Mr McEwan I would like you to consider one simple question;

Do you understand the Principle of TCF – Treating Customers Fairly? If so why does your Bank’s behaviour remain inherently dishonest and why is its bad behaviour getting worse under your control?
 
I will explain why I ask and give you an example of such behaviour;
 
One of your customers, we will call him Mr. X, was 10 years ago mis-sold an Interest Rate SWAP when the Bank salesmen dishonestly told him that the Bank expected interest rates to increase. The reality is your Bank and every Bank out there knew with certainty at that time that rates would decrease.
 
When the SWAP was sold 2 banks in your Group acting in tandem NatWest and RBS, set up a credit facility of £300k without his knowledge, to cover the expected losses on the SWAP and secured that against his properties again without his knowledge. They also sold him a commercial loan on his new home instead of a mortgage in their greed for a larger SWAP sale.
 
Three years later when rates decreased they confirmed to him that following interest rate reductions, the SWAP credit facility he had not signed for and knew nothing about, had now reached £500k and his manager then told him he was now in breach of his Loan to on his facilities and he would have to go into GRG!
 
In the subsequent years in full knowledge that he had been mis-sold both the SWAP and the mortgage, GRG then attempted to extort fees for fabricated consulting work and tried to asset strip him with a PPFA for such ‘continued support’.
 
This was before you were in charge.
 
Since you have been in charge the Bank has admitted both mis-selling the SWAP and the mortgage however, they would only offer him compensation if he accepted a proportion of his money under a rigged ‘full and final settlement’ in the SWAP Review?
 
Unwilling to sign up to an unlawfully imposed settlement, he had no choice but to sue the Bank and before doing so, several subject access requests were undertaken to analyse the banks credit files and applications. Your central credit files from the RMP system showed that the bank manager 10 years ago acted incompetently and a claim was initiated.
 
In discovery however, those alleged same credit files when received contained almost 5 extra pages setting out never before seen facts, that evidenced the bank manager had it would seem, undertaken substantial due diligence before offering the loan, the new version of the credit application contained an additional 1,877 words not seen in the original credit file.
 
So, we have 2 options, either;
 
1.      The bank 2 years ago withheld crucial information Mr X was entitled to, in an information request to unfairly and unlawfully gain an advantage, or;

2.      The Bank is rewriting its central credit files, doctoring the RMPS files now, to cheat him out of justice!
 
Either way this Bank is spending substantial amounts of money on its lawyers defending previous dishonesty and crooked behaviour.
 
Some would say that the Bank behaves in this manner because it can, because it has deep pockets however, I would say that this Bank does not have deep pockets; in fact it has no pockets at all and it is using tax payers’ money, our money, to ruin customers it has already mistreat over many years.
 
This is happening on your watch.
 
You may attempt to deny knowledge of such behaviour however, put plainly as many of us know having dealt with Batt, Hughes, McDonald etc. there is no area in this Bank that one is less likely to get a straight answer, than from than your own executive response team, why is that!
 
This bank will never repay the tax payers or return monies to its shareholders, whilst this culture of dishonesty prevails.
 
I will give you one such example of your executive team’s behaviour;
 
A man is in danger of losing his home in Cheshire, I will call him Mr. Y. Following a Court Case at which your bank again introduced bogus central files to win the case, Mr. Y went to his MP for help, and he gave them documents supporting his allegations. The MP’s office then without Mr. Y’s authority or knowledge gave those documents straight to your Ms. Macdonald and, this was the subsequent e-mail interchange;
 
Hi Fiona

Yes – and I thought it was all over!  I have just had a rather long phone call from him asking me to forward everything to the bank.  I told him that Mr Osborne cannot be involved any further and he has to contact you himself.  I did not tell him that I have forwarded the emails to you.

The phone will be on answerphone for the rest of the day!

Thanks

Best wishes

Jane

Ms Macdonald replied;
 
Hi Jane

And we had such a quiet period there!

Hope all is well and I agree, please don’t respond and the team here will investigate. If we need to arrange a response, we will certainly copy or blind copy you in.

Thanks

Fiona

Jane the responded;

Dear Both

For your information, today I have received these 2 emails (below and attached) from Mr Y.  I will not be replying to him.

Best wishes

Jane

Just who do these people think they are, that is your personal Business manager instructing the then Chancellor George Osborne’s office, to ignore his constituent and do as the Bank instructs, in control of an MP complaint.

This is appalling behaviour.

I am here today with an ex member of RBS staff Mark Wright, Mark whistle blew in your bank and paid the price losing his career and health for doing so. He is however, now prepared along with his colleagues to tell the truth about what is happening in your Bank, right under your nose.

In the first instance, Mark and his colleagues have a key piece of advice for yourself and Sir Howard, if  you are prepared to put your signature on letters to MP’s please ensure you actually know the facts held on your central system, before approving misleading statements.

Mark unfortunately found that he could trust neither your Bank nor the regulator when reporting RBS Misbehaviour and therefore he is setting up a forum for whistle-blowers from all banks called Bank Confidential. He will be in touch shortly, with this Bank’s Board, along with all other major Banks, to ask for support and sponsorship to help provide a safe environment in which staff can speak out, and I hope the Board will be supportive of this forum.

However, the facts remain Mr. McEwan, that either you know about the misbehaviours of your Bank or you don’t, in which case you are possibly the only person in the UK not privy to one of the financial arenas worst kept secrets.

So, I will ask my question again;

Why is this Banks behaviour getting worse under your control?

And;

Will you offer financial support to the new Whistleblower forum BankConfidential?
 

Mr Chairman, I am here today wearing two hats; Firstly, as a shareholder I am head of SME Alliance in Scotland and am representing them. I would just reassure you that contrary to any perception there may be, this is not a bank bashing organisation as our chairman was at pains to point out at the FT Conference on Banking Standards two weeks ago. Ross McEwan, I believe that you shared the platform as a speaker. 

At that event our chairman said he was there because he felt that bank customers who had lost out through poor governance, lack of regulation and lack of being “treated fairly” in the banking system, needed to be heard. 

SME Alliance is not necessarily a single issue organisation, but inevitably most of the current membership was drawn to it because they all felt there was no other way of expressing their helplessness at being contemptuously dismissed by their banks. The members are drawn from customers of all the banks, however, mindful of the very recently published report concerning the number of complaints made about banks in general, RBS having by far the highest number of complaints, it is therefore inevitable that our membership is representative of that figure,  with a high proportion being RBS customers.

SME Alliance would prefer if the membership could bring their complaints to you and receive a conciliatory response, however you persist in making this virtually impossible with your adversarial and confrontational attitude, which I must say was not helped one little bit by a recent newspaper article attributed to one of your most senior directors, labelling some small business owners as “CHANCERS WHO HAD PUT THEIR LIVES INTO FAILED BUSINESSES AND WERE NOW LOOKING FOR A BAILOUT” This was followed by the further comment “LET THEM SUE. WE’LL SEE THEM IN COURT”

Irrespective of who that senior director is, it is you, Ross McEwan, as Chief Executive who bears responsibility for what emanates from your bank, therefore I address you directly.
 
You make public announcements claiming engagement with your customers and earning their trust. I ask you this; do you earn trust by insulting customers who have genuine grievances that you refuse to address? Do you not realise that this is about real people and real lives, not just about numbers and units?

It is little wonder that you are repeatedly forced to respond that allegations have caused, and continue to cause, huge reputational damage to the bank, when there is such arrogant and contemptuous dismissal of customers’ legitimate and genuine complaints. Is it any wonder that there are so many very vocal customers and ex-customers of this bank, victims of financial vandalism, who are now incensed at being branded as CHANCERS SEEKING A PAYDAY? It’s little wonder that one of the financial advisers to SME Alliance perceptively noted; - banking is where integrity is just the name of a racehorse.
 
The Tomlinson exposures, and, last October the revelations from BBC Newsnight and BuzzFeed of the Dash for Cash, followed by the disclosure of the victory emails sent by the GRG division when yet another hapless victim was financially massacred, just serve as a direct counter to your repeated assertions. Frankly Ross, I question your grasp of honesty, integrity, trust and ethics, when dismissing these allegations. You publicly acknowledge legacy issues but clearly make no attempt at addressing illegality within the bank.
 
Capitulating last week in the Hockins’ case, agreeing a settlement to their long running dispute surely served as an example of how confrontation could have been avoided, had you chosen to address them constructively with the conciliatory approach.

Ross, there is a deluge of complaints from some very vocal victims which you simply and contemptuously dismiss by denying their legitimacy. The Hockins are just but one example and through SME Alliance I can tell you that for all Hockins, for all the Clive May’s, for all the Andy Keats, for all the Mike Wilson’s, and for all the Andy Quoi’s, to name but a very few, there are many more victims like me standing behind with exactly the same stories of illegal conduct. It is wholly inconceivable that we are all wrong when we have any amount of evidence examined by legal and financial experts verifying the claims as being legitimate and in most instances clearly identifying that fraud is the common theme running through each and every case.

Can I direct you to look very closely at the recent example set by another Chief Executive of a public company, Thomas Cook? Peter Frankhauser, whose shining example of corporate governance and leadership, demonstrates to the public a very encouraging and enlightened attitude from a company boss who finally saw the light and took personal responsibility for so many failings within Thomas Cook.
 
Of specific note is his admission that the company spent ten years talking about their customer and not talking with their customer. He ditched his advisers and spoke directly with the customer thereby achieving a solution that could have been reached so much sooner had common sense and understanding prevailed.
 
I really wish to take issue with you Ross when you regularly appear before the media saying that all allegations of criminality have been investigated with no evidence being found, and earnestly asking customers to trust the Bank as it has set aside the past, and dealt with legacy issues.

Well Ross, I think you have been imbibing in far too much of Scotland’s best known export, believing your own sound bites and ignoring a welter of evidence provided by a multitude of exposures that appear with regularity in all the media. Should you take time to consider your false statements and the effect they may have on the general public, I think even the simplest of minds would understand that internal self examination and reporting will never reveal the truth. 

Please Ross, cease with the insults, drop the crooks, the connivers, and the cover up brigade within the bank; stop being cloth eared and be like Peter Frankhauser, take on board what he plainly and honestly stated, and realise you cannot win when confronted by thousands of complaints which are similar in nature and revolve around one division within the bank.
​ 
Actions speak louder than words and perhaps, just perhaps, with deed instead of words, our membership and the wider number of aggrieved customers will start to believe you, and give you a chance of retrieving the trust you have destroyed and of repairing the huge gulf separating you from millions of customers, because very evidently you and the bank, are widely perceived as a disgrace.

Many at SME Alliance have been forced to pursue the bank through the courts and I know that you are well aware of an impending action against you with multiple claimants of which I am one. It would seem quite clear to those advising that there is clear and irrefutable evidence to bring these claims successfully and therefore my comments above may, I hope, give you cause for reflection, particularly when you consider the Hockins case and your capitulation when faced with evidence for instance of your staff telling them that they had not suffered enough.
 
Wearing my second hat, I am here as an ex customer. Ross, two weeks ago you are quoted as saying at the FT Conference on Banking Standards: - Call me old fashioned but I want customers to pay us back.
 
I was so bemused reading this that I had to read it again and check with my fellow SME Alliance colleagues who were present at the Conference for confirmation that those were your words. For avoidance of doubt and for the benefit of the audience, are those your words? Thank you, Ross and on that basis I am going to publicly challenge you on that statement.

Do you know why? Well let me tell you:-
 
In July 1997 I borrowed £800K to expand our business. 16 months later, in November 1998, I deposited more than £800K with the bank and sought to repay the debt but RBS stopped me from doing so. I was an old fashioned borrower who wanted to minimise debt as much as possible as quickly as possible, but instead of accepting my cash at that time, the bank moved our accounts under the control of your Jackboot division latterly known as GRG and drove us into bankruptcy with all the attendant misery and personal anguish which has ensued.
 
For years I could never understand why and it is thanks to the dedication and expertise of financial, legal and banking investigators and advisers that I now know the answer as to why RBS effectively stole our money; stole our hotel business; stole our house and every other asset we owned and drove us to bankruptcy.

My impression of old fashioned bankers is of people in whom you could have complete trust, who had ethics, integrity and honesty. So Ross before you trot out the usual response from the bank, I do accept that we have been through the court process and made a complaint to the Ombudsman. However, the issues I am asking you to personally examine and which have now been shown to demonstrate illegality by RBS were never ventilated in court. I ask you please Ross; set aside your prejudice and as an old fashioned banker look at this with a fresh pair of eyes and a clear mind. I am offering an olive branch for the final time here, and ask you to note down the following points.
 
So here is my public challenge to you Ross:-

1)    Personally investigate the dealings I had with RBS starting from May 1997 when I was introduced to the bank and spent hours discussing and negotiating the proposal of moving our business accounts to RBS
2)    I was old fashioned enough in wanting to repay the loans I was asking for, as quickly as possible and if you read the file notes of that time you ought to see that I explicitly requested the structure of the loans to allow for full repayment as soon as possible within the term time suggested by the Relationship Manager I negotiated with. The notes also ought to say that I was assured that early redemption would cost me three months interest penalty as it was projected they would be residential mortgage type loans.
3)    You ought to read that I agreed to move our accounts to RBS on this specific assurance and became a customer of RBS in July 1997.
4)    Move on 16 months to November 1998 when I deposited money with the bank.
5)    Specifically ask to see file notes of the meeting held in Dundee with the Relationship Manager when the issue of full loan repayment was discussed. You ought to read that I asked for the figure outstanding on the loans so that I could authorise full repayment from cash which was held on deposit and which on 6th November 1998 was more than sufficient to expunge the loans in their entirety. Also note that there was a witness to that meeting who will corroborate the fact that the main item for discussion was full repayment.

Having investigated my files Ross perhaps you can then tell me why the bank, having extended loans totalling £800K in July 1997, refused to accept full repayment from me in November 1998 from the amount on deposit that was in excess of the outstanding £760K or thereby at that time?
 
So, come on Ross, be a man, be the old fashioned banker you purport to be, ditch the screen of lawyers and other advisers you hide behind, and just this once, engage with me, the customer, by accepting my challenge to you of personally investigating my complaint and acknowledge the evidence identified by others of illegality. As a banker, meet with me face to face, look me in the eye, and tell me why the bank stopped me repaying the loans in November 1998.
 
Maybe you will choose to ignore my request and dismiss the olive branch I have extended; either way it will make no difference to me as I can and will continue with the legal claim mentioned before.
 
It’s over to you Ross.
 
Nigel K Henderson

In connection with a talk on Banking Standards arranged by the Financial Times and given by Nick Gould, Chairman of SME Alliance (www.smealliance.org), he asked members to provide information of their own “real life“ experiences in dealing with certain banks. Here are the questions and answers. They will make extremely uncomfortable reading for the banks and bankers concerned

1. If you had a similar claim against a bank today, do you think you would be treated any differently, YES or NO—why have you replied as you have? Please keep it short

• Definitely not!  The Bankers and their Solicitors would rather cover up than own up and they are still behaving in this way right from the top.

• NO! I feel I cannot access any decision maker directly either by telephone or email having to go through an allocated person who then redirects communications which may never be honoured with any response at all!!!

• No, the banks remain arrogant and have not learnt any lessons from the recent financial crisis.

• No because bank culture has not changed

• No. I first raised my concerns with NatWest regarding the treatment we had received in GRG during November 2011 at that time I was ignored by the bank for 3 months then the bank completely denied any mistreatment. Now in 2017 little has changed.

• No difference now because the fundamental relationship between Banker and Customer and the insolvency industry has not changed one jot. Banks take security and it gives them total power – this is the problem.

• NO AS A FORMER EMPLOYEE AND RBS WBLOWER WITH ASSISTANCE FROM 7 EMPLOYED RBS COLLEAGUES on payroll now.  SYSTEMIC FALSIFYING OF FILES WILL ENSURE ITS UP-HILL TASK FOR ALL VICTIMS going forward.

• NO - I don’t have a claim against a bank, as a whistleblower. But no, I wouldn’t be treated differently as the recent Barclays debacle shows. 

• No, why? because I don't believe the banks have learnt a lesson. This is evident in the way whistleblowers continue to be treated today.

• no. because banks and bankers now think I part of the game to extract every penny they can with a moral compass or a thought for right or wrong. 

• No:- My complaint centres around IRHP issues, (which I have received redress for) the fact is the scheme was meant to put you back in position you were in prior to  a mis sale. It has failed. The process of redress was supposed to be signed off (overseen) by an independent reviewer prior to an offer being made. In my case I had 5 offers in total, each one cleared by the bank and the IR.  2 redress offers 3 Consequential loss offers. After this I surrendered

• No, I don't think I would be treated any differently. I think that my bank and its lawyers are arrogant and believe they are invincible and they know that I have no money and can take no action against them. 

• No. Reason: the big banks still think they are above the law as they have our governments on a tight leash;

• Yes, by not giving away too much allowing the banks to rewrite history. No as DSAR’s were the defining factor

• no, we would see no improvement same senior management in charge.

• Having had to work for years to uncover the HBOS Reading fraud I am disappointed and sad to say I firmly believe anyone uncovering a similar fraud today would almost certainly have to go through the same long torturous process and probably for ten years. Despite the fact bankers and their associates have been jailed, the priority for the Bank still seems focused on how to conceal what has happened over the last ten years and post the original fraud. The effect of this latest delay in any positive resolution for the victims has been devastating because while logic says the Bank would want to act swiftly and honourably to give those wronged their lives back, the opposite has proven to be the case. It would appear even the most extreme of realities is still being dealt with as an inconvenient and easily manipulated technicality.

2. Would you say you have noticed any improvement in your treatment by the bank over the last few years, or is it the same , better or worse—please provide one or two short examples to back up your answer.

• I have seen no improvements since the Recession. The Bankers maintain their arrogant standing !  as they could not run a business how are they able to dictate to Small Businesses what they should or should not be doing!

• Worse. There is no fairness being demonstrated in any dealings.

• It depends from bank to bank but overall the treatment is worse; the banks are disinterested in customer service, dishonest in correspondence and in particular RBS behaves as if it is untouchable and has been told so by the FCA and HMT.

• Their PR reads better but in reality, it's the same treatment

• No. I first raised my concerns with NatWest regarding the treatment we had received in GRG during  November 2011 at that time I was ignored by the bank for 3 months then the bank completely denied any mistreatment. Now in 2017 little has changed.

• I dare say that SME customers, whilst this cloud hangs over this sector, are experiencing a slightly better treatment – this is a hiatus until the “heat” has reduced and it will be back to business as normal.

• Worse due to above RBS ensure the playing field is not level.

• Again, not applicable as a whistleblower, but the bank HSBC has denied, lied and obfuscated until now the limitation period is over. They have been completely dishonest and dishonourable. 

• I recently contacted the bank in December 2016 with regards to new evidence that came to light in connection with my legal case against them in 2009.  New evidence that demonstrates RBS acted illegally. I don't believe they have responded any differently to when I first raised my concerns as a whistleblower with them. They continue to treat my claims as a whistleblower with utter contempt.

• no difference. Look at how they covered hsbc reading up .good bankers are forced out because they want ruthless immoral heartless people 

• I was treated well by the relationship team until I came under the IRHP review; I was then placed under a specialist relationship manager who threated initially but in the end treated fairly I am back in mainstream banking past 6 months, so still forming a relationship, one passing comment was to get me out of a libor loan to base rate the proof will be if/ when. I am biding my time currently and would reserve judgement

• There has been no improvement in the way my bank treats me, in fact it is worse. My bank refuses to have any communication with me except to discuss the alleged debt and refuses to provide me with any information.

• Personally, worse; no interaction with the bank is possible. Imagine the school bully holding you at arm's length while he eats your sweets; but without the faint hope of a teacher coming to the rescue. 

• When you start getting close to unwinding events the banks clam up and refuse to engage so further down the road the experiences get worse

• same as 2011 tried dealing with Grg @ bishopsgate like pulling teeth.

• Absolutely not. Again I use the HBOS Reading case to evidence how bad the situation has become. Post the criminal trials Lloyds Banking Group has insisted it had no evidence of criminality prior to the trial. They have said this having received comprehensive evidence of criminal conduct from Paul and I and others since the merger. Additionally the trial itself exposed the number of reports and investigations commissioned by the Banks since 2006 and not least the damning internal report recently reported in the press which the Bank has simultaneously claimed it did not commission and is not particularised but is protected by an NDA the Bank made the author sign to stop disclosure. So which is it?  If they didn't commission it, what right have they got to stop its publication?  

 
3. Would you say the people you have been dealing with have treated you with high ethical, professional and business standards —YES or NO—please provide one or two short example to back up your answer.

• No definitely not! At Mediation, they were intimidating to say the least. The bankers continue to lie through their Solicitors they have no morals or standards. They most of the time are trying to cover their backs for bad behaviour from the past.  e.g.  Witness statements are full of I cannot remember but I would have said…….  Lloyds refused to fund a project which was to be only 25% borrowed because a woman on property side formerly from HBOS held a grudge. We were actually told this by Lloyds local manager who had already said he would do the loan!

• NO! How can it be deemed as ethical to know illegal acts have been committed by bank staff against honest customers and not resolve the matter immediately? How can it be deemed `ethical` for one party to `employ` an `independent` reviewer? What a contradiction in terms!!

• No - I did not have the time to state the examples but dismissive and incorrect correspondence, failing in any way to adhere to the FCA Handbook regulations are standard responses. Quite frankly at times the banks interpretation of and excuses relating to the regulations are so incompetent and preposterous as to be embarrassing to financial services professionals!

• Definitely Not been treated with contempt forced to do everything possible over a sustained period and against all the odds and still getting minimized

• Recently one person in GRG has been really good professional polite and courteous although his hands are tied he cannot even sneeze in front of you without the approval of the GRG legal team. In the early days of GRG, it was all about intimidation and power to batter you down into submission you are made to feel alone and a failure. I am sure they had special training or they were selected for lacking any normal human decency, especially honesty and integrity. They were power crazy and greedy they would crush anything in their paths to secure their bonuses

• I think the managers of GRG type departments are playing it careful for the time being.

• No having seen central files under a SAR the collusion between RBS & FCA covering up criminality. example sending my confidential medical records to try to prove a point

• No – see above. Their behave has simply been criminal. 

• If anything, the reverse has happened.  The bank (RBS) have behaved in a completely unethical and unprofessional manner.

• no, my bank manager at Lloyds bank Charlotte Browne laughed at me when I said you have a duty of care and cannot treat me like this .her reply and I quote .I am a bank manager and I can do whatever I want 

• IRHP review made a complaint about falsification of an email trail. Ignored so NO.

• No. My bank lied about my situation to two MPs and the BBC and supplied false information to the FOS.

• No. If it had been otherwise, things could have been much more civilised; but sadly, our experience is of dealing with people who have no trace of humanity about them.

• No definitely not.  They went from inventing a death to justify deletion of information to the property becoming an investment but more worryingly gave another separate version to the police under caution 

• no one seems interested with the exception of Rob Flavell he seems to be trying to help sort our issues.

• I could not be more disappointed the way we and other victims have been treated. Having written to Lord Blackwell in October 2016, we received a direct reply in February assuring us the way the Bank would deal with the victims would restore trust in the Bank. Almost three months later not one victim has been compensated and instead the Bank has created a cynical review process whereby it is Judge, jury and executioner of the victims fate. The bank chose the adjudicator and he will apparently be solely instrumental in allocating his view of who should be compensated and for how much. Given even the FCA have had to agree the IRHP review and the GRG reviews were less than successful and certainly far from advantageous for the victims, why would LBG think a similar approach would meet with anything other than suspicion? The words professional, ethical or even logical do not spring to mind in relation to LBG and its approach to HBOS Reading victims.

 
4. If you could wave a magic wand and improve one thing in the overall conduct of your bank in its dealings with you, what would that one thing be?

• HONESTY! From the word go!  Customers are stitched up on purpose I have proof of that I cannot believe how bad RBS mangers are. It is all about fees!  Not at all about the Customer.  As soon as a Banker senses trouble or you query anything they dump you!

• Direct access to a decision maker

• Honesty, transparency and genuine file disclosures.  The bank need to stop fabricating central files and file documents to cover up their misbehaviour and dishonesty, there will be a substantial cost to this but ‘the rules are the rules’!

• I would screen out psychopaths and narcissists from being in positions of power - I would have them feel the pain we've been through even to get them pay any attention after their failed cover up

• The magic wand would be the wand of truth honesty and decency along with large helping of self-reflection.

• Remove the powers and influences of banks/lenders in the insolvency processes – it is too open to abuse and conflicts of interest.  Banks have security so they are protected but the appointments of advisers and Administrators should be completely down to the Directors/Shareholders.

• Transparency, honesty and integrity by all parties within the bank which sadly is lacking.

• Complete honesty to me AND the FCA and the media. 

• To acknowledge that I was a whistleblower.  If I could wave a magic wand and improve more than one thing in the overall conduct of the bank and its dealings with me I would also want the Bank to be: Transparent, to own their failings, to respond with integrity and professionalism, to resolve complaints in a timely fashion and not cause further sufferance through unnecessary delay.

• to listen would be a start and go back to a bank manager who knew your business inside out. the history and support .one last point how can a bank chase us for money for 10 years when any other financial institution is time bared after 6. this is wrong. yet we cannot raise a claim after 6. How do we fight a case when banks have unlimited supply of money and we have nothing? We need regulators to regulate and be appointed from various industries. A body that can listen to our case and mediate or rule. a levy to be charged against the banks to fund police law suits.

• A moral compass, and the catchy phrase of treat your customer fairly

• I would ask that my bank provides me with a detailed breakdown of my mortgage accounts that I have been requesting since January 2010 which would prove that they didn't keep accurate records and shouldn't have taken the action against me that they did.

• Magic wand? I don't think the people who are responsible for HBoS would improve if you applied a cudgel to their pates... But maybe if they knew what it was like to lose everything you've worked for and invested in, so that a huge uncaring organisation can survive at all costs they'd have some idea of the suffering they have inflicted on others to save their own meaningless careers. 

• The magic wand would be to make my file in its entirety appear as disclosure is the key replacement of all senior executives & senior management & promote "clean” staff from the branches into senior positions.

• I can think of four crucial points:

• Individual accountability - Over the years we have been investigating HBOS Reading, many employees including senior executives have felt able to misrepresent the facts to us, other victims, MPs and even the police. Whether this has been done in the name of policy, brand protection or even what the Bank together with other authorities may consider as 'public interest', is of no consequence to those whose businesses and lives are devastated by such conduct. I believe that if those responsible were held individually responsible for dishonesty, many might feel honesty was the best policy or at least a policy that should be seriously considered.

• Transparency - We (SME Alliance) understand the obligations imposed by data protection laws but banks frequently abuse this and manipulate the obligations in order to redact crucial and permissible information. Worryingly we have also seen many examples of banks tampering with and altering information in clients files.

• Communication - if we cannot communicate, the gulf between banks and dissatisfied customers can only get bigger. And it is not enough for senior management to instruct those not in positions of power to 'deal with it'. Very often those people feel an obligation or are under pressure to 'keep the boss happy' at all costs. In the Reading case this led to much misinformation filtering back to senior management and ultimately this has damaged both the clients and the banks.

• Reality check - Most of all (and here's the 'world peace' line) I would like to see senior management having some real consideration for the society we all live in. Some senior bankers may believe the importance of the financial sector means they are indeed 'masters of the universe' but that is ultimately a delusional view. I know many bankers who are good decent people but sadly, over the last ten years, the term banker has become synonymous with the most disparaging of descriptions previously reserved for unsavoury characters with swarthy complexions and interesting accents. It is a fact the only people not badly affected by the so called 'credit crunch' are the senior bankers who oversaw the disaster. Society has not forgotten this fact it has tainted the entire sector..Given nothing has changed for the better, society is becoming more and more frustrated by what can only be perceived as a culture of greed, arrogance and disdain for the very people who bailed banks out and allowed senior management to continue to receive telephone number sized bonuses. It is not a healthy or sustainable situation and the only people who can change this perception or this dark culture are senior bankers.

Quote re scheme

what Lloyds says in public and what it does in private already seems to be two very different things.

Moreover, the Bank’s decision to appoint Professor Russel Griggs as its ITP before completing its meetings with victims and without consulting with any of them or the APPG beforehand clearly does not bode well in this respect.

In particular, it would seem to us, based on his background as the current overseer of credit application appeals, that Lloyds has selected Professor Griggs to perform the role of the traditional, secondary, reviewer, who will review decisions that Lloyds has already made in individual cases, rather than that of a primary, truly independent, decision maker.

We also have concerns over Professor Griggs’ previous reluctance to criticise RBS before the Treasury Select Committee and his simplistic, unsympathetic, view that businesses within RBS’ GRG would have been unlikely to survive anyway given their financial difficulties, which completely ignored the fact that many businesses that fell into the clutches of the GRG did so for wholly spurious and baseless reasons.

Clearly, there is a risk Professor Griggs may already be predisposed towards the Bank’s likely position on issues of causation and “case-hardened” towards the victims of HBOS’ Impaired Assets division.

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
 
I feel rather like Daniel in the lion's den standing here. My name is Nick Gould. I am corporate law partner at Gunnercooke. I am also Chairman and co-founder of SME Alliance and it is in that role I am speaking here today. SME Alliance is a sole purpose lobby group made up mostly of Small and Medium sized businesses who have in some way been damaged by certain action of certain people at certain banks. As well as trying to help members we act as a knowledge sharing group. I am here because bank customers who have lost out through poor governance, lack of regulation and lack of being "treated fairly" in the banking system need to be heard.
 
I have decided to divide this brief talk into three parts.
 
First, some examples from SME Alliance members of the effects of poor governance and rules which are too complex, unenforceable and unenforced.
 
Next, perhaps arrogantly, to give our insight into how some banks got themselves their current awful reputation.
 
Finally, I'd like to end on a positive note; what might be done to improve banks' culture - and why that would benefit all of us.
 
I should note that my comments are addressed mainly to two major UK banks and various regulators. The other financial institutions are not directly within these discussions-but you should be interested.
 
SME Alliance is, I think, wrongly perceived as a bank bashing organisation - we aren't, but look at it from where the owners of the SMEs we represent, sit. They feel beaten up, destroyed, not listened to and not heard, so they fight back. No one wants a war, but that's what it feels like and that is what we would like to try and get away from.
 
When I knew I was coming here I asked some SME Alliance members a couple of relevant questions. I will post the replies on an anonymised basis on our website www.smealliance.org but here are some of them. Although truth can hurt, I suggest we need to have a real dialogue and this could be part of it.
 
Ql. If  you had  a  claim  against  a  bank  today  would  you be treated  any differently?
Everyone said no-examples;
 
"No, I don't think I would be treated any differently. I think that my bank and its lawyers are arrogant and .believe they are invincible and they know that I have no money and can take no action against them."
 
"No because banks and bankers now think it's part of the game to extract every penny they can with no moral compass or a thought for right or wrong."
 
"No because bank culture has not changed." 

"No difference now because the fundamental relationship between Banker and Customer and the insolvency industry has not changed one jot. Banks take security and it gives them total power -this is the problem." 

Q2. Has there been any improvement in your treatment by your bank over last few years?
 
"Personally, worse; no interaction with the bank is possible. Imagine the school bully holding  you  at  arm's length  while  he eats your sweets;  but  without  the  faint  hope of a teacher  coming to  the  rescue." 
"I have seen no improvements since the recession. The Bankers maintain their arrogant standing! As they could not run a business how are they able to dictate to Small Businesses what they should or should not be doing!"
 
"Worse. There is no fairness being demonstrated in any dealings."
 
Q3. Would you say the people you have been dealing with have treated you with high ethical, professional and business standards; please provide examples.
 
"Recently one person has been really good professional polite and courteous although his hands are tied he cannot even sneeze in front of you without the approval of the legal team. In the early days it was all about intimidation and power to batter you down into submission you are made to feel alone and a failure." 

"No definitely not! At Mediation they were intimidating to say the least. The bankers continue to lie through their Solicitors they have no morals or standards.  They most of the time are trying to cover their backs for bad behaviour from the past."
 
Q4. If you could wave a magic wand and improve one thing in the overall conduct of your bank in its dealings with you, what would that one thing be?
 
"Truth honesty and decency along with large helping of self-reflection." 
"Honesty, transparency and genuine file disclosures. The banks need to stop fabricating central files and file documents to cover up their misbehaviour and dishonesty, there will be a substantial cost to this but 'the rules are the rules'!"
 
And finally this is from Nigel Henderson. You might want to watch his talk at last year's Cambridge Symposium on Economic Crime, which you can find on YouTube.
 
"The mainstay of any business relationship is trust in the ethics, commercial morality and basic honesty of the people you are dealing with. Banks have shown themselves to be devoid of all of the above, putting personal and commercial avarice ahead of any other consideration towards their customers. Recent court cases have demonstrated that those at the very top of the banks persist in ignoring the conduct of the bank and covering up such wrongdoing."
 
So how did your industry get into this position? A couple of thoughts and several questions.  It seems to most outsiders you are   in a bunker mentality, you have your

Spades and you just keep on digging. For example, the have you ever thought how ridiculous it is that you need a regulation called "Treating Customers Fairly"? Why not just do it as a matter of course? Why find wriggle room to get out of such a basic idea? Where are the regulators needed to ensure rules are really enforceable and enforced? Would other regulators allow bullying of whistle-blowers, doctoring of transcripts between bank and customer, or a vendetta against certain customers?  Does the Banking Standards Board ever talk to those affected by lax and lack of enforced standards? Why would a bank spend (say) double the amount on professional fees that it need spends to settle a claim? Why is there apparently such a fear factor within these banks? When a major bank sees itself as a co-victim, rather than a co­ conspirator, something isn't quite right.
 
And please take this next comment away with you.
 
Ethics, morals and relationships-they are, but shouldn't be, merely words to many. And because they are seen as merely words and because of actions or inaction, arrogance or inability to hear the real effects of those words, we know people who have committed suicide, have died, are dying of cancer, have had nervous breakdowns. These are real people with real lives-not numbers or units.
 
And you know what-- it is actually in your and everyone else's interest for you to behave morally and ethically, to build real relationships and to be effectively regulated.  I never thought I would make this sort of comment  and  I assume  no one  wants to  be spoken  to  like this. I also know very well, generalisations are odious. 99% plus of those working in banks are good and fair people.
 
So, where next?
 
This is from Nikki Turner, co-founder of SME Alliance, one of the few people I am in awe of and the person who with her husband Paul has spent over 13 years - THIRTEEN YEARS! - fighting for honesty, transparency and justice. You might know about the Turners, they discovered and took years to convince a world that wouldn’t listen that there was a fraud in HBOS Reading. And finally, the world (or some of it) did listen.
 
"Reality check - Most of all (and here's the 'world peace' line) I would like to see senior management having some real consideration for the society we all live in. Some senior bankers may believe the importance of the financial sector means they are indeed ‘masters of the universe' but that is ultimately a delusional view. I know many bankers who are good decent people but sadly, over the last ten years, the term banker has become synonymous with the most disparaging of descriptions previously reserved for unsavoury characters. It is a fact the only people not badly affected by the so called 'credit crunch' are the senior bankers who oversaw the disaster. Society has not forgotten this fact and it has tainted the entire sector. Given that nothing has changed for the better, society is becoming more and more frustrated by what can only be perceived as a culture of greed, arrogance and disdain for the very people who bailed banks out and allowed senior management to continue to receive telephone number sized bonuses. It is not a healthy or sustainable situation and the only people who can change this perception or this dark culture are senior bankers."

We need you to stop digging and to start acknowledging the real wrongs; start talking to us and others like us. Stop being just legalistic-be something more. Be human, be moral and recognise what happened to those on the other side of the table. If I worked in an industry and read some of these comments, I would be ashamed. Why not be part of a change for something positive. Paul Turner who knows more about these defects in banks than most, suggested something such as a truth and reconciliation commission, why not? I repeat, please come and talk to us with a genuinely open mind.
 
Thank you
Nick Gould