Tweet
From The Times.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/b...-sue-fndjzk9ct
Watchdog ‘forced’ to keep RBS scandal report secret over fears bank would sue
The Financial Conduct Authority decided not to publish a highly critical investigation into Royal Bank of Scotland’s systematic mishandling of thousands of small and medium-sized companies because it feared being sued for “unfair treatment” by the bank.
Despite acknowledging the public interest in issuing its full investigation into the bank’s Global Restructuring Group, the FCA concluded that to do so would expose it to an “unacceptable risk of successful legal action by current/former RBS managers”, internal board minutes seen by The Times show.
The City regulator also discussed the “risk” that if the full document was published it “may raise expectations among smaller banking customers about the prospect of obtaining significant redress or compensation”.
Almost 6,000 small and medium-sized companies went through GRG between 2008 and 2013. The bank, which is 72 per cent-owned by the taxpayer, was found to have “systematically” mistreated businesses by an FCA review commissioned in 2014.
The regulator has been at the centre of a heated political row over its refusal to publish the full report. Three summaries of the findings have been issued, but the FCA has told MPs that producing the entire document would not be in the public interest. However, records of board discussions show that in May last year, the FCA privately acknowledged that publishing the report in full would “increase transparency and minimise any perception that we have tried to fetter the report in some way”.
The regulator’s senior executives discussed the possibility that if publication was “resisted”, only for findings to be leaked, “there is a reputational risk that the FCA may be perceived as whitewashing the skilled person’s findings”. The Times and the BBC have published leaked findings from the full report.
The regulator also considered that “if the report is not made public there are perception risks around our transparency of the review” and that there “may be less trust” in a complaints scheme set up by RBS. But by September 2016, internal records show that the FCA had decided not to publish the final report. It said external legal advice warned of a “high risk of successful litigation” if it was issued. It also was concerned that “Maxwellisation” to reduce legal risks, whereby those named are allowed to see a draft of the report before publication, would be a lengthy process.
Promontory, which conducted the review on the FCA’s behalf, felt “the report was written in a way that meant it could be published”, the minutes show.
Kevin Hollinrake, Conservative vice-chairman of the parliamentary group on fair business banking, said: “It is almost beyond belief that the regulator is living in fear of the banks that they are supposed to be regulating.”
Lawrence Tomlinson, the former government adviser whose allegations prompted the review, said: “Denying the availability of potentially supportive evidence to SME customers, on the basis that the FCA deems it will overly raise their expectations of success, does not seem to be a neutral stance for the regulator to take.” A spokesman for the FCA said the decision not to publish “is consistent with our standard practice”.
The Financial Conduct Authority decided not to publish a highly critical investigation into Royal Bank of Scotland’s systematic mishandling of thousands of small and medium-sized companies because it feared being sued for “unfair treatment” by the bank.
Despite acknowledging the public interest in issuing its full investigation into the bank’s Global Restructuring Group, the FCA concluded that to do so would expose it to an “unacceptable risk of successful legal action by current/former RBS managers”, internal board minutes seen by The Times show.
The City regulator also discussed the “risk” that if the full document was published it “may raise expectations among smaller banking customers about the prospect of obtaining significant redress or compensation”.
Almost 6,000 small and medium-sized companies went through GRG between 2008 and 2013. The bank, which is 72 per cent-owned by the taxpayer, was found to have “systematically” mistreated businesses by an FCA review commissioned in 2014.
The regulator has been at the centre of a heated political row over its refusal to publish the full report. Three summaries of the findings have been issued, but the FCA has told MPs that producing the entire document would not be in the public interest. However, records of board discussions show that in May last year, the FCA privately acknowledged that publishing the report in full would “increase transparency and minimise any perception that we have tried to fetter the report in some way”.
The regulator’s senior executives discussed the possibility that if publication was “resisted”, only for findings to be leaked, “there is a reputational risk that the FCA may be perceived as whitewashing the skilled person’s findings”. The Times and the BBC have published leaked findings from the full report.
The regulator also considered that “if the report is not made public there are perception risks around our transparency of the review” and that there “may be less trust” in a complaints scheme set up by RBS. But by September 2016, internal records show that the FCA had decided not to publish the final report. It said external legal advice warned of a “high risk of successful litigation” if it was issued. It also was concerned that “Maxwellisation” to reduce legal risks, whereby those named are allowed to see a draft of the report before publication, would be a lengthy process.
Promontory, which conducted the review on the FCA’s behalf, felt “the report was written in a way that meant it could be published”, the minutes show.
Kevin Hollinrake, Conservative vice-chairman of the parliamentary group on fair business banking, said: “It is almost beyond belief that the regulator is living in fear of the banks that they are supposed to be regulating.”
Lawrence Tomlinson, the former government adviser whose allegations prompted the review, said: “Denying the availability of potentially supportive evidence to SME customers, on the basis that the FCA deems it will overly raise their expectations of success, does not seem to be a neutral stance for the regulator to take.” A spokesman for the FCA said the decision not to publish “is consistent with our standard practice”.
Comment