburg
  • Proposed Amendments to the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure by: Joshua D. Dunlap
  • Even a Non-Competing Side-Business Can Be Problematic for a Minority... by: David C. Roberts

July 02, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • Cal/OSHA Standards Board’s Draft COVID-19 Prevention Regulation... by: Ursula L. Clemons and Karen Tynan
  • Five Things You Need To Know About Communications Law Compliance in... by: Francesco Liberatore and Kristin L. Bryan
  • Key Takeaways from U.S. Supreme Court Decision in West Virginia v. EPA by: Eric L. Christensen and Brook J. Detterman

July 01, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • California Court of Appeal Reaffirms Broad Inspection Rights Accorded... by: John P. Stigi III
  • Class Action Trends Report: Other Class Action Developments by: Mia Farber and David R. Golder
  • Intellectual Property & Health Need to Know France & Europe... by: Laura Morelli and Charles de Raignac
  • Corporate Bad Behavior Is Not Dischargeable Under Subchapter V by: Lance P. Martin
  • Beltway Buzz, July 1, 2022 by: James J. Plunkett
  • Hair Ye! Hair Ye! Illinois Enacts the CROWN Act to Prohibit Hair... by: Katharine G. Shaw and Charlotte F. Franklin
  • New York Construction Wage Theft Law: Prime Contractors Responsible... by: Richard Greenberg and Poonam Sethi
  • The “Major Questions Doctrine”: Another Tool to Challenge Tax... by: Andrew R. Roberson and Kevin Spencer
  • West Hollywood Employers Now Must Provide 96 Hours of Paid Time Off... by: Mark Theodore and Dixie M. Morrison
  • Illinois CROWN Act Expands Human Rights Law to Ban Race-Related Hair... by: Paul Patten and Marlo Johnson Roebuck
  • Community Association Building Blocks – How to Retain Financing for... by: Justin M. Lewis
  • Nevada Supreme Court Holds Initiative To Be Unus Et Idem by: Keith Paul Bishop
  • Emerging Construction Legal Trends and Issues on Employment Front:... by: Kristina H. Vaquera and H. Matthew Blasko
  • SEC Solicits Comments on Whether Index Providers, Model Portfolio... by: Peter J. Shea and Richard F. Kerr
  • Looking into workplace investigations, Part 12 – reporting fit for... by: David Whincup
  • Heightened Written Description Standard for Negative Limitations? by: Mandy H. Kim
  • DAOn’t Assume Unvested Tokens Are SAFT… or Safe by: Jonathan E. Schmalfeld and Daniel L. McAvoy
  • Germany’s Energy Price Allowance Payments for Employees—What... by: Jacqueline Piran
  • Multi-factor Authentication for Law Firms 101 by: Bill4Time
  • SCOTUS Raises the Bar for Proof of Intent Under the Controlled... by: D. Jacques Smith and Randall A. Brater
  • In an 8 to 1 US Supreme Court Decision, Employers With California... by: Robert K. Carrol and Noah M. Woo
  • Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increasing to $14 on July 1 by: David R. Golder
  • FDA Webinar on Genome-Edited Animals for Food Use by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman
  • Law Firm Marketing: Mid-Year Best Practices to Boost ROI by: PracticePanther
  • 11 Ways to Build Your Brand and Business During the Summer by: Stefanie M. Marrone
  • OFSI Fines UK Company for Financial Sanctions Breach by: Jo Rickards and Annabel Thomas
  • Directors' Duties Under English Law — How to Lead in Difficult... by: Sonya Van de Graaff and Prav Reddy
  • Stolen Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being used to apply... by: Peter Vogel
  • San Francisco Ordinance Requires Employers to Provide Paid Public... by: Lowell B. Ritter
  • NYDFS Imposes Fine of $5 Million on Carnival for Cybersecurity... by: Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Yesterday the Supreme Court confirmed we can have exactly the... by: Jeffrey R. Porter
  • Sixth Circuit Affirms First Amendment Protections for University... by: Matthew High and William S. Cook
  • Health Canada Issues Front-Of-Pack Labeling Regulation by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman
  • Supreme Court Decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health... by: Erica J. Kraus and Justine F. Lei
  • SCOTUS Holds That Coach was Wrongly Disciplined for Prayer After... by: Jason S. Long and Jacob A. Manning
  • Supreme Court Requires Clear Congressional Authority for GHG... by: Jane E. Montgomery and David M. Loring
  • Winds of Change: Proposed Revisions to Japan’s Offshore Wind Public... by: Jared Raleigh and William Wu
  • Implications of West Virginia v. EPA on Proposed SEC Climate Rules by: Jacob H. Hupart
  • Connecticut Update: Recreational Marijuana, Captive Audience Meetings... by: William C. Ruggiero and Garrick D. Josephs
  • The Energizer - Volume 103 by: Buck B. Endemann and Molly K. Barker
  • UPDATE: Washington, D.C. Universal Paid Leave Increases Will Begin... by: Nathaniel M. Glasser and Ann Knuckles Mahoney

Article By

Garon Anthony
Mariyam Harunah

Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
UK Finance Disputes and Regulatory Investigations Blog
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP law firm

Related Practices & Jurisdictions


  • Financial Institutions & Banking
  • Administrative & Regulatory
  • Corporate & Business Organizations
  • ADR / Arbitration / Mediation
  • United Kingdom
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • Download PDF
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Tweet
Advertisement

Business Banking Resolution Service Launches New Dispute Resolution Pilot for Larger SMEs: a New Financial Ombudsman Service?

Wednesday, November 6, 2019

On 1 November 2019, the Business Banking Resolution Service (“BBRS”) launched a new dispute resolution pilot in preparation for the introduction of its new service, which was originally announced in November 2018 by UK Finance, a trade body for British lenders.

The service aims to provide alternative dispute resolution services for “larger” eligible small and medium sized enterprises (“SMEs”) and participating banks, in order to deliver what is said to be stronger and fairer outcomes.

The full BBRS launch will be in early 2020 with a limited, live pilot scheme currently active for selected complaints.

What is BBRS?

BBRS is made up of a variety of business groups and financial institutions. The aim of the group is to resolve disputes between eligible SMEs in the UK and participating banks.

Seven major banks have agreed to participate in the new service, including RBS Group, HSBC, Barclays and Santander UK plc, more may decide to join in the future. These banks will fund the BBRS although it is independently operated, managed and governed. The identity of the BBRS’ full board and Chief Adjudicator will be announced in the next few weeks.

Eligible SMEs are those with a turnover of between £6.5 million and £10 million, and a balance sheet of up to £7.5 million. So the service aims to cover those SMEs who may not be eligible to present their complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”). The FOS it only covers SMEs with an annual turnover of less than £6.5 million following the jurisdictional increase for eligibility which was effective 1 April 2019 – see our blog post).

BBRS was specifically set up in response to the Simon Walker Review into the complaints and ADR landscape for the UK’s SME market in October 2018. That report sought to understand the difficulties SMEs are faced with when trying to resolve banking disputes, particularly in the aftermath of the Financial Crisis. It provided recommendations on alternative fair and effective routes for SMEs to challenge banks without going to Court.

In response to the Walker review, UK Finance set out a number of proposals to help strengthen the dispute process. Those proposals included:

  • Creation of a new dedicated SME division, under governance of the FOS and within its legal framework. The division should handle all eligible disputes from small businesses and microenterprises.

  • Establishment of an expert advisory panel (chaired by a retired judge) to provide high-level guidance and expertise on technical banking and legal issues arising in complex banking disputes.

  • Establishment of a separate voluntary business ombudsman scheme to consider historic disputed between SMEs and their banks following the Financial Crisis (which have not previously been eligible for other forms of alternative dispute resolution).

How will BBRS work?

The service will help SMEs determine what information is needed to submit a complaint, and will allow BBRS to act as a resolution conduit between the business and the bank. SMEs will have to complain to their bank first before going to the BBRS. It will also seek to achieve a resolution at the earliest possible stage via a number of informal approaches between the two parties. All of this is of course not very different from the FOS’ method of operation.

The BBRS says that it will review complaints in accordance with its five key principles:

  1. Independent: delivering independent decisions on complaints.

  2. Fair: review all relevant evidence and arrive at an outcome that is fair and reasonable for both parties.

  3. Timely: resolve complaints in a timely manner.

  4. Transparent: transparent about the process and how decisions were reached.

  5. Accessible: maintain approachability and no fees.

UK Finance believes that once the pilot is fully operational, 99% of SMEs will have access to either the BBRS or the FOS and 60,000 customers could be eligible for the review of historic cases.

Comment

Further forms of ADR in the financial services industry are to be broadly welcomed as they can reduce the cost, time and stress for all participants in fighting disputes through the Courts. They alos reduce the burden on an already stretched Court system

In many ways the FOS has proven to be a successful, and popular, form of ADR, albeit that it is sometimes criticised by firms for a fairly rough and ready approach to justice and in recent times it has been overwhelmed by PPI complaints. So if the BBRS is basing itself on the FOS then it may find itself very busy within months of it launch.

The BBRS may then prove to be useful for resolving disputes in a fair and reasonable way for business that are too large to access the FOS, but which may still struggle with fighting claims through the Courts

The BBRS’ detailed rules are still awaited and it is not clear whether there will be a financial cap on its jurisdiction (the FOS has a limit on the compensation that it can award of £350,000). So this is still very much a case of watch this space for more developments in 2020.

 

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLPNational Law Review, Volume IX, Number 310
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • Download PDF
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

You Heard it Here: The Word THE is Now a Registered Trademark, Owned by Two Parties
By
Norris McLaughlin P.A.
Proposed Amendments to the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure
By
Pierce Atwood LLP
Even a Non-Competing Side-Business Can Be Problematic for a Minority Shareholder
By
Norris McLaughlin P.A.
Cal/OSHA Standards Board’s Draft COVID-19 Prevention Regulation Scheduled to Take...
By
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Garon Anthony Litigation Attorney Squire Patton Boggs Birmingham, UK
Garon Anthony
Partner

Garon is a partner in the Litigation Practice Group. He advises clients across the full range of commercial dispute issues, including cyber liability/data breach, professional negligence, banking, pensions and insurance.

Garon regularly acts for clients who are subject to investigations or disciplinary proceedings by national and international regulators, including most recently the Financial Conduct Authority, the Financial Reporting Council and the Dubai Financial Services Authority.

Related Services

  • Litigation
  • Data Privacy & Cybersecurity
  • ...
garon.anthony@squirepb.com
44 121 222 3507
www.squirepattonboggs.com
www.squirepattonboggs.com/en/blogs
Mariyam Harunah
Mariyam Harunah Financial Services Litigation Attorney Squire Patton Boggs Birmingham, UK
Associate

Mariyam regularly acts for a diverse client base, including, SMEs, FTSE 100 and 250 corporations, public bodies, developers, insurers and individuals.

Mariyam has experience advising on a wide range of matters of both a contractual and tortious nature, including breach of contract, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, defamation, professional negligence, debt recovery and insurance.

mariyam.harunah@squirepb.com
44 121-222-3175
www.squirepattonboggs.com
www.squirepattonboggs.com/en/blogs
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
National Law Review
  • Antitrust Law
  • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
  • Biotech, Food, & Drug
  • Business of Law
  • Election & Legislative
  • Construction & Real Estate
  • Environmental & Energy
  • Family, Estates & Trusts
  • Financial, Securities & Banking
  • Global
  • Health Care Law
  • Immigration
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Insurance
  • Labor & Employment
  • Litigation
  • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
  • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
  • Tax
  • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
  • Coronavirus News
  • Law Student Writing Competition
  • Sign Up For NLR Bulletins
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • FAQs

 

As a woman owned company, The National Law Review is a certified member of the Women's Business Enterprise National Council

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317.  If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC