ROYAL Bank of Scotland (RBS) has been accused to trying to wriggle out of its responsibilities to business customers mistreated by the bank’s controversial global restructuring group (GRG).
Seneca Banking Consultants, which has already recovered £2.9 million for customers who were referred to the now defunct restructuring unit, said it had identified problems in a review of the bank’s compensation scheme.
Some firms referred to the GRG said they were pushed into bankruptcy and stripped of their assets, and regulator the Financial Conduct Authority found its activities had resulted in material financial distress for small business customers. Seneca’s review said the outcomes indicated “frequent references to conduct or fees having been part of standard practice and therefore not having been unfair”, which effectively undermined the fact that many of the unit’s practices “should not have been carried out at all, let alone become the standard”.
The report said: “There appears to be a reluctance to admit certain complaint points in which it is alleged the Bank overstepped its remit.
“Points such as complainants having been placed under undue pressure to take a particular step, forced to appoint third parties or sell assets are generally dismissed.”
It said RBS had provided “inconsistent goodwill payments” for elements of conduct which had not resulted in a direct loss; “Some complainants may receive an apology for an inconvenience while others may be offered redress, typically in the region of £5000, despite the same issues having been involved across claims.”
It added that some dissolved companies were being made offers for reimbursement of the costs of restoration whereas others were not.
Ian Kay, a consultant with Seneca, told The National: “It certainly appears that RBS is trying to wriggle out of its responsibilities to those companies who suffered through GRG by passing off the unit’s practices as standard procedure.
“The bank has also avoided for the most part admitting that transfers to GRG were wrong.
“It is being portrayed that every business in GRG had been transferred on legitimate grounds.
“It is unfortunate that despite the considerable scrutiny the bank has been placed under over the past few years, and the claims of ‘putting things right’, RBS is still providing a lack of transparency and has employed inconsistent approaches which only seek to place customers on uneven footing.”
RBS would not comment on Seneca’s review, but a weekly progress report showed that, as at November 30, it had received 2523 complaints, of which all allegations were upheld in 33 cases and some upheld in 535.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here