>>> The Hunger Strike by RBS four-nation people, three males and one female, in solidarity with CYBG and Lloyds Remediation Support Groups (and Danske), from 26th August, is suspended until the week commencing Monday 23rd September. <<<

 

>>> UPDATE: Now suspended until 1st November. <<<

RBS Remediation Support Group is set up to assist Members in obtaining recompense for damage to their businesses by RBS.

 

RBS Share Price as at dates below.

Tuesday 01 October 2013 – 357 p per share (Current CEO appointed).
Friday 27 August 2018 – 363 p per share

Monday 12 August 2019 – 246 p per share (-48%)
Tuesday 27 August 2019 – 185 p per share
Check the current share price here. (opens in a new window)

CEO designate Ms Alison Rose – 1st November 2019

Let’s not forget the National Audit Office reports that UK taxpayers in financial crisis, 2008 +

31 March 2018 - RBS peak and outstanding financial support

 

Victoria Inn Peckham sold undervalue by RBS

@JohnGlenUK Sort your bloody bent bankers out. Or move over for a MP man enough to do your job. Victim suicides and kids self harming is too far.

@kevinhollinrake @APPGbanking @sajidjavid @CYBGHungrStrike @fortfield @JimShannonMP @jameshurley @Ian_Fraser @VictoriaLIVE @TheFCA https://t.co/1TzpjM6NRl

@TeresaJeavons refused appeal to postpone Promontoria's actions against them tomorrow despite ill health. Terri has clinical depression, Joe, poor health, admitted to hospital yesterday - suspected heart attack. Maybe Judge will agree for him to conduct defence from hospital bed?

I have been through every rotten, corrupt review. We need an independent inquiry to see the real ruthless culture of banks. The BBRS is another vile attempt to get rid of the SME’s fighting for justice. Bankers want to keep their ill-gotten gains. #RBS #GRG #Lloyds #HBOS https://t.co/SORpHUfaoA

Load More...

In Parliament / Regulator

December 2010  FSA Press statement – 298 words

1. On 2 December 2010, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) released a 298-word  statement announcing that it had completed its supervisory inquiry into Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS).

It said:

The issues we investigated do not warrant us taking any enforcement action, either against the firm or against individuals. […]

The FSA cannot publish the content of the RBS review as information gathered from the bank during the course of the review remains confidential under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

(FSMA).

In the light of the scale of the failure of RBS and the widespread public interest in understanding the reasons for that failure, the Treasury Committee regarded the statement of the FSA as wholly inadequate. On 13 December 2010, the Chairman of the Treasury Committee wrote to Lord Turner, Chairman of the FSA to request that the FSA reconsider its decision not to publish the findings of its investigation.”

December 2011 – The failure of the Royal Bank of Scotland  – FSA Board Report – 452 pages

October 2012 – Treasury Select Committee  –  The FSA’s report into the failure of RBS – 97 pages

“In the absence of pressure from the Treasury Committee the FSA would not have produced this Report into the failure of RBS. This should not have been the case. The Board, and especially the non-executive Directors of the FSA, should have ensured that a comprehensive Report on the failure of RBS was produced without the need for Parliamentary intervention.

We expect the non-executive Directors of its successor regulators, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority, to play a more robust role in ensuring that the two bodies review their own decisions and fulfil their duty to assume accountability for their actions to the public and to Parliament consistent with the Treasury Committee’s previous recommendations in our Reports on Accountability of the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority.”

November 2013  – The Lawrence Tomlinson Report  –  Bank Lending Practices – Treatment of Businesses in distress – 20 pages

April 2014 – Independent Review of the Central Allegation made by Dr Lawrence Tomlinson in Banks’ Lending Practices: Treatment of Businesses in Distress – 60 pages

8 November 2016   FCA published a high level of Promontory findings on RBS GRG.

Treasury Select Committee   Chair Mr Andrew Tyrie MP

Q12         Chair: So do we, and we will be writing to RBS and to you to obtain a good deal of the further detail.  We do have some interesting information.  You need to bear in mind that some of us have been at this—I have—since well before the Andrew Large report, which we were also instrumental in triggering back in 2013.  We are talking about something going back four years and more, where we have been battling to get something done to help the people who were hit by this.  We were told, when we first pressed it, that this was all a load of old baloney and that it was just put forward by people who were in distress about the fact that they were running firms that were insolvent anyway.  We now have some answers to these questions.  It seems, from what was put out at 7.00 this morning, that while a third of the firms would have been in insolvency or administration regardless of RBS’s action, most of the rest probably would not be, or at least they were badly treated by RBS.  That is correct, is it not?

Andrew Bailey: We have given a quite detailed summary of the findings.

Q13            Chair:  It is pretty shocking, do you not think?

Andrew Bailey: Yes.  Let’s be clear: two-thirds were viewed as viable at the point when they were put into GRG.  Now, it does not mean it is wrong to put them into GRG.  It means that they were subject to—

Chair:  They experienced some form of inappropriate action.

Andrew Bailey: Yes, exactly.  They were subject to a list of inappropriate actions that we set out in the note, which was a summary of Promontory’s findings.

Q14            Chair:  Of the third that should, in any case, arguably have been in GRG’s hands, how many of those were maltreated? After all, the fact that you are running an insolvent business does not mean to say you should be fair game.

Andrew Bailey: The important point, from our perspective, is that this sets up, as you said, a more robust process for assessing the claims of these people under the complaints scheme.  That has been our concern all along.  Promontory has looked at a larger sample than any previous report.  It has drawn sensible conclusions around that.  It is now over to the process to handle those claims.

Q15            Chair:  The Treasury Committee will be expecting much more detail of how this scheme is going to operate.  What we certainly do not want is compensation getting to the point where it is being paid before we can tell whether it is reasonable.

 

RBS William Blackburne –  Original RBS announcement published 8 November 2016

RBS is also responding to the FCA’s update on its review into the treatment of SME customers in the bank’s former Global Restructuring Group (GRG) between 2008 – 2013 and its summary of the Promontory Financial Group report.

As the bank has acknowledged, in some areas, it could have done better for SME customers in GRG. Specifically, the bank could have managed the transition to GRG better and should have better explained to customers any changes to the prices or complex fees it was charging. The bank accepts that it did not always communicate as well or as clearly as it should have done. The bank also did not always handle customer complaints well.

RBS notes that the FCA’s update confirms that no evidence was found that the bank artificially engineered a position to cause or facilitate the transfer of a customer to GRG or identified customers for transfer for inappropriate reasons and that all SME customers transferred to GRG were exhibiting clear signs of financial difficulty. The update makes clear that there were no cases where the purchase of a property by West Register alone gave rise to a financial loss to the customer and that there was no evidence of intent for West Register to purchase assets being formed prior to the transfer to GRG. It also states that, in a significant majority of cases, it was likely that RBS’s actions did not result in material financial distress to these customers.

As a result of the historical issues identified, RBS is taking two important steps for those SMEs in the UK and ROI that were customers in GRG during the period between 2008 – 2013. This activity is designed to address the bank’s failings.

A New Complaints Process for those customers in scope, overseen by retired High Court Judge, Sir William Blackburne. Sir William’s appointment as Independent Third Party adds a robust, transparent and independent step to the complaints process, should SME customers who were in GRG wish to complain about their treatment or challenge the bank’s decision on a previous complaint.

An Automatic Refund of Complex Fees paid by SMEs in the UK and ROI that were customers in GRG during the relevant period. This will save customers from further delay, ensure that the bank can start refunding fees more quickly and demonstrate our commitment to addressing issues of the past.

These proposals have been developed with the involvement of the FCA which agrees that these are appropriate steps for the bank to take. RBS will provide further details of the new complaints process on its website.

The bank estimates the costs associated with the new complaints review process and the automatic refund of complex fees to be approximately £400m, to be provided in Q4 2016. This includes the operational costs of both the fee refund and the new complaints process, together with the refund of complex fees and additional estimated redress costs arising from the new complaints process.

It is important to remember that the period in question, between 2008 – 2013, was a very challenging time for the bank and its customers. In 2008, there was an unprecedented increase in SMEs falling into financial distress and the number moving into GRG increased by around 400%. RBS lost more than £2bn from lending to SME customers.

RBS continues to cooperate fully with the FCA and remains keen to understand, and learn lessons from, any conclusions that the FCA draws in its review.  It would not be appropriate to comment further on that review until those conclusions have been published.

Ross McEwan, CEO of RBS said:

“We have acknowledged for some time that mistakes were made. Some of our customers went through what was a traumatic and painful experience as a result of the crisis. I am very sorry that we did not provide the level of service and understanding we should have done.

“Although the FCA review into the historical operation of GRG continues, we believe that now is the right time to deal with the areas where we accept some customers were let down in the past.  I am pleased that with the agreement of the FCA, we are able to announce a new complaints process overseen by Sir William Blackburne, alongside an automatic refund of complex fees paid by SME customers who were in GRG between 2008 – 2013.

“The culture, structure and way RBS operates today is fundamentally different from the period under review. We have made significant changes to deal with the issues of the past, so that the bank can better support SME customers in financial difficulty whilst also protecting the bank’s capital.”

Latest published Quarterly review by Blackburne 

October 2017 – Interim Summary –  A report (FCA) on an independent review of Royal Bank of Scotland Group’s treatment of small and medium sized enterprise customers, referred to the Global Restructuring Group.

October 2017 – Letter from Mr Ross McEwan – RBS CEO to the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee 6 pages

 

31 October 2017    Treasury Select Committee    Nicky Morgan – RBS GRG

Q11            Chair: Nicky Morgan  The point about widespread bad practice is that one of the FCA’s objectives is integrity: “to promote, protect and enhance the integrity of the UK financial system”.  Widespread bad practice by a bank like RBS surely goes to the heart of attacking the integrity of the UK financial system.

Before you answer that, I just want both of you to think about the way the report is received by those who have lost their businesses.  We do not take up individual cases as a Committee, but we are obviously also constituency Members of Parliament, and all of us have had people coming to us who have been affected by this, including constituents who saw me on Friday who did not know about the compensation scheme.  I find it extraordinary that that has been the big thing, rather than getting to the heart of what has happened and uncovering the widespread bad practice.  These are constituents who have not just lost their businesses; in many cases, they have lost their homes; they have lost their mental health or are having mental health challenges; they have had family breakdowns.  I really wonder how they would look at this report and think it has satisfactorily addressed what has happened to them.

Do you have confidence in this report and the reaction to this report, by both the FCA and RBS, in terms of the rather complacent attitude that widespread bad practice is not sufficient to attack the integrity of the UK financial services sector?

Andrew Bailey: Can I make a couple of points on that?  First, I think the report is strongly critical of RBS.  It is frankly unfortunate that RBS has not accepted that more readily.  I think they should do.  As you say, a lot of time, effort and work have been spent on this.  That is important.

The second point is you quoted our market integrity objective, which is absolutely true, but I want to come back to a point that John made earlier, which complicates this whole case, which is that this activity is outside the perimeter of our regulatory powers.  That is even more so in a retrospective case like this for a reason I will come on to.  It is outside the Regulated Activities Order.

Also, prior to the senior managers regime—and bear in mind the senior managers regime has been in place for 18 months for banks now—the approved persons regime, which was the predecessor regime, only gave us powers inside the regulated perimeter.  The senior managers regime changes that in an important way, but we cannot apply it retrospectively.  Now—and I have been very clear on this with some people who have approached me on this issue—RBS’s handling of cases today and the way in which they handle the redress process in particular is covered by that, in my view, irrespective of whether it is inside or outside the perimeter.  What we cannot do is go back and apply that retrospectively.

Q12            Chair: Mr Griffith-Jones, what do you say to those individuals and those who have lost businesses or been affected by this?  How are they meant to receive this report?

John Griffith-Jones: I completely understand where they are coming from.  I have always thought the most important thing, as I have already said, is to put them right.  At the end of the day, the words are comforting but, to the extent there is money due or it can be put right, that should be prioritised.  Inevitably, whether it is 39 pages or 300 pages, you are not immediately satisfied if it does not provide you with the justice that you think you are entitled to.  I understand that position.  I am very keen for the redress process to take place.

November 2017  – A  (FCA) Final report on an independent review of Royal Bank of Scotland Group’s treatment of small and medium-sized enterprises actions referred to the Global Restructuring Group – 73 pages

October 2017 – Interim Summary –  A report (FCA) on an independent review of Royal Bank of Scotland Group’s treatment of small and medium sized enterprise customers, referred to the Global Restructuring Group.

October 2017 – Letter from Mr Ross McEwan – RBS CEO to the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee 6 pages

November 2017  – A  (FCA) Final report on an independent review of Royal Bank of Scotland Group’s treatment of small and medium-sized enterprises actions referred to the Global Restructuring Group – 73 pages

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.

Chair’s comments (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 an 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.”

October 2018 – Treasury Select Committee –  SME Finance – Misconduct and Regulation in SME Banking

Conclusions and Recommendations

82. The length of time taken by the FCA to investigate events at RBS’s Global Restructuring Group has left those who saw their livelihoods destroyed understandably incensed. The Committee shares their concerns.

83. The FCA is not taking enforcement action against the perpetrators of the misconduct at GRG, but this must not be interpreted as a “not guilty” verdict. SME customers were treated appallingly, and because of shortcomings in regulation, this mistreatment is likely to go unpunished. The Committee views this inaction as a damning indictment of the regulatory regime and a sad reflection of its inadequacies. GRG exemplifies a regulatory framework that is failing the UK’s small businesses.

84. The FCA itself concedes that the failures at GRG might ordinarily have triggered disciplinary action had they occurred in a regulated business. That we have a regime in place that allows this sort of behaviour to take place with impunity is simply unacceptable. The victims of misconduct—who have seen those that destroyed their businesses go unpunished—rightly expect change.

85. Experience has shown that the justification for leaving commercial lending outside the regulatory perimeter is feeble, and it is unclear whether this issue was subject to sufficient public debate when the regulatory perimeter was first established. Many small business owners are no more financially sophisticated than everyday consumers, yet they will often be required to engage with relatively complex financial products. They may also lack the resources to purchase the appropriate advice or expertise externally. To deprive them of regulatory protection because of an assumed universal sophistication is wrong, and this unfairness is compounded by the fact that most SMEs are unaware of the regulatory position. In addition, the interconnection between personal finances and business finances can mean that the potential for personal catastrophe due to SME banking misconduct is significant. The Treasury and the FCA should introduce a regulatory regime that protects SMEs. The scope of the regime must be based on an appreciation of the varying levels of financial sophistication within the SME community. This will require analysis of the financial sophistication of the UK’s SMEs that goes beyond blunt metrics covering headcount and turnover.

86. The Committee recognises that bringing commercial lending within the regulatory perimeter will not be a ‘silver bullet’. But doing so would afford the FCA a significant amount of discretion as to how to design and implement a regulatory regime. This regime would need to be proportionate—taking account of the potential impact on the supply of credit to SMEs—and targeted at those SMEs that show the greatest need for additional protection.

87. The FCA’s plans to drive up conduct standards in the SME lending market by using industry codes of conduct will not provide SMEs with the protection they need. The idea is untested and, as Andrew Bailey acknowledges, industry codes do not have a track record of success. Firms cannot be compelled to sign up to voluntary codes of conduct, and the FCA’s initiative may lead to these codes being watered down if they are drafted in the knowledge that they may be enforced against in future.

88. Mr Bailey told the Committee that if the initiative does not work, the regulatory perimeter will need to be reconsidered. The Committee considers it unwise to take a ‘wait and see’ approach; the authorities should get on the front foot by taking action that they know will provide adequate protection to SMEs. It is clear that extending the regulatory perimeter is now necessary. Waiting for another high-profile misconduct scandal before pursuing it would be irresponsible. This episode has raised wider questions about the perimeter of regulation, which the Committee continues to consider.

June 2019 – Report on the Financial Conduct Authority further investigative steps in relation to RBS GRG  – post-Maxwellisation – 78 pages

Nicky Morgan responds to FCA’s final report on RBS’s GRG

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has today (13 June 2019) published the final report on its investigation into RBS’s treatment of SME customers transferred to its Global Restructuring Group (GRG).

Commenting on the publication, Rt Hon. Nicky Morgan MP, Chair of the Treasury Committee, said:

“This long-overdue report will offer no solace to those who suffered from the disgraceful actions of RBS’s GRG.

“As the Treasury Committee said in our SME Finance Report last year, the FCA should now be given the powers to regulate commercial lending to adequately protect SMEs.

“Disappointingly, the Government did not see a case for doing so; it should urgently reconsider its position. Otherwise, scandalous events such as those at GRG could re-occur.

“The Government should also reconsider its rejection of the Committee’s proposal for the introduction of a Financial Services Tribunal for SMEs to settle disputes with their bank.

“The Committee continues to take an interest in the progress of the complaints process and urges RBS to ensure that the remaining complaints are dealt with swiftly and fairly.

“The Committee may choose to raise this with the FCA when we take evidence from them on 25 June.”

25 June 2019 – Treasury Select Committee – RBS GRG questions and Andrew Bailey responses.

2 August 2019 TSC report The FCA – the perimeter of regulation 

The Treasury Committee and the perimeter

  1. Concerns about the perimeter and its complexity have featured in the work of previous Treasury Committees. The Treasury Committee in the 2010–15 Parliament concluded in its Report Conduct and competition in SME lending that so-called Tailored Business Loans (TBL) sold by Clydesdale bank had specifically been designed with the perimeter in mind:

From the point of view of the customer, the services provided by the hedging element of a loan with an embedded interest rate hedging facility—such as a Tailored Business Loan—and a stand-alone IRHP [Interest rate hedging product] are extremely similar, if not identical. But stand-alone IRHPs are regulated, while loans with embedded interest rate hedging facilities are not. It is a logically inconsistent result of the perimeter of regulation that products whose effects may be identical fall on both sides of the perimeter.

Clydesdale understood that TBLs were unregulated. It created TBLs to avoid requirements imposed by the regulator on the sale of a regulated product, IRHPs. It claims that this was to simplify the associated documentation and to make the product easier for customers to understand. The use of TBLs has left regulators powerless to enforce compensation for customers to whom products were mis-sold, as they have done with IRHPs. Clydesdale created a product that retained the risks and complexities of the regulated product but had none of the safeguards.

  1. Issues around the perimeter have also been present in the work of the current Treasury Committee. The following list provides examples of topics the Committee has considered or queried that have elements of perimeter complexity to them:
  • RBS’ Global Restructuring Group (GRG), and the wider issue of SME lending.
  • ‘Mortgage prisoners’ (those who face barriers to switching their mortgage).
  • The failure of London Capital and Finance, and wider questions around the regulation of so-called ‘mini-bonds’.
  • The regulation of Cryptoassets.
  • The regulation of Funeral plans.
  1. Many of these issues have seen significant harm done to consumers and small businesses. For example, in the course of its work, this Committee has heard first hand the considerable distress to SME owners brought about by RBS GRG. In part, it led this Committee to initiate its wider inquiry and Report into SME Finance. Subsequently, there has been widespread disappointment at the FCA’s inability to take action following its publication of its Report on the Financial Conduct Authority’s further investigative steps in relation to RBS GRG, due to the constraints of the Perimeter.12 Mr Bailey, when asked whether he would recognise that “there will be individuals out there who feel they have not had justice?”, replied “Yes, but I cannot operate outside the law. I am sorry”.13
  2. The perimeter of regulation, as has been seen in the Committee’s work, appears to be confusing for consumers of financial services, whether they be individuals or small businesses. In fact, that lack of understanding may well be preyed upon. Some firms may also deliberately game the perimeter to undertake regulatory arbitrage.
  3. Care needs to especially be taken where regulated financial institutions are undertaking an activity that is itself unregulated. Often the realisation that an activity is unregulated comes only after problems emerge, and the regulator’s lack of power becomes apparent to those affected.
  4. The Committee recommends that where regulated financial institutions undertake unregulated activity, the regulatory system should ensure that clear and explicit warnings are provided at that point, with the potential consequences of the lack of regulatory cover clearly explained, with sanctions for firms that fail to do so. HMG / HMT response to the report is outstanding.

Some background

31 October 2017     Brian Little email exchanges with SS – then Parliamentary aide to John Mann MP

SS – Great re John’s Perimeter Question / comment at TSC this morning, following our discussion and sight of the attached letter from my MP Jim Shannon

Hi Brian, “Yes—the main committee sent it to us as part of their briefing back on Friday. Hope that you felt the questioning covered good ground.”

Q50            John Mann: ……………….  One final question/request is that you referred earlier to things being outside the regulatory perimeter.  I have heard that before from you and your predecessors, and indeed on a totally separate issue with the Advertising Standards Authority, which is in similar dialogue over your powers in terms of currency exchange.

Andrew Bailey: That is not a perimeter issue.

Q51            John Mann: It is indeed.  It is an entirely different aspect.  In terms of my question, would you be prepared to provide to this Committee—and it might take some time, but we are not in a rush—the precise areas of powers that you do not have that it would be useful for this Committee to consider whether you should have, both in relation to the GRG issue and what you describe as being outside the regulatory perimeter, but perhaps for other issues as well?  That is something that we have never had.  It is a big piece of work but, for a new Committee coming into a five year Parliament — possibly, legally, that is our presumption and our mandate is for five years—it would be significantly useful to the work of this Committee.  I am not asking you which ones you desperately think you should have, and we might come back to you on that of course, but which ones you do not have so that, when you are saying, “We cannot do it,” be it in correspondence or be it in exchange, we are clear, so we can think through what our responsibilities and powers are to change that.

Andrew Bailey: The answer to that is yes.  I agree with you it is a good idea.  It is a good idea also because, as I said earlier, it has changed in interpretation as a result of the senior managers regime, which we are still introducing by the way, because we have a very big roll-out of that to the non-bank world next year, so I agree with you.  We know the case we are talking about.  The issue with the Advertising Standards Authority is we do not think we have the power to enforce their decision.  It is not really a perimeter issue.

John Mann: I am sure in a future meeting we will come to that.  The Chair would rule me out if I went on to that now, although it is a very important issue.  I would need several questions, so I will defer that.

In the newspapers / Useful Links for RBS RSG Bank Victims

SME ALLIANCE – Website for victims of Banks generally

Why Turner got it wrong

4 May 2011  – Jim Shannon MP; constituent, Brian Little – TSC Chair Mr Andrew Tyrie MP – PWC – Telegraph  – RBS outcome – failure of the independent investigation.

5 May 2011  – Treasury Select Committee – Press Release – Independent review of the Financial Services Authority on RBS

10 May 2011 PPI   – Lloyds abandons PPI court action and background articles in Daily Telegraph

Royal Bank of Scotland became the last of the UK’s major banks to announce its provisions against PPI claims, and followed that of recently appointed Antonio Horta-Osario as CEO of Lloyds Banking Group last week <5 May> “which became the first of the UK’s big banks to withdraw its support for the BBA appeal as it said it had agreed a £3.2bn provision to meet PPI claims.”

3 December 2011 – Telegraph – Will the FSA answer the questions about RBS collapse at last

11 April 2014 – Clifford Chance – Independent Review Lawrence Tomlinson – Bank lending practices

21 July 2014 – Private Eye – Call to inaction – HBOS – RBS

11 March 2015 – UK Supreme Court Judges unanimously ruled in favour of Lord Glennies original assessment of five years was correct ; in other words that when a bank official confirmed the loan by telephone, it represented a legally binding contract.

10 October 2016 – “Dash for Cash : leaked files reveal RBS Systematically Crushed British Businesses for Profit.”  Buzzfeed Investigations Unit. GRG was founded as Specialised Lending Services (SLS) in 1992 and ran through to 2015.

14 November.2016 – Times RBS Scheme – Vindicated but still victimised, businesses attack ‘flawed’ report

28 October 2017  DEREK CARLYLE – My nightmare 10-year battle for RBS damages: Businessman in landmark court victory backs campaign for safeguards

28 October 2017 – Mail.on.Sunday RBS GRG – RESIGN! Pressure grows on Royal Bank of Scotland boss Ross McEwan in storm over mistreatment of small businesses

30 October 2017 – Ross McEwan – TSC correspondence RBS GRG FCA

5 November 2017 – Guardian – Vince Cable attacks RBS over the mistreatment of small business customers

November 2017 independent review of RBS treatment SMEs referred to GRG

5 December 2017 – Times – Watchdog kept RBS scandal report secret for fear bosses would sue

11 February 2018 – Shame on the RBS bullies : Explosive secret files ….. Mail on Sunday …….Hawkes, Kelly, Fraser

15 August 2018 – Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) unveiled research showing that RBS was Britains worst bank. The Edinburgh-based institution was ranked last alongside Clydesdale Bank, of sixteen banks surveyed for customer service.   RBS also became bottom for business banking.

24 May 2018 – Lexlaw – RBS to Expand GRG Redress Scheme Lexlaw

24 October 2018 – Times – RBS earmarks £2bn fund for small business

19 November 2018 – Times – Fair banking plans ‘will not help firms’

3 December 2018 – Times – Financial Ombudsman Service in eye of a new storm, includes OP-ED by Economic Secretary to the Treasury John Glen MP – Tribunal would not be the best option for companies

11 January 2019 – Times – Small firms lose battle for bank dispute tribunal

23 January 2019 – Times – OP-ED – Its time small firms got justice from the banks – Jonathan Reynolds
Jonathan Reynolds is shadow city minister

28 January 2019 – Times – City regulator denies failings after leaking whistleblower’s complaints

15 February 2019 – Letter to Lloyds Bank from Kevin Hollinrake MP Re signatures

18 February 2019 – Times – OP-ED – Wide support for a financial services tribunal, act now – Stewart Hosie MP – Member of the Treasury Select Committee

21 February 2019 – Letter to Kevin Hollinrake MP from Benedict Brogan – Lloyds Bank re signatures

8 March 2019 – Times – Victims ‘won’t trust’ bank redress scheme for small companies

11 March 2019 – Times – Companies should be allowed to choose how best to deliver justice

11 March 2019  OP-ED Companies should be allowed to choose how best to deliver justice – Ned Beale :  litigation partner at City law firm Trowers & Hamlins
12 March 2019 – SME ALLIANCE related documents – Press Release

12/13 March 2019 – Financial Times – Jonathan Ford article re Nicky Turner; DRS and McGrory settlement with CYBG

14 March 2019 – Letter to Heather Buchanan from John Guidi to process through to Stephen Jones of UK Finance

19 March 2019 – Hansard Link to Urgent Question regarding John Guidi ‘Hunger Strike’, asked by Angela Crawley MP in the Commons

19 March 2019 – Hansard Link to Urgent Question regarding John Guidi ‘Hunger Strike’ in the Lords

20 March 2019 – The APPG Accepts its Place on the Implementation Steering Group.

28 March 2019 – Reuters UK Lawmaker asks FCA ahead of historic arbitration scheme – This includes the Armstrong case.

2 April 2019 – James Hurley – Big Banks ready to extend Dispute Scheme.

3 April 2019 – Times – Katherine Griffiths article – ‘Small firms can afford to be optimistic about Banks’ dispute schemes’.

4 May 2019 – William Turvill – Mail on Sunday – Article on Cerberus – Hounds of Hell.

9 May 2019 – Rachel Wolcott – Thomson Reuters – Senior Managers accountable for SME treatment.

23 May 2019 – Reuters – Banks Gamed FCA & SME’s.

13 June 2019 – FCA Report further investigation RBS GRG

13 June 2019 – Financial Times – FCA says it lacked powers to act over disgraced RBS unit

13 June 2019 – Times – RBS GRG FCA – explains lack of action over RBS small business scandal

19 June 2019 – Rachel Wolcott, Regulatory Intelligence, Reuters: FCA ignored warnings banks would game interest

21 June 2019 Rachel Wolcott, Regulatory Intelligence, Reuters: FCA’s 15-month interest-rate swap redress review to hinder claims, say industry officials.

25 June 2019 – TSC- Andrew Bailey public confidence

27 June 2019 – CITYAM – FCA must stop making excuses and act to avoid another GRG scandal

25 July 2019 – Times – James Hurley :  Walkout threat hits bank compensation scheme for small firms

29 July 2019  Lindsay Rogerson, Regulatory Intelligence, Reuters : UK’s new finance minister told to stick to predecessor’s stance on SME redress

2 August 2019 House of Commons Treasury Committee : the work of the FCA : the perimeter of regulation   – Page 6 Paragraph 13   Clydesdale / Yorkshire Tailored Business Loans

2 August 2019 FT  John McDonnell :  Labour vows to hold public inquiry into UK Financial Sector – as per Australian Royal Commission

5 August 2019 – Times RBS loan victims get new route to compensation

7 August 2019 Lindsay Rogerson, Regulatory Intelligence, Reuters : Historic bank redress scheme in danger of collapse, business leader asks Javid to intervene……Nikki Turner   SME Alliance

19 August 2019 Times James Hurley :  Use RBS dividend to compensate small companies mistreated by banks

22 August 2019 Lindsay Rogerson, Regulatory Intelligence, Reuters : Business Banking Resolution Scheme on track for UK Launch at end of year

23 August 2019 – Letter to Lloyds Bank from Kevin Hollinrake MP regarding LLoyds BSU’s  

24 August 2019 – Times – Hunger strike over bank “whitewash”

25 August 2019 – Mail On Sunday – Nationwide Hunger Strikes

25 August 2019 – Guardian – UK banks face week of hunger strikes and protests

30 August 2019 – BBC News – Bristol hunger strike protester says Lloyds ‘destroyed’ his life

2 September 2019 – Times – Conflict of interest claim against Financial Conduct Authority in Connaught fund review

2 September 2019 – Times – Alternative lending – “FLOP” – Helps just 800 small companies a year – EST John Glen, MP

7 September 2019 – Times – Banks accused of forging signatures

7 September 2019 – Daily Mail – Top police chief claims banks are forging signatures on legal documents on an industrial scale as he accuses government agencies of sitting on “overwhelming evidence”.

10 September 2019 – Times – Banks’ payouts in PPI scandal will reach £50bn

10 September 2019 – Times – Pressure on National Crime Agency for action over bank forgery claims

10 September 2019 – Times – PPI scandal – The cash cow that turned sour

11 September 2019 – Times – If Rose has been chosen for the top job at RBS, then why the silence

16 September 2019 – Reuters – Treatment of vulnerable customers tells FCA much about culture whether firms are meeting its standards

18 September 2019 – Times – It may be too early to draw a line under banks fake signature scandal

21 September 2019 – Times – RBS chief Ross McEwan leaves thorny issues in Alison Rose

22 September 2019 – RBS boss faces hunger strike on Day 1 – William Turvill – Mail on Sunday

24 September – Times – We did not pass buck on bank forgery, says National Crime Agency

1 October 2019 – Thomsons Reuters – Rachel Wolcott – FCA calls vulture fund QC’s use of its legal arguments against vulnerable customer “irresponsible”

4 October 2019 – letter to Lewis Shand-Smith from Kevin Hollinrake regarding BBRS

8 October 2019 – Reuters – BBRS scheme update

11 October 2019 – Times – Financial Conduct Authority to be denied extra powers

12 October 2019 – Times – Business commissioner Paul Uppal leaves over conflict of interest

18 December 2019 – JOHN GUIDI SCOTTISH HUNGER STRIKER APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC AGM OF NAB

 

Link to Cerberus / Promontoria page.