Sir, Your leading article (“Asset Turnover”, May 7) claims that Royal Bank of Scotland systematically pushed small and medium-sized businesses into default to improve the bank’s balance sheet. We strongly refute these claims. We have commissioned two investigations by independent legal firms into the allegation of systematic behaviour of this nature. None was found.
It is highly unlikely that RBS’s capital position could be improved by causing a healthy small business to default. The bank’s objective was to achieve credit improvements for our customers — the opposite of causing a default. We acknowledge that RBS did not always get it right, but we regularly granted forbearance, contributing to thousands of jobs and businesses being saved.
Sir Philip Hampton
Chairman, Royal Bank of Scotland
SBCB has evidence that this statement by Sir Phillip Hampton is disingenuous at best. He cannot use the words ‘highly unlikely’ he must now say whether the allegations are TRUE or FALSE? In 2013 he told BBC Robert Peston that RBS took Lawrence Tomlinson’s allegations very seriously and that RBS would get to the bottom of it! The Clifford Chance report was provided with evidence and allegations of fraud but declined to look into them claiming informing SBCB that this was not their remit from RBS. The CC report also failed to establish how property valuations were conducted leading to companies being placed into GRG and then could not understand the charging structure employed by GRG which solely led to many companies defaulting on loans. This is what SIR Philip claims RBS wanted to avoid. Derek Sach could not explain either matter to the Treasury Select Committee either and SBCB has a number of complainants stating the exact opposite of Derek Sach. This matter is one of serious public concern and SIR Philip Hampton’s latest denial using the words ‘highly unlikely’ is I repeat; plainly disingenuous at best. How can RBS hope to get away with claiming: ‘We strongly refute these claims’ and refute the claims with the words ‘highly unlikely’? The latest exposure by The Times would not be printed without evidence and SBCB provided evidence which was tested by The Times. There has to be action now! SIR PHILIP HAMPTON must decide what RBS is actually saying, many claims of compensation by furious SME’s are riding on it!