Category Archives: SME Alliance

Dear Sirs, this is hardly flattering. Please redact. #HBOS

IMG_3454I’m confused – for years now the FSA followed by the FCA have been looking into the conduct of HBOS. Whether or not he is considered good guy or bad guy, I know Hector Sants (who admittedly took some persuading) was eventually keen to get to the bottom of what had been going on in HBOS and he wasn’t in the mood for ‘cover up’ when he released the BoS Censure Report in March 2012. Not long after that he mysteriously went from being the golden boy tipped to take a top job at the Bank of England, to relative anonymity. Since then nothing has been heard about the Section 168 Report commenced in June 2010 specifically into HBOS Reading (probably because of the ever pending criminal trials due to start in January 2016) and the overall report into HBOS and its top management has been continually delayed.

Articles in the press yesterday seem to confirm that report will be out next month (October 2015). However, even now, after the endless delays and God knows how much spent in legal fees by the Bank (I imagine Lloyds has picked up the bill for Stevenson, Hornby, Cummings and Crosby – if he’s actually included) and the regulator, we have now been warned to expect redactions.

How does that work? The regulator does an in depth investigation into the catastrophic demise of HBOS and the people who were running the Bank don’t like the conclusions the FCA have reached – so they are able to have certain parts redacted. I’m not saying the report found anything criminal (although in my personal view I fail to see how it couldn’t have found some very shady conduct) but even in a civil court, could someone ask a Judge to redact the bits of evidence they don’t like? Imagine, “your honour, I don’t think the evidence before you puts me in a favourable light so I’d like that bit crossed out.” I would love to have any current photo taken of me photo shopped so I look thirty years younger but the truth is, I’m not. These possible redactions are similarly trying to change history – and it can’t be done. Neither should anyone countenance attempts to do so.

I have been told (repeatedly) that the FCA has quite extraordinary powers, should it care to use them. I know the powers of the FSA were split between the FCA and the PRA but all the same, how can top bankers or their legal teams, oblige the regulator to redact the findings of its own report? It makes no sense. Neither does the sharp ‘Harp’ exit of Mr Wheatley make sense. I find the whole thing very concerning. Rumour (or the media) has it, Mr Wheatley was too ‘consumer friendly’ and this did not fit in with Mr Osborne’s plans to make sure the City Of London retains pride of place in the financial world. Which is a bit odd because lately, even the BBC has been portraying the Square Mile as something akin to the Guild of Thieves from the Disk World.

Therefore, what worries me is this: if Mr Wheatley had to go because he wasn’t banker friendly enough, how can we expect Mr Osborne to allow a full, frank portrayal of what went on at HBOS?

Although various MPs and, I think, the TSC have demanded to see any redacted passages, how can other people, who have first hand experience of what was going on at HBOS, ever challenge what they will never see? I do know what some of the information and evidence the PRA received to contribute to this report was, as I sent some, as did Paul Moore. We didn’t send it randomly in the hope someone would read it, we were in direct contact with the PRA and the Bank of England via the Governor and we know they all received and read our evidence. Consequently we have our own views on what the FCA Report should include. It’s not a pretty picture and I have often wondered how the bankers concerned would refute this evidence? Well obviously, if the contentious or nasty bits of the report are redacted, they won’t have to!

Redaction has been a big issue with SME Alliance recently. Members sending Direct Access Requests (DSAR) to get their information from their own central files in banks (mostly RBS) have received such varied replies, we’ve asked both RBS and the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) to clarify exactly what members should expect to get. The answers so far have been as clear as mud but it is pretty clear no one should be getting entire pages redacted. Neither should anyone be getting information that has been manipulated or tampered with (that’s another story coming soon). We are struggling to get to the bottom of Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and a definitive interpretation. But I’m not sure Section 7 of the DPA was ever intended as a barrier to regulators publishing reports on banks or bankers! Neither was Maxwellisation and the remarkable Re-Maxwellisation meant to be used as a means of delay or ‘cover up.’ These are clearly new techniques invented by the very clever (and well paid) lawyers of La La Land – but that doesn’t mean we or the regulators should blithely accept them.

My other concern is that while this report may actually be more candid than others before it (I’m remembering the 1 page press release fiasco from Lord Turner about RBS http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmtreasy/640/640.pdf ), it will be written in such a way as to minimise any potential legal actions against Lloyds Banking Group who merged with HBOS. Contagion is a huge issue for the banks and I’m sure the emphasis of this report will be on “this is what HBOS did but Lloyds were totally unaware of any of this.” Which begs the question (again) – why would Lloyds go ahead with such a critical merger without knowing chapter and verse of what they were getting involved with? Money laundering rules being what they are these days (or profess to be), banks need so much information to open an account, I’m waiting for “what colour knickers are you wearing” to be added to the list of KYC questions. So it is inconceivable Lloyds had inadequate detail about their new partner. And, in my opinion, Lloyds didn’t just merge with HBOS, they’ve done a pretty good job at morphing into the same sort of unethical and unattractive organisation.

Last thing – I know many victims of HBOS have waited years now for some sort of closure. The criminal trials regarding HBOS Reading have taken years to happen (if they ever do) and the various reports on HBOS have been endlessly delayed and now (probably) redacted. While I don’t suppose the ex management of HBOS have been quite as cavalier about the FCA report as they were about running the bank, I very much doubt if any of them have suffered anything like the hardship the banks’ victims have. Some of us have had our businesses ruined and our lives on hold for many years. Not to mention the many people who lost their savings and their retirement plans via the disastrous way HBOS was run. So I really hope, regardless of the HMT’s desire to hang on to its golden goose (that many of us feel is actually a dead duck), that when the HBOS Report does finally come out, it is as honest as harsh and as damning as it should be. Hector left us with the BoS Censure Report – before Mr Wheatley left, let’s hope he finished the job and, for once, let the blame fall where it’s due.

Save The Bank, Call In The Diplomats! Really??? #RBS

IMG_5058aBefore SME Alliance was started, I would have been hard pressed to believe any bank could behave as badly as Bank of Scotland and its keeper Lloyds Banking Group. Now I’m pretty sure RBS could give HBOS/Lloyds a run for their money in the bad banking stakes. Not a day goes by without a new nightmare story about RBS or Nat West arriving in the SME Alliance in box. Which isn’t to say HBOS/Lloyds has been knocked off my top spot but is rather, a sad reflection of how systemic malpractice is in our banks.

Consequently I don’t know whether to be shocked by the news Jacob Rees-Mogg has asked UKFI to call in the troops to get RBS out of it’s £5BN fine from the US, or whether I think he has a point? From my own point of view it’s tough enough to get RBS to compensate the many UK firms it trashed in its GRG division or it has forced into bankruptcy with exorbitant exit fees for destructive products like IRHP. In fact it’s hard enough – in the face of indisputable evidence, to get them to admit black is black. Paying £5BN to the Americans will surely make it even tougher for UK victims of RBS to get compensation? And what about shareholder (taxpayer) value? We’re already reportedly going to lose £13BN on the sale of RBS – do we have to add £5BN to that figure?

On the other hand, as the US authorities have levied this penalty for the banks sub-prime activities, should RBS, yet again, get away with no penalty? God knows why (and he’s not telling) but apparently senior bankers can’t get prosecuted for the multi billion pound scams they over see, so would it be right to use diplomatic means to curtail the US ability to fine banks as well?

I think this is quite an extraordinary conversation reported in the Telegraph today:

(UKFI) “Are you saying to the Treasury they should use the government’s diplomatic efforts with our closest ally to avoid the British taxpayer being fined $8bn by the American taxpayer?”

(Mr RM)“If I were you, I would be saying, what is the British embassy for if it is not trying to get RBS off this fine? Our closest ally fining us $8bn is pretty stiff.”

There’s a spin and a half. This suddenly isn’t about the misconduct of RBS in America and the penalty they should pay. No, this is about American taxpayers trying to fleece British taxpayers! And if the Americans don’t want to go along with this so called justified diplomacy to get RBS off the hook, what next? Call in the tanks? Really?

Leaving the American issues to one side for a moment, yesterday an article in Reuters, suggested Ross McEwan may have to admit the GRG division of the bank actually did do what many of us have been screaming from the roof top for years – it has been deliberately ruining SMEs and taking (stealing) their assets. Apparently the FCA have “got something” which is a bit of a game changer and the forthcoming report will expose this – or some of it. And this news has come out now because? In my opinion I’d say it’s because the bank is preparing us for an announcement in the near future along the lines of:

we are shocked to discover that in certain instances the allegations made about the treatment of SMEs by the GRG division may potentially have some validity. As a result of the FCA investigation we now have enough evidence to show a small number of SMEs have indeed been poorly served by the bank and we will, of course, make enquiries into what happened in these cases with a view to contacting affected parties.”

Someone who spends a lot of time investigating what goes on in RBS told me a few days ago that, in the event all the outstanding issues RBS has with SMEs were to be addressed, the bill for proper compensation would be in the region of £40BN. Of course that’s not going to happen. If politicians are kicking off at the idea RBS have to pay the US £5BN, what are the chances this Government would allow the bank to pay UK SMEs eight times that? None. The Government may not have any full proof way to stop the US getting its money but they have all sorts of ways to make sure SMEs can’t get theirs. It’s a tall order for most SMEs to even get into a Court room to progress a claim let alone take on the bank’s mighty legal teams.

All the same, I know there are some very determined people out there and some big class actions in the pipe line. With such large losses looming, George Osborne must be worried about the share sale he is so determined to achieve. That’s without even considering the debate on whether or not he should be selling RBS in the first place. I know there’s many organisations and campaign groups who feel RBS should just be nationalised and then split up into smaller banks that would at least be of some use to society. I would agree except that we’ve already lost a fortune on this bank and nothing I have seen or heard in the past 6 months convinces me of anything other than the fact RBS is heading very fast into a brick wall.

Whether the bank is sold back into the commercial world or nationalised, the barrage of allegations and litigation heading its way is not going to stop. And some of the things coming have not even been mentioned yet – in fact I don’t even know if Ross McEwan is aware of what’s coming? I’m very sure the FCA doesn’t.

I suppose another option is if Jeremy Corbyn were to become Prime Minister – he might nationalise RBS, insist no shareholders got anything and no one could could litigate against the bank? But I can’t see that going down well with anyone and least of all the bankers who might then be asked to live on a normal wage.

So what should happen to RBS? Who knows? My husband thinks (and he even said it in a meeting at 10 Downing Street) the only way forward between the banks and the SME sector is a “truth and reconciliation” scenario. It would cost a lot for the banks to come clean and work out suitable compensation for the thousands of SMEs they’ve gratuitously ruined but, were such an agreement even vaguely possible, everyone, including the SMEs would have to take a reasonable and moderate approach. And the billions of pounds the banks would save on expensive lawyers, barrister and court fees would go a long way too righting wrongs, getting the SME sector back on it’s feet and re-establishing some trust.

#RBS to sell or not to sell – won’t make any difference to the fact this bank has backed itself, the Government and the Country into a corner. And no, Mr Rees-Mogg, the British embassy is not there to protect a British Bank from the consequences of its own misconduct. The tax payers didn’t ask for the opportunity to bail RBS out and become shareholders – it was a fait accompli. As such, one would have thought our own Government, regulator’s and justice system (not to mention UKFI) would have been keen to protect the public investment and stop our bankers behaving like bandits.

One last thing – Nick Gould and I had a great meeting this week at the Metro Bank with Peter Musumeci Jr, the right hand man of Vernon Hill. I’m not saying the Metro Bank is perfect and any SME owner could waltz in there tomorrow and get exactly what it wants. However, not only would I say the ethos of the Metro Bank is refreshingly different to our big banks, they also listen and wanted to know what are the key things the SME sector is looking for in a bank. Funnily enough, a lot of what we want is contained in the FCA Principle for Business, starting with principle 1. Integrity. Sadly integrity has been off the menu in some banks for so long I can only think some of our more illustrious bankers have forgotten what it means.

Photograph © Laura Maria Photography 2015

Maxwellisation? Enough already.

So first we had the so called ‘credit crunch’. Bankers all over the world, all paid telephone number fees, ran banks into the ground and brought various economies to their knees. Then we had the bailouts – Governments all over the world and not least the UK, decided the best way out of the ‘credit crunch’ was to give the banks billions of pounds, dollars, Euro’s, you name it, they gave it, to the banks to replace what they lost in their bizarre spending frenzy. And that resulted in mass austerity across the UK, Europe and the US – probably elsewhere as well but I’m not an expert.

Then came the clean up – or the apparent clean up. What happened to cause the credit crunch and how regulators and Governments could ensure we wouldn’t get a repeat performance anywhere in the near future? And how was this clean up done? Well that’s the latest page in the most bizarre story of the 21st century history book – we clean up by burying as much truth as possible and where we can’t – because the public are demanding explanations – we introduce Maxwellisation.

I’ve read various explanations of Maxwellisation and they make as much or even less sense to me as the fateful and long drawn out love affair on the Maxwell House advert. I don’t know what happened in the agonising and tragic story of a love affair that was almost but never quite fulfilled. I certainly don’t know what it had to do with coffee! And similarly I don’t understand how the exploits of Robert Maxwell – who apparently ripped off not just his own company but also pension funds – could be introduced as a legitimate way to stop the rightful exposure of wrong doing?

I may be mad but surely we’ve got it the wrong way around? If our regulators and their third party experts do in depth investigations into situations and come up with explanations, in the form of reports, which finally expose the truth, how can it be right that the people named and blamed in those explanations, can challenge the reports before they are released? Are we saying our ‘experts’ and our regulators may have got things completely wrong? Is it in the nature of ‘experts’ who spend years doing these reports at vast expense to the public, to get it completely wrong? Is that an equation our regulators start with? I don’t think so.

This is like an appeal in the justice system happening before the trial. So the crooks, let’s say for the sake of argument bank robbers, receive the prosecution case and, before a Judge or a jury gets to hear it, half of it is removed because the accused don’t like it or they don’t agree with it. Better still, the accused’s lawyers may be able to come up with legal technicalities as to why the allegations can’t even be made in the first place. So what the Judge or the jury finally get to hear is an edited version of events as permitted by the defendants. Wow, I can see that going down very well with the criminal fraternity. Not a luxury extended to Tom Hayes but surely one the magic circle lawyers will be insisting on for more senior bank management in the future.

As someone who has spent years of my life investigating bank fraud albeit from the perspective of someone who is actually in the rock & roll business, the one thing I know is ‘the written word doesn’t lie.’ Even if people have been deliberately writing lies, the culmination of a proper investigation will just highlight those lies and you will be grateful someone bothered to put the lies in writing as an example of fraud or corruption or, at the very least misconduct or negligence. For example – how could any bank relying on untold amounts of emergency funding from the Bank of England and then needing several billion pounds from the public purse, possibly pretend to investors that it’s a safe bet to plough money into a Rights Issue? But read this absolute twaddle from Andy Hornby back in 2008 http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1631967/HBOS-chief-Hornby-defends-rights-issue.html and you’ll see that’s exactly what some of them did! Now what part of Maxwellisation can alter those facts?

Better still, let’s remind ourselves of exactly how the great and the good from HBOS and RBS were still trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes even after they’d been so instrumental in bringing the Country to the edge of the abyss: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtreasy/uc144_vii/uc14402.htm

That’s a cracking read by the way.

I don’t know how anyone would do a comprehensive investigation into why we went into the Iraq war although logic would say the absence of the weapons of mass destruction, which were the reason for so many tragic deaths, raises some terrifying questions. But in the case or RBS or HBOS, it’s just not that complicated. If two music publishers can expose a massive fraud in HBOS and if certain members of SME Alliance are supplying the Times with evidence of massive issues in RBS, how can the FCA and their ‘experts’ be so endlessly challenged on their findings? The whole thing smacks of the dreaded ‘D’ word – deals. Deals to hide what really happened in our banking sector. Deals to protect the so called great and the good. Deals which, rather than give the public some sort of closure on what happened and show who was responsible, will just ensure the same or worse happens in the future.

There is no point in Maxwellisation – it’s apparently not a legal requirement and all it is doing is staving off the inevitable. If either of these banking reports ends up as another whitewash, there’s a whole army of people out there who will challenge them. Journalists, whistle blowers, small organisations like SME Alliance, Move Your Money and Bully Banks – not to mention various forthcoming trials (criminal & civil) which will shed more light on the reality. Clearly, if the FCA keep delaying their reports or if they allow the truth to be watered down, others will happily set the record straight.

I would say, from a public perception, Maxwellisation should really be called Orwellisation. We are continually walking backwards to Orwell’s views of 1984. The important difference is, there was no social media in Orwell’s world. No twitter or Facebook or Linked In. And unless the powers that be can wipe out the world wide web, Maxwellisation is actually and ultimately just like the coffee advert – long, drawn out and a fantasy. We’ve had enough fantasy when it comes to real people’s lives. Just like the cream always goes to the top of the coffee,  the truth, as Hillsborough has shown us, also has an amazing way of coming out on top and Maxwellisation won’t change it.

Surely the public have been on the receiving end of too much abuse from bankers without this latest trickery? Let’s just get on with it please, let’s publish these reports and stop all this nonsense. As a very good friend of mine would say – enough already!

Being a litigant in person doesn’t make you a second class citizen.

OK – so it’s no great secret many Judges find dealing with litigants in person very frustrating. Fair enough and it’s also the case that litigants in person find the cuts in legal aid and the ever increasing court costs, which means they have no other option but self representation, equally frustrating. However, frustration is a very different scenario to biased, rude, contemptuous and sometimes corrupt conduct And unfortunately, in some cases, an independent bystander could come to no other conclusion than the fact this kind of conduct is happening in Courts across the Country.

Over the last 8 years I have repeatedly heard of or seen first hand where Judges, in the full knowledge a litigant in person, however much home work they have done, will not have the knowledge or skills of a trained professional in the Court, have abused their powers and literally attempted to denigrate or bully the defendant into submission. Recently I have heard this one too many times.

Illogical decisions, antagonistic attitudes and unreasonable demands are, it seems, an acceptable method used to close cases down. And while the learned Judge is obliging and polite to his colleagues, the same courtesy is sometimes conspicuously absent from the same Judge dealing with litigants in person.

I don’t for one minute pretend the majority of Judges behave like this and I know many of them go out of their way to show as much understanding and give as much latitude as possible to people who are struggling to put their case against legal professionals. However I take full responsibility for saying some do abuse their positions and are totally disrespectful of the public and the Court.

Why they do this is beyond me. Being a Judge is obviously one of the most serious jobs one can possibly have and it carries with it a huge responsibility. Why anyone would risk tarnishing their reputation with disreputable conduct in Court, is an anathema. But it does happen.

Here’s an extract from my book about HBOS which can’t be published until the Operation Hornet trials are over for reasons of sub-judice. This relates to a Judge’s comments at our (my family’s) 20th eviction hearing (out of 22) My husband represented us in 21 of those hearings as a litigant in person. *I’ve redacted the Judge’s name until the criminal trials are finished:

…..Still, despite their best efforts the Bank never managed to evict us although one Judge, XXXXXX, did allow the eviction and he also refused us permission to appeal. Judge XXXXXX presided over four of our eviction hearings and, for what ever reason (and I have no idea why) he was extremely antagonistic to us and he seemed rather keen we should be evicted. To the point when at one hearing in January 2010, which he had to adjourn because we were waiting for a final decision on our application for legal aid (we were pretty desperate to get legal representation) Judge XXXXXX told the barrister for the plaintiff, “it is with a heavy heart I am going to adjourn this matter.”And his comments to us were “Mr and Mrs Turner, you have come within a whisker of being evicted from your house” and “..this matter has been adjourned far too many times and I [he] will draw a line under it.” On 26th March 2010 he finally did grant the eviction and he also refused us permission to appeal. XXXXX [deputy Chairman of XXXXXX at the time] was also at that hearing. We had to make a verbal application in the High Court for permission to appeal – which was granted…..”

Our defence and reason we felt eviction was entirely unreasonable and unjustified was because a well documented bank fraud had caused our business to close and consequently resulted in mortgage arrears and yet the same bank was trying to evict us. Another Judge had gone so far as to say (to an exasperated barrister for the bank) that it would be reasonable for Paul and I to live in our house for the rest of our lives without paying the mortgage if our allegations were proven to be well founded. Given the Judge who allowed our eviction hadn’t heard that case, I still wonder on what grounds he had a heavy heart at not evicting us? Why would he want to evict anyone? And it was the very unpleasantness of his comments and the way in which they were delivered which I found so remarkable. And I genuinely felt this Judge felt entitled to belittle and intimidate us – as if we were something the cat had dragged into his court room.  Anyway I have used that as an example of perceived bias.

Here is an extract from ‘Guide to Judicial Conduct 2013’

4.2

A judge’s conduct in court should uphold the status of judicial office, the commitment made in the judicial oath and the confidence of litigants in particular and the public in general. The judge should seek to be courteous, patient, tolerant and punctual and should respect the dignity of all. The judge should ensure that no one in court is exposed to any display of bias or prejudice on grounds said in the Bangalore principle entitled “equality” to include but not to be limited to “race, colour, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status and other like causes”. There should be no bias or prejudice on those grounds, which are described in the principles as “irrelevant grounds”. In the case of those with a disability care should be taken that arrangements made for and during a Court hearing do not put them at a disadvantage. Further guidance is given in the Judicial College’s Equal Treatment Bench Book. The duty of course remains on the judge to apply the law as it relates to allegedly discriminatory conduct.

It took me a while to find the above because when I keyed in Code of Conduct for Judges – there didn’t seem to be one! In the end I called a journalist friend who pointed me in the right direction. So it seems bias in a Court room is unacceptable? Maybe but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen and making a complaint against a Judge after he or she has ruled against you (whether on unreasonable grounds or not) will not help you save your house or your business or help you get justice.

So what can anyone do to curtail this bad conduct? Like everything else that has gone wrong because of lack of transparency and elitist attitude, I think the only thing anyone can do is expose such conduct. If you’ve had a bad experience in a Court room and you feel a Judge has been rude, or biased or even corrupt, get the transcript and publish it. Maybe others (at arms length) will think you are wrong or over reacting because appearing in front of a Judge can be a very emotional experience which you may interpret more rationally a few days later  – so don’t put the heading ‘Dodgy Judge’ or any think like it. I suggest you call it something like ‘Does this seem right?’ and see what feed back you get. If enough people were to do this and if the same names repeatedly cropped up demonstrating this poor conduct against litigants in person, the appropriate authorities might then take some notice.

If any members of SME Alliance feel they’ve been subjected to poor treatment by a Judge and they have the transcript of their case, please sent it to smealliance2014@gmail.com and we’ll post it on the website for comment. I think it’s important to stand up against this sort of intimidation. SMEs are already highly disadvantaged in the civil courts against banks or big corporations with their deep pockets and teams of gold plated lawyers. So it is absolutely critical that the Judge remains totally impartial and doesn’t ruin the huge amounts of courage and confidence you need to put your case. It doesn’t look like the availability of legal aid will improve any time soon so we are all, Judges and litigants, stuck with each other for the foreseeable future. Unless a litigant in person is abusive or contemptuous, I see no reason why they (we) should be treated as second class citizens.

I would just finish by saying – I know a lot of people in the judiciary, lawyers, barristers, QCs and Judges. Most of them are extraordinarily intelligent, fair, good people. So please don’t think every court room is a torture chamber. But as in all barrels, a couple of rotten apples can completely ruin the cider and I am quite sure there are many in the judiciary who would be very grateful for clear examples of bad practice.

So 5000 SMEs supported the Tories but who will support 5M SMEs?

For some reason – and I can’t for the life of me understand what the reason is – in the recent election debates, none of the political parties have raised the issues of banks (you know the ones that caused mass austerity) bank misconduct (PPI, IRHP, EFG’s, Libor rigging, GRG, HBOS Reading, money laundering for drug cartels etc. etc) or the related issues of law and order and a two tier justice system. You know, the one whereby the majority of crimes committed by anyone in our financial sector results in no one going to jail and shareholders paying hefty fines for the “get out of jail free cards”.

Apparently none of this conduct and none of these issues are relevant to the election and we don’t need to know what the parties intend to do about them – if anything?

It’s been suggested (and probably rightly) that politicians feel such a minority of the population has been directly affected by such issues, it’s not worth making a big deal about them – not really a vote winner.

I just want explain why I think that is a total misconception. It affects millions.

On Monday the Telegraph ran an article about the 5000 SME owners who have signed Baroness Brady’s letter and pledged their support to the Conservative party. Personally I don’t think that was a very wise PR tactic because the obvious question is, who do the other 4,995,000 support? However the point I want to make is – according to the article 5000 SMEs represents 100,000 jobs.

According to the FCA, more than 60,000 SMEs were mis sold IRHP (Interest rate swaps): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10527353/FCA-chief-warns-Treasury-swaps-scandal-could-be-significantly-bigger.html

So by the logic of Baroness Brady’s letter, that would represent 1,200,000 jobs.

Recently, Clive May, a builder and founder member of SME Alliance, successfully got an admission from RBS that they had miss-sold EFG loans and were now investigating 1800 of them: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2915335/Relief-fierce-critic-RBS-admission-mis-selling-loans.html

That’s another another 36,000 jobs and of course it’s the tip of the iceberg because a lot of banks were ‘mis-selling’ EFGs and, before that, SFLGs. According to Government statistics 1,740,736 EFG loans were drawn down between November 2008 and November 2013. Obviously, or should I say hopefully, not all of them were miss sold. But even working on the calculation only 10% were (and I think I’m being generous there) that’s still 174,073. Assuming (again hopefully) only 10% of that number resulted in SMEs being fatally damaged, that’s still 17,407 SMEs which, according to yesterdays statistics, equals approx. 348,000 jobs.

You see where this is going? Add to those figures the victims of asset stripping etc etc and you won’t get much change from the fact at least 100,000 SMEs who employed approximately 2,000,000 people, have been affected by bank misconduct. And that’s a conservative estimate. If you then add all the SMEs who were creditors of the failed businesses and who then had their own difficulties, the picture is very bleak. When I was investigating the HBOS Reading debacle, I started keeping a chart of the creditors affected and I gave up when I reached 20,000 – most of whom were SMEs.

All of the above wouldn’t be so devastating but for the other key issue being ignored in the election debate – justice and law and order. If SMEs could rely on the regulators, we may not feel so anxious to know what the political parties are planning to do about access to justice. But we can’t. I’m not going into detail here – but I can assure you that in the majority of cases, we can’t.

Neither can most of us afford civil litigation – and especially now when court fees have gone up to £10,000 while legal aid is all but non existent for SMEs. And, leaving aside court fees, in my view many SMEs are being seen as little more than cash cows by some legal firms who clearly think their remuneration should be on a par with bankers – regardless of whether or not they get results for their clients. And some, having milked the cow, drop the client the moment the udders run dry.

Where banks have committed criminal offences (and there have been many) we wouldn’t be so worried if we could report these crimes to the police and know justice would prevail. Again, in most cases that’s not an option and, on the odd occasion it does happen, you need to be prepared to wait years for any outcome. Generally speaking criminal prosecutions against bankers remain as rare as rocking horse sh*t and we’ve seen over and over again how banks deal with their crimes – they get shareholders to pay whacking great big fines and that’s the end of it.

Unbelievably our justice system and Governments (Labour and then the Coalition) seems to turn a blind eye to the fact so many crimes are going unpunished. Unbelievably, we, the public, have come to accept that status quo. There is now indisputable evidence bankers are not subject to the same laws as ordinary people. Additionally, SMEs know even when they can prove (and even in a Court) that a bank destroyed businesses, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything will be done about it: https://derekcarlylevrbs.wordpress.com/. Seems some banks are as cavalier in their view of a Judges power, as they are in politicians power.

I know I’ve waited 8 years for justice and it’s still not on the horizon. I know many members of SME Alliance are in the same boat. And those bankers who are deliberately perverting the course of justice by denying or burying criminality they are fully cognisant of, are still being given telephone number bonuses to continue this charade. Yes, Dave, Ed, Nick, we know all of that.

What we don’t know is: WHICH POLITICAL PARTY WILL ADDRESS THESE MATTERS AND SUPPORT SMES? #Justasking

But it’s never too late for someone to tell us. Who knows, maybe at the 11th hour one of the political parties will pull the cat out of the bag and show some support for the thousands of SMEs that have been ravaged by banks and who are really struggling to get justice.

And that could be a big vote winner.

BTW Before some annoying troll posts on twitter that neither I nor SME Alliance speak for or represent the views of all SMEs – I totally agree. That’s hardly the issue – this blog is about which politicians will speak out for SMEs – and will they do it before the election?

The Big Pink Elephants in the 2015 Election debate – ‘Law and Order’ – Justice.

smeallianceposterYesterday we had a call from a farmer in Scotland. Like many of the farmers we know, he took out what was supposed to be a bridging loan with UK Acorn Finance and now, with the claimed debt doubling in 4 years, he’s about to be evicted. In this particular instance he is being asked to pay back almost twice what he borrowed and, having made a substantial offer to ameliorate the situation, he and his wife are still being evicted. Sadly in this instance, I’m not sure what my husband Paul can do to help. Over the years and on top of our own 22 repossession hearings, Paul has become a bit of an expert at staving off evictions. But the call we had yesterday was to help stop an eviction due to take place on Tuesday. And to make matters worse, it’s a Bank Holiday in Scotland tomorrow, so there’s no time to do anything.

That was the third call for help we’ve had in five days. And that’s over and above the cases Paul is working on anyway to keep people in their homes or farms and to help them get compensation from various bank related scenarios that have devastated their lives.

Add that to the number of cases the SME Alliance adviser panel, Jon Welsby, Andy Keats, Ray Baker, Mel Loades and Steve Middleton are working on – or the cases Bully Banks are working on as well as the many other support groups and you start to get the picture. Whether because of IRHP, EFG, so called business support units like GRG or HBOS Reading, or out and out asset and land theft by dodgy sub-prime lenders working with the big banks, which is happening all over the Country, the fact is economic crime has reached epidemic proportions.

And the reason for this? A complete break down in law and order.

If it wasn’t so tragic, you’d have to laugh. For example, consider the news last week that an intruder alert from premises in Hatton Garden – diamond and gold centre of London – went off but the police decided to take absolutely no notice of it! I know the police have a severe aversion to economic crime but burglary? Really? They don’t go after burglars now?

According to the blog in the following link, the police HAVE to investigate all crimes and can’t pick and choose but it also confirms they often do their best not to investigate crimes.
http://crimebodge.com/how-to-force-the-police-to-investigate-a-crime/

In my experience that’s very true and a fraud investigator from my local police force once told me the police couldn’t investigate my allegations of fraud against a major bank because the bank in question assured them there was no fraud. A different police force did investigate this fraud albeit three years later and they have since called it “the biggest bank fraud in British history.” Mind you, whether the people charged ever actually stand trial is a debatable point – not that the law should be debatable. But that’s another story.

The point of this blog is – over and above the bizarre case of police ignoring a robbery in the diamond district of Britain, white collar crime continues to cause mass austerity and destroy thousands of SMEs in this Country, but not one person in the recent #leadersdebate, mentioned ‘Law & Order’, ‘Justice’, ‘White Collar Crime’, ‘Bankers’, ‘Bank Reform’, ‘Access To Justice’ or ‘SMEs’. Except for the Welsh candidate, who did give small businesses in Wales a brief mention.

So, how could anyone have a serious debate and ignore the big pink elephants in the Country? How can SMEs on the one hand be called the back bone of the Country and on the other hand, just before an election, the Government puts Court costs up so the inequitable situation we already have, has now got even worse? At a time when so many SMEs in the UK are so desperate for a more level playing field to protect themselves against errant banks with deep pockets and huge legal teams, Chris Grayling and his team have decided to dig a bloody great big hole in the field! And in doing so he has confirmed, yet again, in so many cases involving banks or the financial sector, justice is only available to the highest bidder. And will any of the other parties redress this situation? Well who knows. Nothing in the debate gave us any clues?

Yesterday I filled in a survey I had been sent by a university on the subject of the 2015 Election and the leaders’ debate. It asked me, amongst other things, if the debate had helped me make a more informed choice about who to vote for? NO. It absolutely didn’t help me make an informed choice because many of the key issues ruining this Country, were simply ignored. Yes the future of the NHS is hugely important. Yes immigration is very important – although I’m not sure who will do the many low paid but very essential jobs in the NHS if we adopt Nigel Farage’s policies on immigration. But surely Justice and Law and Order, which includes stopping bankers raping the Country, should have been on the agenda?

The fact it wasn’t really does make you wonder who is running the Country? Who decided what questions would be asked in the leaders’ debate? More importantly, who decided what questions would be excluded? Did someone run the list of questions past Ross McEwan, and Antonio Horta Osorio?

And, in a democratic country, how can things like this happen:

“A bankrupt Lanarkshire businessman fears that a seven-year-long legal battle with banking giant RBS will continue despite a landmark court ruling in his favour.

Property developer Derek Carlyle’s dispute with RBS began in 2008 when the bank pulled out of a loan leaving his business – Carlyco Ltd – “in ruins”.
However, last month the legal process took a turn to Mr Carlyle’s advantage when the UK Supreme Court ruled that a judge’s 2010 decision – that the bank had broken their promise to him over the loan – had been the right one.
Mr Carlyle said this week: “The fair thing for the bank to do now would be to fully accept the decision of the UK Supreme Court, admit they were wrong and settle the matter of damages.
“However, that does not appear to be the RBS way in my experience, and I therefore expect to have to take them back to court to force them to pay up.”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/rbs-bankrupt-lanarkshire-businessman-fears-5470583

Even when the Supreme Court rules a Bank, RBS, is in the wrong, it makes no difference. It’s as if the RBS executives think they’re in an episode of Kevin and Perry. “Yeh, so the Judge said we’re wrong. And? He is so unfair.”

What amazes me as much as anything, is the fact more MPs are not up in arms at the way some banks and bankers literally stick two fingers up to them and therefore to the democratic process. Occasionally some do show frustration and only recently Margaret Hodge on the Audit Committee was very obviously outraged with the answers she was getting from the “yes but my offshore account is all perfectly above board” and the “I can only look at the information I’m given at my £10k a day job” HSBC bosses. Similarly I’ve seen Andrew Tyrie at the TSC look extremely ‘miffed’ when talking to bankers. But what good does it do? Mr Tyrie may make the bankers squirm a bit but their seven figure salaries more than make up for a bit of ritual humiliation. And it’s not as if anyone has the power to stop what they’re doing. Or stop paying them handsomely to do more of the same. It seems whatever these top bankers do, good, bad, unethical or blatantly criminal, they face no penalty. How does that work? And what about party leaders? Have they considered the possibility that public perception is getting to the point where we are wondering if bankers have more power than elected representatives? And that’s across the board because Labour under both Blair and Brown were pretty keen on giving Knighthoods to the very bankers who brought the economy to its knees – and the coalition has shown itself to be equally fond of bankers.

So, going back to the forthcoming election, I’d be really grateful if any of the political parties would make it clear: where they stand on law and order; which party will focus on a more just society for all; which one of them will really cause serious reform in our major banks; which one of them will give the police and the SFO the resources they need to do their job properly; which of them will recognise the minimal access to justice SMEs have when trying to defend themselves against totally out of control rogue banks and; which party will realise how important SMEs are to the economy and give them the support they need? In short – who will lay these big pink elephants to rest?

As my good friend Nick Gould says – just asking.

Sadly I don’t think the answers, should anyone provide them, will do much good to the farmer and his family in Scotland who, it seems almost certain, will be evicted on Tuesday. Unless of course UK Acorn Finance decide they will, for once, do the right thing and accept the incredibly generous offer that’s been made to them? I hope so.

If – and I know it’s a big if – there is anyone reading this who could also help this family, please e-mail smealliance2014@gmail.com so I can pass on the details.

SME Alliance meetings at EMM Law and Metro Bank. A really brilliant day!

IMG_8976Yesterday was a double whammy for SME Alliance – we had a morning meeting sponsored by EMM law http://www.emmlegal.com/meet-the-lawyers/kate-mcmahon/ on the subject of Private Criminal prosecutions and an afternoon meeting sponsored by the Metro Bank. I didn’t attend the morning meeting (no room at the inn) so I can’t say a lot except we’ve had some really good feedback and we’d like to thank Kate McMahon and her team at Edmonds Marshall McMahon for their hospitality and for explaining how the process of Private Criminal Prosecutions works. Hopefully Andy Keats, who set the meeting up for us, will blog about it in the very near future.

The afternoon meeting at the Metro bank also went brilliantly. Derek Granville, our host, was our first speaker and he explained both the ethos of the Metro bank and the way they work. Two things in particular were music to the ears of our members. First – they don’t want to sell you financial products. So no PPI, no swaps and no other dodgy, so called, insurance. Secondly the Metro Bank is completely deposit funded and there is no wholesale funding. So they are not reliant on the ‘money market.’ Sophie took loads of notes of the whole meeting and we will post all the main points Derek made as soon as she has typed her notes up. But I can say a lot of us were very impressed with what Metro bank has to offer and it does seem like they are bringing back old fashioned banking where you know who you’re dealing with and what you’re dealing with.

IMG_9015Our second speaker was Andrew Hilderbrand http://gunnercooke.com/team/andrew-hildebrand/ who is a mediator. And whereas the word ‘mediation’ means an alternative form of bank bullying to some of our members, Andrew very eloquently put the case for positive mediation. As many members pointed out, it’s not always the case you can get a bank to consider positive mediation as they’re used to having everything on their terms. However, tying this in with our report to Andrea Leadsom where we suggested ‘FOS Plus’ would require banks and clients to ‘mediate’ early on in the process of dispute resolution, Andrew’s brand of very successful mediation would work very well. Will blog in more detail soon – or better still I’ll ask Andrew to blog.

Our last speaker was Lindsay Whitelaw from Urica. This company offers a very different type of factoring. I have never thought much about factoring except when people call to talk about Bibby (which they often do) but what Urica is offering sounds very different and very positive. The difference with ordinary factoring is Urica requires no personal guarantees and only checks the credit worthiness of the creditor. Anyone who uses factoring services should check Urica out: https://urica.com/ As their website says – “It’s not invoice discounting because that’s just debt by another name.” So it’s an interesting concept and a very new business model.

IMG_8990

Overall it was a great meeting with many new faces including people I’ve been talking to for years about HBOS, Lloyds, bank fraud, SME issues, but I’ve never met. And both Jon and Nick invited some interesting guests. But as always it was really great to see all of our founder members there. I know some people came from Scotland, Wales, the West Country and the North of England. Thank you all for making the effort to travel so far to join us. And thanks also to the two new members who felt it was so positive they have offered to sponsor us.

I will blog again over Easter in more detail but, if I don’t get another blog out before Easter Friday, Happy Easter to all and many thanks for your support. Who would have thought we could achieve so much in such a short time???

p.s I don’t know what time everyone left the Shakespeare’s Head where networking was still going strong when the Turner crew left about 7.00pm but I’m guessing Weatherspoons like SME Alliance!

Apathy International. Does anyone really expect HSBC or wealthy tax evaders to be prosecuted?

I had an interesting conversation on twitter last night with someone I don’t know from Canada – although I think he is British. The very topical subject was “why are wealthy people guilty of tax evasion not prosecuted?” And right from the start of the conversation my twitter friend, let’s call him Bill, made the point that in his view it would cost so much money and take so much time to prosecute them all, it would be counter productive. The cost would be more than the gain.

Bill is probably right. Tracking down the thousands of people identified by the Swiss Whistle blower (and let’s face it, as he says, his list is the tip of the iceberg) would cost a fortune and would probably result in very lengthy criminal trials where the only beneficiaries would be the lawyers. And Bill compared the situation to the gun amnesty used in the US. Hand in your unlicensed gun and we’ll say no more about it. Here the equivalent would be throw the tax man a few thousand pounds voluntarily and we’ll call it a day. I say a few thousand because, in the same way it wouldn’t be cost effective to prosecute these people, I can’t imagine HMRC have the manpower or even the will to do full on investigations into how much is actually owed?

My point was (and is) even considering the logistics of this situation, how can a democratic country ditch the law in the case of one section of society because it’s not cost effective to enforce law? Tax evasion is against the law and nowhere does it say “unless you are part of a rich minority who has been advised by your bank to shunt your money offshore.”

I also made the point HMRC will go through hell and high water to prosecute so called benefit cheats or even people on low incomes who may have been overpaid and then can’t pay it back. Similarly SMEs will be hounded for perceived VAT or tax issues and, if the man in the street doesn’t get all his tax returns in precisely on time and to their satisfaction, HMRC will be very efficient in sending out demands for what they calculate is owed or hefty fines. They also have no compunction about prosecuting for a few hundred pounds if they feel it is due. And that happens to thousands of people.

Bill made the point it doesn’t make any difference whether you cheat the tax man of £50.00 or £5M – it’s still against the law. I agree. So why do I have this horrible feeling you are less likely to be penalised for the £5M than the £50? And the same seems to be true of money laundering or other economic crimes. Big banks money laundering for drug cartels just get hefty fines paid by their shareholders but no one goes to jail. Here’s an extract from my book about HBOS (to be published in the dim and distant future) on these criminal but curiously acceptable transactions:

And by the way, how does that happen? It’s common knowledge now that certain banks have done these totally illegal deals and, yet again, no one in any bank is to blame and instead, the shareholders have paid massive fines as a penalty for bankers conduct. But if no one’s to blame, how do the deals get done? Do the bosses of the drug cartels phone a special ‘money laundering’ call centre and listen to an anonymous voice giving various options: “Please dial 1 for drug deals, 2 for arms deals or 3 for off shore tax evasion. To hear these options again, please dial 4.” Or do the Banks have departments which deal specifically with these ‘dodgy transactions’ and where the staff work in the secure knowledge no one will ever go to jail for criminal deals because bankers are above the law?”

Then there’s other proven fraudulent products like IRHP – another fine. Out and out asset theft from SMEs – another fine. PPI, EFG, SFLG, it’s becoming like a game show – think of an acronym and the contestants get to guess the appropriate meaning and the applicable fine. Winner gets two weeks in the Caymen Islands all expenses (and of course taxes) paid by the FCA. But if you or I were to commit any deliberately fraudulent act to turn a quick profit, you could expect and get the full force of the law to come into force.

However, taxes and financial crime aside, what really disturbed me about my twitter conversation which, by the way, I thoroughly enjoyed because I love a good debate, was the apathy involved. While Bill agreed with me we shouldn’t have a two tier justice system, his very logical approach was, as Tony Soprano would say, wattayagonnado? We are where we are and there’s little we can do about it – apparently.

I am pretty sure the members of SME Alliance would not agree. Most of them (me included) have been victims of the many and varied banking scams which have devastated SMEs. Most of us have been fighting for justice for what seems like a lifetime and sometimes pretty much is and we are, putting it politely, extremely angry at the way banks, who have caused us so much damage, are never penalised except with shareholders fines. Neither are they obliged by the regulators to repair the damage done. So when we hear about people with very healthy off shore bank accounts, organised by their bank, becoming immune from prosecution, we are anything but apathetic, we’re furious. It’s another slap in the face of the British justice system and another reason we are losing faith in it.

But, being honest, I think back to my life before the consequences of fraudulent bankers and their associates kicked in – was I even aware of our two tier justice system? Admittedly inequality has got worse since the so called credit crunch but, if my business hadn’t been sabotaged and had instead fulfilled its full potential and made millions of pounds, would I be seriously concerned about the conduct of the likes of HSBC and its tax dodging clients? Would I be calling for prosecutions? Or would I be taking the rather detached and very logical approach Bill takes?

We have a saying in our house, “you can’t not know what you do know.” And that’s a shame because the things I now know after 7 years of investigating bank fraud and social injustice, very often stop me sleeping at night. I didn’t sleep much last night thinking it’s possible a massive segment of society may be so oblivious to what is happening to democracy or, more likely, just trying to get on with their own reduced circumstances in austerity Britain, they don’t even care about off shore accounts in Switzerland or Monaco. But I think (or should I say I hope) I would have been aware, albeit to a lesser degree, of the increasing dangers our democracy faces even if I hadn’t experienced the consequences personally. I’m a lyricist and a poet and I grew up listening to Bob Dylan and Joan Baez – so the spirit of protest has always been there. But who knows? As long as the comfortable remain comfortable, will they rock the boat? Hmmn. While apathy is, on the one hand a powerful tool for the State, it’s also a powerful tool for the individual conscience.

“If there is nothing I can do about injustice, no one can blame me for doing nothing.” It’s a scary concept but one that has helped permit every shameful human catastrophe.

Anyway, I don’t know what the resolution is to the HSBC tax evaders or the many other tax evaders who were no doubt advised by other banks. Quite frankly, I think those banks must be bricking it in case their own whistle blowers come forward. I agree with Bill, it is impractical to think HMRC can or will prosecute all of these people. But, and remembering this year sees the 800th birthday of the Magna Carta, if we are truly a democratic society, I cannot see how Government, or the appropriate authority, cannot prosecuted them? After all, one person has been prosecuted and surely that has set the precedent? And what was so special about that case? Seems a bit harsh – thousands do it but only one pays the price.

I wouldn’t like to be running this Country. Whatever good intentions any of our politicians have, there seems to be an endless barrage of obstacles in the way of good governance and most of those involve the necessity to compromise and close their eyes to the kind of corruption that is swamping the Country. Hard, I imagine, not to just go with the flow for the 5 years they are in power. And hardest for those in power as opposed to those in opposition where it’s easy to shout foul (especially if you have a short memory)!

If anyone thinks they have the answer to the current problem – is it possible to prosecute every criminal act in the financial system and the associated activities like tax evasion, I’d be happy to hear it and I’m sure many politicians would as well. If we did take this route, we’d have to build a lot more prisons because financial crime, without doubt, is more epidemic or contagious than the flu and we have no jab for it. We seem to have no cure for corruption.

I leave you with a poem I wrote in 2003. I rarely inflict poetry on my blog readers but this one seems entirely appropriate.

Apathy International

I am a member of

Apathy International.

I am working my way up in the company

and should shortly become

a bored member.

Membership was free

and just slipped onto my shoulders

during a raging storm,

like a comfortable old raincoat.

The effects are almost unnoticeable

as is everything else now.

And, as in all such large organisations,

only non members receive active attention,

so I fully expect to disappear completely and painlessly any day now.

(Which I really can’t worry about).

But late at night I wake up

terrified

as a distant but unfiltered image of raw gaping wounds stabs me

and I can hear the hideous cackle of the devil’s favourite shareholders

and I recognise the voice of our beloved CEO crooning

and I think I will implode with panic.

But in the grey reasoned morning light

I think –

what could I do? Nothing.

So I don’t –

except to gently fondle my membership badge.

© Nikki Turner 2003

25 pointers on how to get a bank to take your complaint seriously – and how to keep going until they do.

I found this document last night when I was trailing through old files. I wrote this back in June 2012 and decided it might be helpful to some people so I’ve given it a slight update. It’s an extract from a book I was writing called ‘A consumer guide to dealing with banks, bailiffs and other bullies.’ Maybe I will finish it one day.

June 2012 was a very tough time for Paul and I and our family because in April we’d been visited by a senior enforcement officer of the FSA (now FCA) who insisted we should tell Lloyds Banking Group what we wanted after all we’d been through (regarding matters related to HBOS Reading). He implied the Bank would finally compensate us and he said the FSA knew we were very entitled to compensation. But it didn’t happen. We wrote to the bank and they wrote back with the V sign – as in “vattene fanculo” which is a very rude colloquial Italian phrase to say get lost. So, after 5 years battling, we had 5 minutes of hope which was very quickly dashed. That’s why I wrote the document below – to help anyone else in the same boat and to stop similar disappointment.

Times have moved on a lot since then and where as a victim of financial crime used to struggle to expose what was happening, nowadays some of the big banks expose their crimes for us! Everyday the papers have a new banking scandal in them and the regulators, the Government and the public are all aware that some banks have a serious propensity to dishonesty.

Fortunately this blatant misbehaviour has meant bank culture has had to start changing (a tiny bit) and, better still, we have some new players in the market place like Metro Bank who are gaining popularity exactly because they don’t have a business model which sets out to mistreat its customers or SMEs.

All the same, many of us still have serious and unresolved issues with our banks and everyday I hear about more cases where people are really struggling to keep going or, in some cases, keep their sanity in the face of very unethical behaviour by banks. So I hope these pointers which are entirely my own thoughts after living through 7 years of outrageous treatment from HBOS and Lloyds Banking Group, will help anyone newly acquainted with bad banking practice!

  1. What you’re up against – the 3 D’s.

    Many bank’s rely on a policy of 3 D’s – deny, delay, dilute. When you first realise you’re up against multi billion pound corporation who is going to; deny everything you say; take months to reply to you; delay any resolution for years and; dilute your case by muddying the waters with legal technicalities, you will, quite naturally, feel despondent and impotent. That is the first hurdle to get over. Be aware this is what they are likely to do. Expect it. The quicker you do, the quicker you can get on with challenging their tactics.

  2. Do your research.

    Make sure you have your facts 100% right – not only about your case but also that you know exactly what you can really expect from your bank and what their obligations really are, as opposed to what you think you can expect. For example, a banks’ primary duty is to its shareholders and not to its customers. Also, however boring it is, read and reread every document you have from the bank. Then cross reference it with their code of conduct, the BBA code of conduct and the FSA Principles. Most of the codes are voluntary (FSMA rules are not) but even so, it helps to document in writing to the senior people at the bank exactly how many of the voluntary codes their bank has broken. It sounds complicated – it’s not that bad. And if you’re in it for the long haul, things like the FSA principles and FSMA 2000 will become regular reading to you. Although having said that, almost every example of malpractice can be shot down with Principle 1 of the FSA Principles: “A Firm must conduct its business with integrity.”

  3. Make a complaint in writing to the banks internal complaints department.

    Very often a waste of time and you will almost certainly get a negative reply but, if you don’t go through this process, everyone, including the regulators will have an excuse not to look at your complaint until you have.

  1. Write politely but firmly to senior executives of the bank, the CEO and the Chairman.

    If you are sending your correspondence electronically, always ask for a read receipt and if you’re sending by post, ask for an acknowledgement of receipt as well as a rely. You might also consider sending correspondence by registered post. The fact you can confirm they definitely received your correspondence can be very helpful later as they cannot deny someone knows what the content was. Also, make the point in your letter or e-mail, over and above the fact you would like the Board or the executives to deal with your complaint, you are writing because you want to be sure your complaint or allegation is on the record at the most senior level of the bank. Finally, be sure to keep any reply in a secure place – there is little as helpful as the banks own words over a period of time. Even if most replies you get say they have already dealt with your complaint and “we do not intend to correspond further” that can still be helpful. I have a pile of such replies – which all look rather silly and lacking in integrity (FSA Principle 1) now 10 people are being prosecuted with criminal charges in the HBOS Reading case.

  2. What to expect or not expect from the regulators. FSA (FCA) and FOS

    In the case of an individual complaint, the FSA (now FCA) http://www.fca.org.uk/ will almost certainly send a reply telling you they do not deal with individual cases. Nevertheless, send a very detailed explanation of your complaint to the FCA – as it may end up as a systemic issue which they later have to deal with. When sending your complaint to the FOS http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/ , be aware they are limited as to the compensation they can award (£150k) even if they do find for you. So an SME for example, which may have lost considerably more, cannot get a resolution through the FOS. All the same, it’s another box ticking exercise and I would advise you to tick them both.

  1. Document everything.

    Very important. Take notes on every conversation you have with people in the bank, the regulators, your MP and, if applicable, the police. If you have conversations with people who are giving you information or evidence relating to your case, send them your notes of the conversation and ask them to verify that you have your facts correct. Keep all your notes and correspondence safe and in order – you may need to refer to them years later and it’s not helpful to find you’ve destroyed or lost potentially critical evidence. This has been one of our best tools. People contradict themselves all the time and very often they completely forget they’ve said black is white and say it’s pink. We know what people said about HBOS Reading back in 2007/2008 because we wrote it down. Many of them don’t remember.

  1. If your complaint involves fraud or the possibility of criminal actions, try to identify other potential victims.

    Get in contact with them and pool your information. Then give your collective information to your MPs, the regulators, the police and authorities like the Treasury Select Committee. If you try and give your information individually, most of the authorities will tell you they cannot look at individual cases. It’s much harder for them to ignore you when you have evidence of many similar fact cases.

  1. Collect evidence and case law that will help you.

    If you do identify similar cases (even if they are not directly related to your case) collect case evidence and case law because, should you have to resort to the civil courts, which is a dangerous route, the bank will rely heavily on case law that’s beneficial to them and legal technicalities that may confuse you and manipulate the court. You may not be a lawyer (although you can still research case law yourself in Bailii http://www.bailii.org/) but if you can collect evidence from other victims of similar cases, it can help your case. And even if some judges (and certainly the banks barristers) will refuse to consider it on the grounds it is irrelevant to your case, it will still go on the record and in the transcript. So it’s worth saying out loud e.g “I have here 10 examples of similar practice from this bank supplied by other victims.” Almost certainly not court protocol but then neither is it court protocol to deliberately mislead a judge – and I have seen HBOS legal teams do this repeatedly.

  2. If you get to the stage where your MP is involved, copy him or her in on all your letters to the bank and the replies you get.

    Some MPs are real champions of the underdog but unfortunately, not all of them are happy to get involved with financial disputes against big banks. But if you are suffering from a genuine injustice, your MP has a duty to assist you http://www.ukpolitical.info/YouandyourMP.htm . So don’t ever let them make you feel you are a nuisance. And if they do, I suggest you copy every letter to and from your MP to third parties like the regulators or, if you feel you are being particularly badly treated, to the Prime Minister.

  1. Use the many tools available on the internet to collect additional evidence

    You can get details of companies and directorships on Companies House http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo which can be very helpful but it does cost £1.00 per document and, in the case of a very big fraud, you may end up needing hundreds of documents you simply can’t afford. There are other sites that can give you the same equally valuable information, especially with regard to directorships, which, while they charge an annual fee, can work out cheaper. The best one we found back in 2011/12 was Creditsafe http://www2.creditsafeuk.com/ . But now you can get most of the information you need free from Dellam http://www.dellam.com/cgi-bin/main.pl or better still Duedil https://www.duedil.com/ You will still have to pay for company accounts etc but you will be able to see directorships, shareholders and debentures. If you’re prepared to put in the time going through the information on (e.g) Duedil, the paper trail you uncover can help show you the bigger picture.

  1. If you believe and have proof someone in the bank has committed an illegal act, report it immediately to your local police or to the fraud squad.

    In many cases the police will tell you your complaint or your allegations are a civil matter – we were told that in the HBOS Reading case where the Cambridge police would not investigate our allegations simply because the bank told them there was nothing to investigate. Stand your ground. Don’t take no for an answer. Write to the police giving a clear statement of the crime you believe has been committed and listing the evidence you have to support it. Copy your letter to your MP and the FSA. Ask for a crime number and remind the police they have sworn an oath to “… prevent all offences against people and property” http://srchtag.com/ex/vfc2nonclymg2yi.html .

  1. Dig in and adapt your living standards to suit your circumstances until you reach a resolution.

    It could take years to finally get a resolution or compensation from a bank and many banks believe their policy of ‘delay, deny, dilute’ will cause many complaints or allegations to simply disappear – which they do. People get old, get ill, cannot bear the stress, simply give up or in some cases they die. It’s an effective and immoral way for banks to minimise the cases against them. If you want to win, you need to have the right mind set and you must learn to live without things you are used to having and also learn to appreciate some things you have taken for granted. Make the most of every positive in your life however tiny. It’s the small positives which can keep you going in times of immense stress and even a bank can’t take them from you.

  1. Try and keep on top of everyday bills that could potentially cause you massive problems.

    If you find yourself running out of money because of what your bank has done (common problem) you still have to stay on top of daily issues or you will end up being the one in Court! One such example is Council tax. Make sure your local council know about your reduced circumstances and that they reduce your council tax accordingly. If you don’t, you could find bailiffs on your doorstep. Where you know you will have problems paying your creditors, try to keep them informed about what is happening. People can be amazingly accommodating, considerate and supportive, if they know you are suffering real injustice. Similarly, they can be very aggressive if they don’t know what you are going through and feel you are merely trying to take advantage of them.

    In the really unfortunate event your debts escalate to the point of bailiffs attending your property (which is so offensive to when you have to struggle so hard to get authorities to take action against financial crime) it’s really important you know your rights because some bailiffs will unfortunately misrepresent them to gain access to your home: http://www.advicenow.org.uk/advicenow-guides/consumer-and-money-problems/dealing-with-bailiffs/if-bailiffs-knock-on-your-door-html,620,FP.html Worse still, if for any reason (including the consequences of bank malpractice) your lender or land lord threatens to evict you, you must also know your rights. http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/eviction

  1. Contact your local press and give them the details of your case but be wary of approaching the national press unless you can forge a positive relationship with the journalists.

    Try and get your local press to cover your story. Give them regular updates and include issues of human interest especially if, as in our case, your situation with the bank results in eviction hearings or Court proceedings. But be very wary of approaching the national press.Good investigative journalists are few and far between whereas advertising budgets supported by banks and corporate bodies are ever more desirable to an industry that is plagued by modern technology which increasingly reduces its budgets. We know to our cost that some journalists who have had chapter and verse on the HBOS Reading story have gone on to write stories that were completely incorrect as to fact and have gone out of their way to make the victims look like the fraudsters.Having said that, we have also been lucky enough to come across some exceptional journalists who have been enormously supportive and fortunately, I would say now, in 2015 we are getting to the stage where more journalists are aware you are likely to be telling the truth about bank malpractice. All the same, when considering the main stream press, its a good idea to check out who is on the Board (past and present directors or non executive directors) of newspapers.

  1. Set up a blog site and put the details of your case and your allegations on it.

    Invite people with similar situations to get in contact with you. Be very careful however, not to publish your allegations or to defame people unless you are 101% sure you are right. While you cannot be accused of defamatory behaviour if what you publish is based on irrefutable proof, banks and individuals in banks or financial institutions, may well have legal teams capable of highlighting even the most minor flaw in your argument  that is capable of challenge. So be very careful what you write. Down the road, the bank or its lawyers could take your words and make them your worst enemy.

  2. Use social media to your advantage.

    One thing banks (or even Governments) didn’t factor in after the credit crunch was the phenomenal rise of social media. Use it to your maximum advantage. Get google alerts for the bank you’re complaining about; tweet the articles; look at the people who re-tweet you or who tweet on similar subjects. Add them to your followers on twitter or Facebook. Share information with them. Social media is maybe the most useful tools you have so make the most of it.

  1. Be very tolerant of your family or people who are living in stressful circumstances because of the situation the bank has put you in.

    If ever there is a time you will need your family, it’s when you are fighting a major battle with a bank or corporation with no morals and deep pockets. Even family turmoil is to their advantage as it will stop you focusing on the real battle and cause you immense distress. It’s easy to play the blame game and for families to be at each others throats when every thing goes wrong and you are all stressed. Don’t give banks that pleasure. Close ranks – stick together and think of your family as your army and your support. Sadly, if your battle goes on for years, you may find you lose a few friends along the way because people will get sick of hearing you repeatedly talking about your case. Also, you may no longer be able to afford to do the things you used to do with your friends (restaurants, holidays etc) so you may just drift apart. Even more reason to be very tolerant of your family. They can’t walk away and they are probably living through the nightmare with you.

  2. Don’t be arrogant – leave that to your opponents.

    Anger, outrage or encouragement and support from friends or family can sometimes make you feel you can publicise every tiny breakthrough as a major victory. Don’t go there. You won’t feel so arrogant when two years down the road you’re still struggling and the bank executives are still coining in the millions. It’s tough I know, but leave the arrogance to your opponents. If possible, encourage them to be arrogant in writing or better still to tell blatant lies in writing. Keep your powder dry and your day will come. Also, regardless of how angry you are, try to be dignified and professional in your dealings with the bank (even when they’re not). Banks love it when people come across as highly emotional and slightly erratic. We know of several very good cases where victims have been their own worst enemies and especially in court rooms where judges have little tolerance for unprofessional or aggressive behaviour. It gives credence to the idea you may be unreliable.

  1. Be wary of false promises or men baring gifts.

    Don’t think, because the bank, or the bank’s lawyers, or a regulator or anyone else gives the impression they are suddenly sympathetic to your cause, that you can afford to drop your guard. Nothing is over until it’s over but banks will try to placate you, albeit temporarily, if they have other pressing situations going on which you could, if you were aware of them, make worse. They tend to blow hot and cold according to their own situations but at the end of the day, the protection of their brand and the protection of those people highest up in the chain, is their primary interest. Contrary to what their code of conduct says, some banks are not at all interested in their clients – unless those clients either owe them billions of pounds or can implicate their senior executives in shady dealings.

  2. Be very wary of taking the legal route.

    One thing banks definitely have in their favour is their ability to pay vast sums of (shareholders) money for good legal brains. You, on the other hand, because of your circumstances and unless you go into battle as a multi millionaire (in which instance a bank would almost certainly give you more millions rather than challenge your allegations against them), will possibly be a litigant in person. So going to court against a bank is like being thrown into the lion’s den. Even if you can find a law firm to represent you on a CFA basis (conditional fee agreement) you will always play second fiddle to their paying clients and you really really need to be very careful when choosing your lawyers. Yes, there are good ones out there – but legal firms are not charitable organisations. If you run out of money, many of them run out of advice or sympathy simply because they are also businesses and need to pay their staff. Your catastrophe is yours, not theirs. So don’t expect morality to come into it because in most cases – it’s just business.

    Equally worrying is the new game on the block whereby third party funders will take your case forward because they can see you have a valid case which might bring about lucrative results – but buyer beware, by the time you have paid your legal fees and your third party funders, you could find yourself in a Jaundyce and Jaundyce situation – you fight for years and get nothing. This is why banks love the playing field of the court room. Even without the disturbing proposition that justice is very often in need of Spec Savers these days and some Judges seem ill advised if not illogical, banks know that the Court room is, in general, their play ground not yours – unless it is a criminal trial, But even then you must be wary.

    Having said that, we have won most of our 22 eviction hearings as litigants in person and in some of them we were up against the Vice Chairman of a huge London law firm as well as the banks barristers. So it can be done and we still have our home but we did have the advantage of bundles of evidence we had collected about events originating at HBOS Reading. Not many judges wanted to evict us until that was resolved – although one did.

  1. If you feel yourself becoming seriously depressed, get treatment.

    Remember that depression is a common complaint for whistle blowers or anyone taking on a bank or corporate. This is a subject I’ve heard discussed at length by well known whistle blowers and victims of Corporate fraud and I know many people who have suffered terribly from depression. There is no stigma to falling into depression when a bank has ruined your life – it’s actually very normal. So if you feel yourself going down that route, get help asap (and while we still have the NHS) http://www.depressionuk.org/national_links.shtml and, if you do have treatment, make sure the bank, your MP, your local council, your creditors and any regulators you are writing to, are aware of that treatment and why you are having it.

  1. Don’t give yourself time scales.

    The fact you have conclusive evidence of negligence, misrepresentation of even fraud, means surprisingly little to some banks. Whatever happens to you will not, sadly, stop the senior exec’s, getting their mega pay and bonuses. Therefore, they have no interest or concept of what you are going through but they do know, the longer you go though it, the more likely it is you will give up. However confident you are, never tell yourself this will be over in 3 months, 6 months, a year. We did and here we are 7 years later still going through it. Just keep going. If you are in the right and if you are resilient, then one day it will be over but only when you have worn the bank down as much as they’ve worn you down – or, if you’re really lucky, the authorities will make the bank resolve matters. That can take a while and you will only disappoint yourself and your family if you try to predict that time scale.

  2. Remind yourself on a daily basis that, whatever the bank says, you can win if you don’t give up.

    Most banks don’t have moral stamina, they just have money and lawyers and they change their lawyers as often as you change your socks. They also change their management, their policies and even their CEO’s on a regular basis. Sooner or later and if you are persistent, you may even come across a CEO who has heard of damage management. You never know and neither do I but it could happen and we live in hope?

  3. Weigh up your options.

    Really taking on a bank can take years out of your life which I know to my cost. Even if you win in the end and get some or all of the compensation you want, no one can give you those years back. In the case of Paul and I, we had no choice. The bank destroyed our business and, when we exposed the corruption behind this, they also tried to take our home. We had no option but to keep fighting. Neither would we give in to supposed resolutions that were, in effect, no more than bank housekeeping and of no advantage to us or any other victim of HBOS Reading. So we have kept fighting. That was our decision and one that we and our family have paid heavily for but which we wouldn’t change. We have been defrauded – we are in the right and we will never give up until we have won; or reached a consensual agreement; or, in the event that never happens, have fully exposed every detail of HBOS Reading that we have uncovered. That’s our choice but, for anyone starting out on such a battle, I would say, if you can, mediate, mediate, mediate. You may not get everything you want but never, ever feel guilty for compromising and for not taking our path if there’s a path that gives you and your family a resolution you can live with. You’ve only got the one life and it’s not everyone’s cup of tea to spend years fighting mega wealthy and corrupt organisations.

  4. But if you are determined to win the fight be aware you really are involved in a David v Goliath battle and Goliath is a huge, mean and unprincipled giant!

    So on your darkest days, just remember, “the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.” Tell yourself that over and over everyday and you will win.

If these pointer help even one person, then it has been worth publishing them. I really hope they do!

©Nikki Turner 2015

If you don’t identify the crimes or the criminals, you don’t have to support the victims.

There was an interesting article in the Guardian today on the subject of Lady Newlove’s report into the lack of support for victims of crime. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/27/victims-crime-let-down-criminal-justice-newlove I agree with her entirely – there is very little support. Equally interesting was the comments below the article.

For example, someone posted we are all more likely to be victims of financial crime than being mugged in the street. I would agree because PPI, IRHP, LIBOR rigging, asset theft (GRG) and various other fraudulent schemes, all have their victims – not that I am in anyway decrying the horrific consequences of violent crime.

However, there is a huge problem when it comes to financial crime. First and foremost, it is rarely classified as crime. It has various bogus titles and the most common is mis-selling. Also, financial crime is a political animal and as such, it seems to feel it is reasonable it should fall outside of the boundaries of common law. It shouldn’t do but it does. This is probably because any major case exposing the horrendous corruption in our financial system would have far reaching political and economic consequences. Not only would it risk serious ‘Brand protection’ to financial institutions, it would also damage UKPLC. Therefore even if you report serious and fully substantiated financial fraud to the police, you are unlikely to get an investigation – so you are unlikely to get a result.

Anyone challenging this view should consider why, when Banks are found guilty of money laundering for drug cartels, or of rigging LIBOR (which affects everyone), or of selling fraudulent products to consumers and SMEs, the answer is invariably a huge fine paid by the Bank shareholders? But no one goes to jail.

Occasionally and if you are incredibly persistent, the police will open an investigation into specific crimes by bankers or their associates in the financial system and, I can say from experience, that despite the initial euphoria victims may feel when this happens, what follows is a long drawn out process which gives little or no consideration to victims or to the consequences of those crimes. And while I adhere to the theory of “every man is innocent until proven guilty,” a justice system which takes years and years to bring cases to trial means that some victims, suffering badly from the effects of a crime, will have their lives on hold for an indefinite period. Some die before they ever see justice and that is a fact. “Justice delayed is justice denied.”(See below)

Take for example the case (which I won’t name for reasons of sub judice) where some 80 SMEs were first defrauded and then destroyed by employees and associates of a High Street bank. This was first exposed by the victims in 2007 but the police refused to investigate because the bank concerned assured them there was nothing to investigate. However, in 2010 and under the radar, a different police force did start an investigation. By the end of 2010 several people had been arrested but no one was charged until 2013. The trials for those people charged with assorted serious crimes were due to start in January this year but have now been put back to September and will finish in 2016 – if they happen at all. 2007 to 2016 is a long time to wait for justice. Three people have died while waiting.

The victims have lost their businesses, therefore their livelihoods and in many cases their family homes. They are all due compensation – but that won’t happen until after the trials as the management of the bank concerned are adamant no crime was committed (even although the Bank was the biggest loser of all) and the police have spent a fortune of public money on a witch hunt.

In the meantime there is little communication between the police and the victims except for the odd brief e-mail. The victims are dissuaded and even threatened not to attend any case management hearings – so they don’t know how the case is progressing (or not in this case) and if ‘victim support’ are aware of this crime, they haven’t acknowledged it. I know most of the victims – I don’t know any who have had any support.

The defendants on the other hand, are kept fully briefed by their legal teams (some of whom are paid for by legal aid), they continue to work or trade their businesses (which haven’t been destroyed) and some have requested and been given their passports back as and when they want to go on holiday abroad. Fair enough, they have not been found guilty as yet.

My point – most people in this Country are asking (quite reasonably) why bankers, who have already been found guilty of various crimes for which their shareholders have been penalised, have not been charged or gone to jail? I would say it is because the majority of the really serious crimes had to have happened with at least the knowledge and possibly the authorisation of those at the top of the Banks – not to mention key figures in associated ‘professional’ firms. But if Governments (via the justice system) start admitting our banks have been and are being run by criminals, it would destabilise our much loved financial system. So, even where a case does slip through the radar and bankers are charged with crimes, the main consideration seems to be how the authorities can limit contagion and, if possible, stop these trials actually going to Court. A valiant attempt was made to stop Operation Cotton and therefore other big financial fraud and VHCC (very high cost cases) from proceeding, via the legal aid débâcle. Fortunately it wasn’t successful.

And the victims? Well, better a few victims fall by the wayside than we tarnish the City of London. But actually it’s not a ‘few victims’ because we are all victims of financial crime and we are all paying the price (national austerity) while the charade goes on. And what a charade it is – after all that has happened and after banks brought world economies to their knees, top bankers demand and still get millions of pounds a year. And once a year they head off to Davos with the great and the good, to decide our economic future for the following 12 months. It’s not just illogical and unethical – it’s bonkers.

Great to see Lady Newlove has written a report and identified the lack of support for victims but, in the case of financial crime, which has reached epidemic proportions in the UK, the biggest hurdle to our justice system is a refusal to identify the criminals. Cost effective and sneaky but not democratic.

  • On the subject of “justice delayed is justice denied” and while I was looking for the origins of that quote, I randomly came across an extraordinary dark example of how this statement is sometimes abused by the very authorities we rely on for justice. The case is nothing to do with financial crime and the victim in the case is the accused. And this highlights yet again how important it is to democracy that justice is seen to be done and in a timely manner. I would say in too many cases, it isn’t. http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/Karl%20Watson%20-%20Woffinden%20art.pdf