SME Alliance Replies For FT Conference On Banking Standards

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.