One of the biggest failings of the @TheFCA IRHP Review (of many) was that it denied victims the right to see the evidence provided to the IRHP review by the banks..... @APPGbanking @appgonpbandffs @jameshurley @True_and_FairUK @TransparencyTF @CarshaltonArt
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
