I'm therefore concerned that the BBRS terms state there is an obligation on the customer who 'must' disclose information, but that the bank 'can' provide information. This is disturbing and open to the same abuses used in the IRHP Review and as routine by FOS......
Furthermore, the terms do not oblige the BBRS to share all information received from the bank with the customer and, perhaps worse still, appear to allow the BBRS discretion to ask the bank for only the information that it the BBRS deems relevant. WRONG ON EVERY LEVEL....
Anyone that has witnessed the way in which the FOS operates as we have, & most likely every victim that needs to avail itself of the BBRS has, will know that poor outcomes, or 'engineered' outcomes occur when the investigator fails to request ALL information of the bank/firm....
When you're investigating financial cases, you MUST see the whole file to see the whole picture & the narrative. If you are any good, you will be able to quickly determine from the whole file what's relevant & what's not, establish the narrative, context & find the smoking guns
I raised this issue with John Swift QC's team when I met them last year. They confirmed that this issue was one that was being raised with them most frequently during the course of their independent investigation, by customers & other experts, and I know journalists have done too
If Mr Swift QC's independent investigation is a 'lessons learned' exercise, why is the BBRS not learning those lessons? The bank must be forced to disclose all evidence to the BBRS and the customer, period.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Of note: 1. FSMA, the legislation used repeatedly by the FCA to conceal & deny, is prominent. 2. Whole of section 2 of MOU is problematic. It seeks to limit information flow, particularly restrictions it establishes in respect to information flow from the FCA to COLP......
Para 2.6 - Enables FCA to withold info from COLP. States FCA must not disclose confidential info relating to business affairs of any person received by FCA for purposes of discharge of its functions, without consent of person it obtained it from or person to whom it relates.....
@Law360 reports Judge strikes out case of 8 UK councils represented by @HausfeldGlobal vs Barclays over LIBOR rigging. Judge relies upon the various case law that has been obtained by the banks in prior cases including PAG. Case law that represents a dishonest illusion...
Banks have cherry picked cases to defend in Court that they know they can defeat because the pleadings or arguments put forward, allow them to defeat the claims by creating a dishonest illusion as to what truly went on, but without technically being dishonest....
Bailey already veering down the route he wants to take this, as opposed to addressing the issues before him. The failings were not reliant upon 'core' changes to address. The failings were basic.
You don't need structural reform or change to address many of the failings. Simply upholding the codes and taking appropriate action, which is the FCA's role, is a basic and minimum standard.
'Build to rent' aka opposite of fair distribution of wealth, returning property ownership to the top 1%, and one of the biggest dangers to growth in the UK. @graingerplc heavily involved despite their role in destruction of property firms by Lloyds BSU... propertyinvestortoday.co.uk/breaking-news/…
Home ownership by individuals generates substantial inheritance annually. Inheritance and wealth that is re-distributed to multiple members of families and invariably generating significant consumption and help to younger family members to own their own property......
'Build to rent' is seeing substantial & ever growing numbers of properties being built by large 'funds', and with Government funding to do it. These funds own the completed properties which will never be available for the public to buy, and receive the lucrative rents from them
An older story but one that needs exposing. The bank claims it had no knowledge that an extra 0.06% had been added to the price/spread on FX payments between 2010-2014. Nonsense. The price/spread would've been signed off by senior managers and subject to all manner of oversight
Indeed, EVERY FX deal ticket, no matter how small will feature the amount of 'mark up' taken. It was a key performance metric of employees, departments and senior managers running those departments. Let's be clear, even a discrepancy of 0.06% would have been noticeable.....
Grant Thornton partner Kevin Hellard, represented by @MoonBeever acting as 'independent' Trustee in bankruptcy for the owner of this company & formerly owner of the Canary Wharf site, has sold the 50% stake in these strips of land owned by the bankrupt individual for £300,000...
Call me old fashioned, but if nobody can enjoy the £300mio or any profit that would be achieved upon completion of this development, then the strips of land are worth a minimum of £50mio. Pay £50mio and enjoy a net £250mio profit. Don't acquire the strips of land, make £0 profit.