The Royal Bank of Scotland had been waiting for the settlement to pay its first dividend since it was bailed out by the taxpayer. Royal Bank of Scotland has agreed to pay $4.9bn (£3.6bn) to settle a US Department of Justice (DoJ) probe into the mis-selling of mortgage-backed securities before the financial crisis.
The penalty, which was announced in principle in May, is the largest imposed by the DoJ for financial crisis-era misconduct.
"Many Americans suffered lasting economic harm as a result of the 2008 financial crisis," said acting associate attorney general Jesse Panuccio. "This settlement holds RBS accountable for serious misconduct that contributed to that financial crisis."
RBS, which remains 62.4% owned by the taxpayer, is not alone in paying to settle claims of mis-selling toxic debt. HSBC, Europe's biggest bank, agreed to pay $765m earlier this month and Barclays said it would pay $2bn in March.- Sky News Tuesday 14 August 2018.
IBAS Comment: We have now 'seen' how RBS GRG managers has been allowed to avoid any 'sanctions' in the UK - the FCA now implies that their hands are tied - can we take the FCA seriously any more?
What is obvious to me and many others, is that the various reports have been 'sanitized' to 'contain' and 'nullify' what was a continuous financial abuse of small and medium sized businesses. That financial abuse was concealed for many years under the FSA and FCA regulatory umbrella.
Most of the individuals who caried out those actions and abuse on SMEs continue to work in the banking industry - in fact most of the GRG staff are still involved in the bank's own business debt collection departments now. That means the 'bad apples are still in the barrel' - so how does that all work for the future?
In my view the various delays by the FCA and the 'engineered' reports do not take away the 'smell' of corrupt and out of control bankers, (reinforced by the DOJ's comments in the article above) who were deliberately targetting businesses some only potentially in distress for profit to the bank - by deliberately 'miss stating' the bank's intention - when restructuring was not the objectice at all. 'Miss stating' to me in these matters means 'fleecing', 'conning', 'cheating' and deliberately lying by the Bank's relationship manager's when forcing businesses into the GRG unit's clutches for that unit to then deliberately plunder their resources using futher misrepresentations to those businesses.
UK businesses deserve much better business representation than has been evident from this costly charade plus a more efficient regulator who will properly regulate and enforce on those who make the dangerous and costly banking decisions (i.e. PPI, SWAPS, RBS/GRG) which have then also cost so many businesses their future and often homes and families.- Eddy Weatherill – IBAS
Please note:We remove editorial links once we are aware they have ceased to function and remove content pages which may then be retained purely for our member's use and for IBAS research. Due to the large number of links over a number of years we would be grateful if those finding 'inactive' editorial links would email us - so that we can then remove them.
With the FCA emphasis appearing to be focussed on the larger and more complax business banking complaint 'cases' - the question of whether the Financial Ombudsman Service can be effective in managing/investigating or determining larger and more complex cases requires answering.
My comments made on 19th January 2011 now appear completely relevent to the 'debate'.
Seven years on from those comments IBAS has provided our input to the FCA on their DP15/7 The FCA Consultation on SME access to the Financial Ombudsman Service and feedback to DP15/7: SME as Users of Financial Services.
Our response to the FCA on 20th April 2018 outlines IBAS observations and current thinking on business banking dispute cases requiring an Independent Tribunal (not the FOS).
- on 19th January 2011 I wrote the following:
"Although the FSA has imposed some bank fines - if only as a reminder that there is a regulator of banks - the scale of the problem is truly immense and the damage created by banks and bankers equally immense. The banks have got away with no regulation for far too long and because they are now 'set in their ways' they require a severe shock - each and every time they break the rules - the banks need convincing by regulators that they cannot continue cheating their customers and if they do they will receive a severe dose of regulatory medicine in return. Only when bank customers can see hard evidence of banks and bankers being punished for their past activities ( of which some appear criminal) and for which all consumers are now paying a very heavy price, can the Financial Services industry start to rebuild consumer confidence in what they have to offer.
UK regulation is still not stopping banks from cheating customers. Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) for many bankers is just a joke phrase. The FSA (Note: this is now the FCA) needs to enforce the Principles 1 - 11 published as being the minimum standard which is now required of bankers - to much greater effect. Our experience on business banking case work is that a number of banks are still treating the complaints as they always have - ignore, deny, and 'fob off'. It will take many years of Regulation (at this pace) before the banking industry shows any sign of a return to true values of integrity and honesty.
Also, how does the Financial Ombudsman Service actually perform in this arena - Is it a banker's servant and too close to bankers? - Can the FOS investigate bank cases effectively? They have the tools, but do they have the desire or the brief to use those tools? More importantly are they allowed by the banks to do so? - Where is the link between the FSA and FOS so that the FOS passes cases which demonstrate the bank's lack of awareness or use of the FSA principles onto the FSA? We have seen no evidence that this connection either exists or that it is effective in any way. These questions are being asked now as we and many others question whether the banks manipulate too many entities for their financial benefit" - 20th May 2018 - Eddy Weatherill IBAS ceo
The programme suggested some staff with inadequate training or knowledge were making decisions on complaints. It also raised concerns that pressure to resolve cases quickly may have led to banks being wrongly favoured.
The review was announced after Nicky Morgan, who chairs the Commons Treasury Committee, wrote to Caroline Wayman, chief ombudsman and chief executive of the service. Ms Morgan said it was "troubling" that some cases may not have been decided correctly. - 23rd March 2018 - BBC Business News
A Dispatches undercover investigation at The Financial Ombudsman Service - found that staff with inadequate training or understanding of financial products are judging cases, with some having reached decisions in favour of the banks, without properly reading case files. This could mean hundreds of thousands of cases may need to be looked at again. NEARLY half a million PPI claims could have been wrongly rejected by the Financial Ombudsman Service. - 12th March 2018 at 8pm Channel 4 - Dispatches Undercover: Who’s Policing Your Bank?
Santander chief still earns £1.8m for role with toxic RBS unit, despite quitting controversial job three years ago- Santander's chief executive is being paid £1.8million a year for a job which oversaw a toxic unit at Royal Bank of Scotland – despite leaving the role four years ago. He gets the seven-figure sum to compensate him for bonuses which he gave up when he jumped ship from RBS. He joined RBS in 2009 as head of risk and restructuring. One part of the role was to oversee the Global Restructuring Group, which loaded struggling firms up with toxic fees. The scandal at GRG ran until 2013. The revelation will spark fury because the money relates to his time as head of risk and restructuring at RBS, a role in which he was responsible for overseeing its notorious Global Restructuring Group. He was paid £4.7million for running the bank last year according to its annual report. But the small print reveals he was also given £1.8million as a buy-out for RBS bonus awards which he lost when he was poached. It is the third such payment handed to him, meaning he has picked up £5.4million from the deal so far. It is understood he will receive one more £1.8million payment this year. Because the money is being paid by Santander, it is not subject to the clawback rules which would have applied at RBS – meaning it is not possible to recover the cash should doubts emerge about his conduct while working there. The married father of two, who lives on a farm in rural Kent, has faced questions sincehe was blamed in Parliament for failings at the GRG. A Santander spokesman said: ‘pay and bonus are agreed by our parent Santander Group and the Santander UK remuneration committee and board, based on performance which was evaluated as outstanding this year. The buyout is a contractual entitlement that was agreed when he was appointed to Santander UK.’ - 5th March 2018 - Mail Money
IBAS Comment: He got out of RBS at a very convenient time for him and at a time when GRG’s failings were being heavily publicized. Unfortunately, the primary instigators of the actions of the RBS/NatWest/GRG UK business plunderings are still at large (and some still not identified) but no doubt earning well. Santander, the UK arm of the Spanish finance giant, is trying to position itself as ‘the bank of choice for UK companies’. Its UK boss paid £4.5million last year, and its head of commercial banking held key roles at RBS at a time when it was found by an official report to have plundered small firms for fees. The irony of their position and others who remained at the bank (when viewed against the many GRG victims now seeking retribution or restitution) for overseeing what was a cynical plundering by RBS GRG of UK Businesses beggars belief. Of course, Santander and RBS do have a history of closeness and connected business dealings. GRG victims have not been so lucky and now face a bank still in denial with a regulator slowing down any action to prosecute those who were responsible for GRG’s deliberate and concerted actions against UK Businesses - Eddy Weatherill – IBAS
Lloyds TSB ‘bent own auditor rules’ - Bank shifted £800,000 out of PWC accounts, court documents claim. Lloyds TSB agreed to “remove” £800,000 of fees due to be paid to PWC from its 2008 accounts in order to avoid breaching internal rules governing auditor independence, according to documents revealed in a High Court battle. The bank indicated that it would move fees due for “independent business reviews” of troubled companies conducted by PWC to a previous accounting period so that it could keep awarding the accountancy firm lucrative work without breaching a £2 million limit imposed by Lloyds’ audit committee, internal emails suggest. - 8th March 2018 - The Times
IBAS Comment: Auditor Independence or rather the alleged lack of it and auditor’s ethical conflicts are currently in the spotlight following Carillion’s spectacular failure in the construction industry and an immediate ‘fall-out’ for the many companies who lost money sub contracting to Carillion and who may well go bust themselves. However, the cases of alleged lack of auditor’s independence and unethical actions and standards (as far as any reasonable persons would think) do start to mount and the ‘smell’ of money corruption pervades the atmosphere, growing year on year - although it still appears the regulators have yet to see it, hear it, smell it, or speak and do something about it. - Eddy Weatherill - IBAS
IBAS Comment: RBS published their profit in the same week as the GRG Report was finally published by the Treasury Select Committee. It is obvious that the GRG Report was ‘held back' by the FCA - I cannot see any other explanation than that was to assist the bank. The GRG Report made “tough reading” for RBS ceo. He says: "We just didn't look after them well enough" - Try, you didn’t look after them at all - that would be much more accurate. The great number of businesses thrown into chaos and destruction by RBS and NatWest using the GRG Unit is totally inexcusable. The Report now shows that RBS/GRG ‘rip off’ tactics were neither ‘turnaround’ nor TCF but an organized bank strategy which would destroy thousands of businesses (now well documented) who were ‘herded’, lied to and cruelly sent to business ‘hell’ for the bank to exploit for profit and finally destroy (in many cases) all for fat profits and bonuses (yes, they were paid bonuses as well). Some of those targeted businesses had merely complained about their business managers.
Whilst the RBS ceo may not be personally responsible for those decisions - others were formulating those decisions and coordinating a systematic financial exploitation of UK Businesses in a targeted, sustained, mass looting and asset theft. The individuals responsible for those crimes against UK Businesses should now be held fully accountable. The definition of theft is: ‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’.
It appears logical to many that the next actions against the RBS/NatWest GRG perpetrators (who thanks to the FCA have had another two years grace, whilst avoiding any responsibility) is that they face criminal prosecution/s. This debacle has a much wider value than the HBOS Reading fraud and has affected a great many more people and businesses - So, let’s see the RBS/NatWest GRG perpetrators ‘cut from the herd’ named and shamed and then properly dealt with - as until they are, this debacle will not be over. - 25th February 2018 - Eddy Weatherill - IBAS
The report for the Financial Conduct Authority from the specialist agency Promontory is commendably clear that accountability should go to the top.
The failings “were not" one-off staff errors.
Rather, GRG and RBS failed “to put in place the appropriate governance and oversight procedures”.
GRG management “was aware (or should have been aware) of these issues”.
There was “an intentional and co-ordinated strategy” to focus on GRG’s commercial objectives and to place “inadequate weight” on the interests of customers.
The Promontory report doesn’t point fingers at senior individuals, since that is the FCA’s job.
The regulator, which seems to have accepted the basic veracity of the report, must now complete its “focused” investigation as speedily as possible
.- 21st February 2018 - The Guardian
IBAS Comment: At last some common sense. Well done Nicky Morgan and her committee. The TSC have seen for themselves just how disgraceful RBS/GRG conduct was purely for profits. Numerous businesses have been ripped off - their owners and directors commercially and then personally financially destroyed (whilst feeling completely impotent) and purely because of profiteering and a rogue unit's 'secret agenda' - whilst the 'regulators' (and that includes the FOS who should have seen what was going on from the NatWest/RBS cases sent to them) sat firmly on their hands - another PPI type rip off finally exposed for what it was! Now - that mess needs clearing up. - 20th February 2018
The Treasury Committee set the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the deadline of 16 February to publish the skilled persons’ report (Section 166) into RBS’ treatment of small business customers in its Global Restructuring Group (GRG).
If they were unable to meet this deadline, the Committee ordered the FCA to send the report to the Committee by the same date. The FCA did not publish the report on 16 February, so therefore sent it to the Committee.
The Committee has today agreed to publish the final, unredacted report immediately.
Commenting on the publication, Mrs Morgan said:
"The findings in the report are disgraceful. The overarching priority at all levels of GRG was not the health and strength of customers, but the generation of income for RBS, through made-up fees, high interest rates, and the acquisition of equity and property.
The Committee has not taken the decision to publish lightly. Normally, reports prepared under section 166 are confidential, but there is overwhelming public interest in bringing transparency to what happened at GRG, given the earlier leak of the report, and in ensuring that everyone can see, and know that they are seeing, an authentic and verified copy of Promontory’s original report.
We have today published the terms of reference for our inquiry into SME finance. We’ll examine what must change to prevent what occurred at GRG from ever happening again, and how to restore confidence among SMEs in banks as a source of finance. I encourage all those with views to submit evidence.
As well as continuing to monitor the FCA’s further investigation into GRG, we’ll keep a close eye on RBS’ Complaints Process to determine whether it is providing the fair and reasonable compensation that has been promised to mistreated customers. Any person referred to in the report is invited to make any observations to the Committee." - 20th February 2018 - TSC
MPs use parliamentary privilege to publish report on 'disgraceful' RBS unit - The Treasury Committee cites "overwhelming public interest" in releasing the full report on the bank's treatment of small firms. MPs have taken the unusual step of using parliamentary privilege to publish a regulator's full report on Royal Bank of Scotland's controversial Global Restructuring Group (GRG).The Treasury Select Committee had demanded the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) publish, or hand over, the unredacted version by Friday last week. Only a limited summary had previously been disclosed. While the watchdog did comply, it still refused to publish the whole document it had commissioned, continuing to cite a lack of legal consents.The chair of the powerful committee, Nicky Morgan MP, confirmed on Tuesday that it had unanimously agreed to publish the document given "overwhelming" public interest.She described the findings as"disgraceful".- 20th February 2018 - Sky News
'Secret' report into RBS published - After months of wrangling, MPs have released a report by the financial regulator which said a unit of RBS mistreated thousands of small firms. The Global Restructuring Group (GRG) was marketed as an expert service that could save a business, but according to the report took "inappropriate" action. Nicky Morgan, chair of the Treasury Committee, said the findings in the report were "disgraceful". RBS said it was "deeply sorry" for its treatment of businesses in the GRG. The contents of the report were first disclosed by the BBC in August last year. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) had refused to publish the report, blaming legal reasons, but after a meeting, MPs on the Treasury Committee voted to publish it. Ms Morgan said MPs had not taken the decision to publish lightly, as normally such reports are confidential. However, she said there was an "overwhelming" public interest in its publication. "The findings in the report are disgraceful. The overarching priority at all levels of GRG was not the health and strength of customers, but the generation of income for RBS, through made-up fees, high interest rates, and the acquisition of equity and property," she said. The GRG operated from 2005 to 2013 and at its peak handled 16,000 companies. Companies were referred to it when they skipped a loan repayment or suffered a significant drop in sales or profits.- 20th February 2018 - BBC Business News
Santander bosses engulfed in RBS scandal fallout: Pair were overseeing controversial division that plundered troubled small firms for fees. The Mail on Sunday last week revealed damning details from a suppressed report into abuses of small firms by GRG, which was supposed to help troubled businesses back to health but preyed on them instead. Two of the senior managers overseeing GRG at the time are now at Santander – where they are trying to beef up the bank’s lending to small firms.
The Mail on Sunday last week revealed the findings of the report, which lifted the lid on RBS’s bullying and exploitation of its vulnerable customers. In one case bankers plotted to help themselves to the stock of a bankrupt shop. Another memo urged bankers to let some customers ‘hang themselves’.
The FCA could in theory decide that this pair are not ‘fit and proper’ people to hold senior roles in a British bank. The Promontory report carried a foreword by its chairman, who chaired the Financial Services Authority before the crisis.
In the foreword to the full report, he backs calls for an independent Ombudsman or Tribunal for small firms in conflict with their banks, for which The Mail on Sunday has been campaigning. He said small businesses should have ‘wider access to independent dispute resolution and redress’.
The Treasury select committee will this week decide whether to publish the full report into RBS in what could prove to be another parade of its worst failings. Once that is done, the real business of finding the bankers accountable for the behaviour will begin. - 17th February 2018 - Financial Mail on Sunday
City watchdog hands full report on RBS turnaround unit to MPs - MPs on the Treasury Committee will decide on Tuesday if they are to release the unredacted version using parliamentary privilege. Andrew Bailey's letter to Treasury Committee chair Nicky Morgan said: "I do want to make it clear that it is not our intention to frustrate or impede the work of the committee, quite the reverse in fact, and with that in mind we are providing the report as required.”
While he has previously pleaded the full report should not be placed in the pubic domain - at least not yet - the committee is to meet on Tuesday to decide its next move. Mrs Morgan said: "At that meeting, I will be asking members to agree to publish the final, unredacted report under parliamentary privilege as soon as possible." - 16th February 2018 - Sky News Business
IBAS Comment: Having now seen the Full Report, we understand the FCA's desire to withold it (and they continued to do so).
Hopefully, the Treasury Select Committee will now release the S166 Report for everybody to digest, as there is no doubt that RBS/GRG was a rogue outfit with a profit centre - plundering UK businesses who had the audacity to even question or complain about the bank's service or fees in any way (as that 'complaint' was enough for RBS or NatWest to transfer their customer's accounts into GRG).
FCA as Regulator for banking does not come through this debacle with any credibility, nor does the failure evidenced increase confidence in the FCA. The reverse is the case as 'common sense' and conduct issues appears to have been sadly lacking. IBAS was aware of the RBS and NatWests desire to use complaints as a 'platform for plundering' by GRG many years ago and if we were aware of it - that should also have been apparent to the FOS, had they looked deeply enough or investigated the RBS NatWest business complaints they received.
Now it's been documented by Promontory and'signed off' maybe, the FCA and Government will take this matter more seriously. RBS NatWest GRG deceptions were carried on for far too long, without intervention or any actions by the regulator, despite the lack of any TCF by GRG (as has now been documented by Promontory). The FOS has not proved capable of business banking investigations and the FOS further failure in this debacle may also be due to the numbers of ex bank employees who also have bank pensions with bank allegiances within the FOS 'system'.
UK businesses deserve better and now require an Independent Tribunal not the FOS.- 18th February 2018 - Eddy Weatherill - IBAS
The FCA comments after the RBS GRG review were that it (the review) also recommended that small businesses are given more protection in their largely unregulated dealings with banks which "highlighted a gap in support for smaller businesses with genuine grievances about business banking conduct issues that could benefit from impartial assessment and quick resolution".
FCA chief executive said it was investigating the report and "focussing on whether there is any basis for further action within our powers".
He also pointed to the lack of regulation under which it (The FCA) might act and said: "Commercial lending activity is largely unregulated in the UK, and there are no 'conduct of business' rules against which to assess GRG's treatment of SME customers.
"We expect high standards from the firms we regulate, but we cannot set or enforce these high standards in areas of unregulated activity carried on by these firms.
"The FCA will make a constructive contribution if invited to do so by lawmakers but ultimately it is for Parliament to consider and approve recommendations about widening our statutory remit."
So, the Government, who effectively owns 70% of this bank and already knows the review has been delayed (repeatedly) and ʻsanitizedʼ to allow RBS to reorganise and to dilute the claims against it (whilst the customers destroyed by this bank are left to wither, wait and die) again allows this bank to continue to deceive itʼs customers and the Treasury Select Committee members, even when the bank has been caught with its ʻhands in the customers pocketsʼ (repeatedly) and many businesses have already ʻdiedʼ and also been dissolved.
Back in that sunny summer of 2014, there was some really strong live sport on for financial journalists. It was the infamous appearanc of RBS/GRG's two senior managers, on Tuesday 17th Jun at the Treasury Select Committee (TSC). (Q526 to Q656 on RBS/GRG)
One helped to identify which businesses were ripe for harvest:- It will be formed by a combination of the relationship manager who will see an event, some deterioration in business performance, a particular contract that is lost, excessive use of overdraft, excessive limits, behaviour that is generally— [interruption]
It would be very easy to blame the senior managers, but the culture is carried out by the boots on the ground. In fact, another bank, HBOS, took the decidedly cowardly option of blaming “bad apples” / “boots on the ground” on the Reading Six fiasco which resulted in criminal convictions and porridge for their staff. - P.C. Dettmann - Z Review - 9th August 2017
The Overall Business Principles 1-11 published by the FSA Handbook (as excerpt shown below) stated:
The FSA have 11 Principles which are general statements of the main regulatory obligations that apply to every authorised firm. The Principles set out in simple terms the high level standards that all firms must meet.
If your firm contravenes one or more of the Principles, it could face enforcement action, this could, for example, result in your firmʼs authorisation being removed.
It is vital that you are aware of these Principles and ensure your firm implements them and continually reviews that these standards are being maintained.
The FSA has a wide range of powers at its disposal to enforce adherence to the principles including withdrawal of approval for regulated businesses, prohibition of individuals, interventions, fines, public censures and private warnings.
FSA Principles of Business
1. Integrity - A firm must conduct its business with integrity.
2. Skill, care and diligence - A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence.
3. Management and control - A firm must take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems.
4. Financial prudence - A firm must maintain adequate financial resources.
5. Market conduct - A firm must observe proper standards of market conduct.
6. Customersʼ interests - A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.
7. Communications with clients - A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.
8.Conflicts of interest - A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client.
9. Customers: relationships of trust - A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgement.
10. Clientsʼ assets - A firm must arrange adequate protection for clientsʼassets when it is responsible for them.
11. Relations with regulators - A firm must deal with its regulators in an open and co-operative way and must disclose to the FSA anything relating to the firm of which the FSA would reasonably expect notice.
The FCA ʻtook overʼ Banking Regulation in 2012 from the FSA and the FSA Principles were then adopted by the FCA - but where is the evidence of RB STreating Customers Fairly now - where is the evidence of the Conduct result from the “more intrusive supervision on conduct issues, and a more cohesive assessment of conduct issues and risks to fair treatment of customers posed by the firm.” - with regards RBS and GRG?
The FCA now reflects on: “whether there is any basis for further action within our powers” and “pointed to the lack of regulation under which it (The FCA) might act”.
Does the FCA not consider that RBS and GRG's institutional deception and thefts from the many UK Businesses has breached the very core of the Overall Business Principles 1-11? on which the ʻFSA has a wide range of powers at its disposal to enforce adherence to the principles including withdrawal of approval for regulated businesses, prohibition of individuals, interventions, fines, public censures and private warnings.ʼ - that comment (as published by the FSA handbook) applied to the FSA at that time - surely the FCA must have a much wider remit now?
Exactly how much more evidence does the FCA require to do something of any merit for UK Business to protect them from further banking abuses?
Having seen a good number of RBS cases since RBS Specialised Lending Services was replaced by GRG around 1992 - the editorial 3 Years On RBS GRG - Where Are They Now? is a fair comment on what IBAS know was ‘direct targeting’ of businesses by the RBS and where bonuses were used to encourage RBS managers to ‘drive’ businesses into GRG’s clutches. By ‘introducing’ GRG the bank knew they could immediately exploit that position and impose much higher interest rates, costs and fees and also effectively ‘take over’ the business.
This process became systemic as profits rolled in for the bank. GRG inflicted higher interest rates, costs and exorbitant fees immediately on businesses where they were ‘introduced’ and those higher charges and fees were ‘taken’ without notice, despite protestations about ‘cash flow’ being eroded. GRG actions proved in the end to be for the benefit of the bank in short term profiteering whilst many businesses were driven into insolvency.
Insolvency of the business then meant that business assets and property could be ‘taken’ cheaply by the bank to exploit the then distressed assets.
There is no doubt in our mind that Britain’s banks have made profit from distress or that the issues raised by GRG cases (along with the issues of SWAPS and PPI compensations) evidence a systematic plundering of UK business by the UK Banking Sector.
RBS misinformation and denial of information to it’s business customers has also been an ongoing and repetitive issue which IBAS has observed in case files since the launch of RBS GRG.
There is no doubt from the many case files seen over time that GRG was used (and that may well be evidenced in the full report when it is published) to ‘push ‘ vulnerable businesses ‘over the edge’ and that GRG was deliberately levying excessive fees and additional ‘fictional’ costs (which were not justified or properly documented) onto businesses whilst the customer was also repeatedly deceived by RBS and GRG staff into believing that they were going to be ‘saved’ by GRG.
The word ʻunregulatedʼ appears to be used as an excuse by the FCA whilst the FCA continue doing nothing for UK Businesses - when they are already aware that UK Businesses have been faced with ʻmafia typeʼ business practices and profiteering which go back to when GRG was formed and that other banks (seeing the success of GRG on increased profits for RBS) have copied and adopted the RBS GRG methods.
Wake up FCA - enough of the time wasting - act now - before the FCA gathers even more contagion from the RBS GRG deceptions- 15th February 2018 - Eddy Weatherill - IBAS
• Senior GRG managers were at the heart of a plan to plunder small firms for cash
• A release of emails show 'an undue focus by management on fee generation'
An official report into RBS's Global Restructuring Group found emails that put senior managers at the heart of a plan to plunder small firms for cash.
The FCA report's authors, financial research firm Promontory, said they made a decision early on in their review to look at appraisals of staff.
'This followed the release of various emails suggesting an undue focus by management on fee generation early in the relevant period,' the full unpublished report says.
An official report into RBS's Global Restructuring Group found emails that put senior managers at the heart of a plan to plunder small firms for cash.
The finding that priority was being given to squeezing fees out of customers, who they should have been helping back to financial health was included in a previous summary of the report.
But, in a highly significant omission, separate conclusions that management knew or should have known of the issue were excised from the published FCA summary.
The full Promontory dossier contains copious detail on reports produced for the GRG board.
These 'board packs' had a greater focus on financial considerations than on 'returning customers to satisfactory' – in other words, they paid more attention to making money for for the bank than on saving firms. - 11th February 2018 This is Money News
The FCA has said its investigation is almost complete and a decision on whether to take action could be announced within weeks. - 11th February 2018 This is Money News
FCA given deadline to publish RBS report - RBS's restructuring arm is accused of intentionally pushing small businesses towards failure to pick up their assets cheaply. The City watchdog has been given a deadline to publish its report into RBS's controversial Global Restructuring Group.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has been criticised for delaying the release of the report, which looks into allegations that the bank - still more than 70% taxpayer owned - mistreated small business customers. Only a summary has been published so far, although the full version has been leaked to the media and some MPs.
Treasury Select Committee chair Nicky Morgan has called on FCA chief executive, to publish the report or send a full copy to the committee by 16 February. Mrs Morgan said: "A version of the report is in the hands of third parties, it has been selectively reported by the media, and it may enter the public domain at any time.
"The FCA has lost control over the timing or content of further public disclosures from it. "For these reasons, the committee has requested that the FCA publish the final definitive version of the report, or send it to the committee, by Friday 16 February.
The FCA said publishing the report without the legal checks sets a worrying precedent and he asked MPs not to do so using their parliamentary privilege. An interim summary of the review, published by the FCA, found 92% of potentially viable businesses that went into GRG had "experienced some inappropriate actions".
The FCA is also conducting a further investigation into RBS, which the FCA described as "well advanced" and weeks away from a conclusion. - 7th February 2018 Sky News
Revealed: State-backed RBS's role in collapse of Carillion - The taxpayer-backed Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) tightened the terms of its funding to the stricken Government contractor Carillion three days before it was forced to call in liquidators. According to the witness statement, RBS informed Carillion last Friday that it wanted the company to pre-fund supplier payments made through the bank, which meant it would need to make those payments two days earlier than cashﬂow forecasts had assumed.
He said this negatively impacted Carillion's liquidity by between £2m and £20m. RBS, he added, insisted that this revised arrangement "would be in place until support from [the Government] had been agreed and that the terms of this support would determine whether other uncommitted facilities with RBS would be withdrawn".
RBS is not the only lender to Carillion singled out in the witness statement.
Santander UK, another member of the committee of Carillion's biggest lenders, caused panic among the lending syndicate on 21 December by writing to the construction giant's suppliers notifying them of immediate changes to an Early Payment Facility (EPF) with the bank. "The company relied upon that EPF in order to assist it making payments to its suppliers," Mr Cochrane said. - 16th January 2018 - Sky News
Carillion was left with just £29m before going bankrupt - Carillion was in talks with the government since October as part of a desperate bid to stave off collapse, according to the chief executive. He says the construction giant was left with just £29m in cash by the time it went bust on Monday.
Until the last moments, directors still believed a rescue was possible, but banks became more demanding, he said.
The details are included in a document he has prepared as part of the insolvency process. - 17th January 2018 BBC Business News
Eddy Weatherill says:"2018 - New Year - New Threat to Construction and services. The collapse of Carillion will also mean the collapse of a great number of small business suppliers to Carillion in the construction and service industry sectors, as their business bankers put pressure on them to pay their company debts, created by Carillion's lack of payment and subsequent insolvency. Small businesses/SME's will now be placed under very severe bank pressure/s for payment of bank guarantees/Directors Personal Guarantees and bank mortgages".
Independent Banking Advisory Service (IBAS) - launched in 1992 as a specialist unincorporated business banking membership organization assisting bank customers with UK business banking account loan disputes and business banking debt disputes with their bank. Our analysis and investigation of business bank loans, bank accounts, banking contracts, business banking account facilities and banking debt recovery information has been instrumental in our member's success.
IBAS business banking dispute negotiating experience has a proven strategy which provides claims and defences for business bank customers. IBAS has excellent banking investigation reputation and has featured on BBC TV, BBC TV News, ITV, Meridian and Sky News and contributed to editorials and articles for the Sunday Times, Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Daily Mirror.
IBAS has featured on BBC TV, BBC TV News, ITV, Meridian and Sky News and contributed to many editorials and articles including those for the Sunday Times, Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Daily Mirror.