Now "WE" own 58% of RBS "WE" should withdraw "OUR" high court bank charges case?

natweststaffmember

luvvabargin wrote: »

So we (as RBS shareholders) are going to spend time and money going to court to defend a case brought against us by the public who are now the majority shareholders in RBS... we are defending a case of ourselves suing ourselves... what fantastic nonsense!
As taxpayers we are being sued, are defending being sued and are judging being sued. Its a bit like saying, should we ask the Judges to step down because they have a conflict of interests as a taxpayer and dealing with the case. The same is true for the Banks' solicitors, do you think that gives all sides a route to challenge all decisions from now onwards--on the basis of conflict of interest?
It should be at least investigated if it is going to be cheaper to settle out of court? - that is the responsible thing for directors of a company to do... to find the most cost efficient, and PR friendly, way out of litigation.
The implications are massive, will we get "free banking" model of banking, will we see "pay for banking" model etc.etc.

I would like to know what the total projected cost of defending the case is going to be, and what the total cost of refunding say 75% of all overdraft etc. charges would be. I am guessing (and it is only a guess obviously) that if 75% refund was offered for swift settlement, probably a good majority of RBS customers would accept it as an acceptable compromise.
That is if the case is lost by the banks' and that is not completely certain. There is no settlement of 75% because it is all or nothing. The OFT court case final decision may be many months or more away and the government may not be the majority shareholder when that happens. They are because of the stock market price. No institutional investors wanted to touch 65.5p when the share price was so low ie 40p a share. Would you buy a television offered by the government, same make and model for 30% more? I wouldn't.
The lawyers must be rubbing their hands with glee...

I do understand what you are saying but that is not a logical business decision.

luvvabargin

It just seems very nutty in these troubled times that they should continue persuing such a course of action...

I would have thought it far more important to stabilise and rationalise the business, in order to try to increase the share price high enough for the government to be able to sell the shares back to investors again?

natweststaffmember

RBS Group is currently carrying out a review of all areas of the group. The 2700 job losses are definitely happening, and I suspect the insurance arm of RBS Group may eventually be sold on but only at a price that they believe it to be worth. The likelyhood is that HMT will have shares at least for the next 12 months and probably more albeit at a lower level than it does at the moment.

noh

luvvabargin wrote: »

...

I would have thought it far more important to stabilise and rationalise the business, in order to try to increase the share price high enough for the government to be able to sell the shares back to investors again?

Clarifying the legality of bank charges is part of that process.

Nigel

Kavanne

gillsmills wrote: »

Just remember that the ordinary staff of the RBS did not do anything wrong so please treat us with respect and kindness thank you!

Yeah and we as employees pay tax so we own RBS too now.

militantconsumer

Here is an answer to your question:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7759054.stm

Tozer

I think there is a misunderstanding about the "we" own these banks. "We" do not. It is HMG which owns shares in the banks. Therefore, part of the banks are held in public ownership. Public ownership does not mean that the taxpayer has the ability to decide on the operations of anything, nor does the tax payer have any specifal rights in respect of the entity.

In a similar way, I can't pop along to the local RAF base and ask to borrow a helicopter for the weekend (unless you are a Prince!).

militantconsumer

On the other hand, is it really a coincidence that as soon as RBS is confirmed as in majority public hands we get a couple of stories about them behaving more reasonably than the other banks?

Yesterday RBS announced they wouldn't repossess anyone's homes for six months.

Today we hear they are getting ready to refund unfair bank charges.

Government ownership does make a difference. Only recently Darling and Brown were telling Northern Rock to stop repossessing people's homes.

Tozer

I think it does makes some difference but the point is that individuals don't have the right to start calling the tune.

In my experience banks very often wait a fair bit of time past the 3 month best practice period for repossessions anyway - particularly in a falling housing market. RBS saying 6 months wasn't as drastic as it may sound.

natweststaffmember

Tozer wrote: »

I think it does makes some difference but the point is that individuals don't have the right to start calling the tune.

In my experience banks very often wait a fair bit of time past the 3 month best practice period for repossessions anyway - particularly in a falling housing market. RBS saying 6 months wasn't as drastic as it may sound.

...and the Robert Preston Blog suggested that this may not necessarily be the best plan anyway. Repossess a load of houses you cannot sell anyway. Good news stories and RBS have been around before the HMT took over, but many people have thought it was cynical news grabbing headlines.