HBOS Halifax Report

[CliveH]

Out today - Depressingly similar to the report issued by the Parliamentary Ombudsman on Equitable Life - that was sub-titled "A Decade of Regulatory Failure". And Equitable Life collapsed in the very early "noughties".

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22027664

 

And whilst the responsibility must lay with the management of HBOS/Halifax - the FSA comes in for (as i see it at first glance) almost identical criticism to the previous report - Equitable Life - A Decade of Regulatory Failure.

 

"The regulation of HBOS by the Financial Services Authority – which was shut down last weekend – is described as "thoroughly inadequate", but the responsibility for the management failures is placed squarely on the three men."

 

"Thoroughly Inadequate" ................again! :-S

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/04/bankers-brought-down-hbos

 

HBOS/Halifax was given repeated clean bills of health by the then FSA (disbanded last week) and allowed to carry on regardless!

 

So the FSA failed the Consumer over the decade of the 1990's re Equitable and then went onto fail again only with an even greater cost to the taxpayer in its regulation of the banks in the past decade or so.

 

We can but hope that the new twin prong regulatory regime is better able to o the job and focussed on Consumer protection rather than protecting the wrongdoers!

 

I also find it suspicious that with such damning evidence clearly out there - now, that the FSA left the three key perpetrators of the HBOS/Halifax debacle untouched by them until after it had been disbanded :-S

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

The trouble is, Clive, they are not alone! I appreciate this is, in one sense, a different topic, so I apologise for the immediate OT diversion but, in another sense, it is a further case of a similar failing.

 

Don't know if others saw this interview on Channel 4 News the other evening with Alan Young, SSE's Director of Corporate Affairs. If not, in the hope that the link works :-) look here: http://tinyurl.com/cg5zh7c

 

His defence, if one can call it that, for SSE's record of misleading its customers as to which tariffs etc were in their best interests over the past 10 years or so, appears to be little more than to say no-one told them this was wrong and, when they were so told, they tried hard to do as little to remedy the situation as they could get away with, but unfortunately also slightly misjudged that, so got told again and fined.

 

Nowhere in the interview is there evidence of any more than a regret that they got caught. Nowhere is there acceptance that from board level down they had constructively lied to, and misled, their customers.

 

At least, if there is, I can't see it, and neither can I see the slightest inkling of an intention to do any more in future than the bare minimum to keep themselves clear of the regulators pathetically late focus.

 

If bankers are to be barred from senior posts in the City (which in the case of at least HBOS seems to me entirely reasonable), I think the directors of SSE should be subjected to similar treatment, and disbarred from holding directorships in future. Yet, they are still all in their jobs, and they all retain their bonuses.

 

We have had these very expensive sector regulators, who are so fettered and muzzled that they can't act, foisted upon us, and that, to me, is the true crime. Government puts them up on the basis that they are there to represent the interests of consumers, which creates a false sense of security among the public, and then skews their conditions of engagement so that they can't, or won't, act as they should, by giving them insufficient powers to do as their public announcements suggests they will.

 

The sectors being regulated, by and large, then set out to sail as close to the regulators wind as they can get away with. We, the public, are being conned on a large scale by having these sham organisations erected before us, that don't, by and large, do what it is claimed they will do - and we end up paying twice for it. First we pay for the sham regulators, and second we pay of the antics of those they are supposed to be regulating.

 

Now there's some real scope for cut-backs on Government spending! Either get rid of the lot of them and use the existing laws against the directors of the companies concerned, of give the regulators real, loaded, guns and send them forth to regulate! Apologies again. Rant over! :-)

[Dave225]

Maybe the interview does not show what you had hoped for and after all no one really expects Channel 4 to be accurate, but the public record shows a different story.

 

This is their current front page of their websites and seems to me to be straightforward enough, but maybe you wanted sackcloth and ashes.

 

http://www.atlantic.co.uk/

 

Also from the newspages the following:

 

A statement issued by SSE said the company had begun to change its procedures while the Ofgem investigation was taking place.

 

“SSE is deeply regretful that breaches occurred and apologises unreservedly to any customers who have been affected by sales activity which ran counter to the values and culture of the company,” it said. “It has taken important lessons on board and has transformed its approach to sales to ensure that it will not fall short of the standards all of its customers deserve.”

 

As well as halting all doorstep selling, SSE has also brought all domestic telesales in-house, launched a new training programme for sales staff and set up a post-sales verification process. The group has restructured, creating a retail division and hiring externally to head the new team, with a new director of sales also brought on board.

 

Bonuses were withheld for its three executive directors in 2012, the company added."

 

One thing that was made clear by Ofgem was that SSE were by no means the only culprit and other Companies have as yet to feel the repercussions. Of course as virtually all other utility Companies are owned outside the UK one hopes that similar penalties are applied, although the knock on effects to customers may be more rigorous.

 

Similarly as with Clive's OP regarding HBOS, there is far more involved in this than just sacrificing 3 people, even though that is deserved. The Regulators, which in fact means the Government decided that in the interest of getting rich quick on Corporation Tax, all regulation would be stopped and in fact HMG encouraged the reckless activities. I would personally like to see Gordon Brown, Ed Balls and a lot more of the Labour Treasury Dept also on the 'block' for heinous crimes against the UK, but it will never happen. Bank of Scotland has rightly been described as one of the pillars of the UK banking industry, and was one of the UK's oldest banks, until Halifax decided to get involved and then of course G Brown decided to go for broke. It should also be noted that of HBOS's huge losses £14.5 billion was due to bad loans in Australia. Now maybe we can ask the Aussies for some money back??? Both HBOS and RBS have been castigated as Scottish failures and yes, the names are Scottish but HBOS was ruled from Halifax and RBS had its main activity centres in London, and still does. Yes, both had incompetents and megalomaniacs in charge but the Regulators are supposed to be protecting the UK, and failed miserably.

 

When BCCI went bust a good few years back everybody said it would never happen again, yet we had Northern Rock, B&B, Alliance and Leicester, RBS, HBOS and even Lloyds all hitting the wall in a short space of time. Barclays avoided it by scheming loans from the Arabs which may yet turn out to be illegal.

 

And people want to put Ball's Up back in charge of the Treasury??????????????? If the HBOS 3 are to be banned from ever being involved in Finance then the Regulators and Government officials should also be banned from ever being in positions of power for their lifetimes, and that includes T Blair as boss of it all. As Truman stated 'the buck stops here'.

[HWO]

The Halifax was always a bogs dollacks of a firm.

 

I just cannot image how it was able to beome the biggest B/S in the world

 

Over the years I have had problems with a mortgage, cash ISA's and works Share-save's

 

They could'nt run a bunk-up in a brothel

 

I would never out of choice commit any money to them

 

HWO

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

I'm just a simpleton full of 1footisms, but the thing that really rattles my cage is all of these people never ever seem to suffer in the way an ordinary worker would, i.e your sacked, no handsome pay offs no nice fat pension.

 

When I see them down the job centre being forced to take a shelf fillers jobs because they seem fit for not much else, I'll know we're all in it together. >:-(

[Brian Kirby]

Dave225 - 2013-04-05 8:20 PM Maybe the interview does not show what you had hoped for and after all no one really expects Channel 4 to be accurate, but the public record shows a different story................

I had no expectation from the interview, Dave, because I wasn't expecting to see it.

 

I'm not interested, or swayed by, what the firms names are, or in which part of the British Isles they are located. I am interested only in what their directors presided over, and what has happened to them since. IMO, they should go, and be denied the right to hold directorships in future. One group were, if we are to believe the reports - and I can see no reason to disbelieve them - reckless and irresponsible, the other group constructively dishonest in their business dealings with the public.

 

These conducts were of their own free wills. No-one is claimed to have coerced them. Their misdemeanours continued for years, and neither made the slightest attempt to rectify what they were doing until they were exposed, and both would, presumably, have continued as they were indefinitely in the absence of such exposure. They are unfit for office, as judged by their actions. Apologies are pointless. They merely fall into the category of "they would say that, wouldn't they?"

 

My point is that while the same bunch remain in charge, they will first apologise and eat some humble pie, but will then settle back to business as usual. After all, we have been here before often enough, so it is not as though it is a unique situation.

 

As to the role of government, I agree - but we still have these inordinately expensive sham regulators and ombudsmen despite the change of government, and I see no determination for change on the part of any political party. They should either give up the pretence altogether, or to give the regulators the teeth and remit to regulate hard and fast on the other. For this present shambles, we all pay far too much.

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2013-04-06 11:16 AM

Dave225 - 2013-04-05 8:20 PM Maybe the interview does not show what you had hoped for and after all no one really expects Channel 4 to be accurate, but the public record shows a different story................

I had no expectation from the interview, Dave, because I wasn't expecting to see it.I'm not interested, or swayed by, what the firms names are, or in which part of the British Isles they are located. I am interested only in what their directors presided over, and what has happened to them since. IMO, they should go, and be denied the right to hold directorships in future. One group were, if we are to believe the reports - and I can see no reason to disbelieve them - reckless and irresponsible, the other group constructively dishonest in their business dealings with the public.These conducts were of their own free wills. No-one is claimed to have coerced them. Their misdemeanours continued for years, and neither made the slightest attempt to rectify what they were doing until they were exposed, and both would, presumably, have continued as they were indefinitely in the absence of such exposure. They are unfit for office, as judged by their actions. Apologies are pointless. They merely fall into the category of "they would say that, wouldn't they?"My point is that while the same bunch remain in charge, they will first apologise and eat some humble pie, but will then settle back to business as usual. After all, we have been here before often enough, so it is not as though it is a unique situation.As to the role of government, I agree - but we still have these inordinately expensive sham regulators and ombudsmen despite the change of government, and I see no determination for change on the part of any political party. They should either give up the pretence altogether, or to give the regulators the teeth and remit to regulate hard and fast on the other. For this present shambles, we all pay far too much.

 

Just to add to the foregoing....there has been a number of massive frauds perpetrated on the public which are being 'rectified' by the imposition of fines on those organisations responsible.  Unfortunately none of those defrauded will see any of the monies raised.  As I understand it the fines go into government coffers.  Add to that those responsible, and there are many, have yet feel the force of the law.  Once again it's the 'big boys' who get away with relatively light punishments, the platitudes of 'lessons will be learned' will be wheeled out and nothing changes.

 

It seems that every which way you look Joe Public gets financially screwed and nothing happens...........well IMO something has to change.