MSE News: RBS fined £56m over IT meltdown

Former_MSE_Helen

RBS is to pay fines totalling £56 million following an IT meltdown in 2012, which left customers locked out of accounts...

Read the full story:

RBS fined £56m over IT meltdown




Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

chanz4

who owns rbs?

Aquamania

chanz4 wrote: »

who owns rbs?

I think it's about 80% owned by us isn't it?

I make that probably about £1 each we've all been fined.

Where does the £56million go?

agrinnall

Aquamania wrote: »

I think it's about 80% owned by us isn't it?

I make that probably about £1 each we've all been fined.

Where does the £56million go?

On the TV this morning the FCA Director of Enforcement said that after deduction of certain costs the money goes to the Treasury for them to [STRIKE]fritter uselessly away[/STRIKE] distribute as they see fit.

agrinnall

I'd still like to see the report on what happened, which as an owner of RBS both as a taxpayer and an existing shareholder I think I should be entitled to.

eskbanker

agrinnall wrote: »

I'd still like to see the report on what happened, which as an owner of RBS both as a taxpayer and an existing shareholder I think I should be entitled to.

I think you're half right! As an actual shareholder then yes, you should be entitled to corporate information, but the notion that all taxpayers 'own' or have some meaningful direct stake in the company is something of a fallacy in my humble opinion....

stclair

agrinnall wrote: »

I'd still like to see the report on what happened, which as an owner of RBS both as a taxpayer and an existing shareholder I think I should be entitled to.

You may get some information you require from the reports included within this media coverage:

http://www.rbs.com/news/2014/11/rbs-reaches-it-incident-settlement.html

James_B.

I think that this one is ludicrous. They messed up, they were made to look foolish, they would have been required to compensate any customers disadvantaged, and they will have made as sure as they possibly can that they've fixed the issue so that it can't happen again, so what is the fine supposed to do?

As my wife asked this morning, Sainsbury's tills were down last week when she went to buy lunch, so why would we not expect that they be fined for a similar technological issue? Yes, it was smaller scale, but had it been nationwide, we'd still not expect a fine. We'd assume that the reputational damage was enough punishment for what was a mistake, not a decision to stuff the customers.

agrinnall

stclair wrote: »

You may get some information you require from the reports included within this media coverage:

http://www.rbs.com/news/2014/11/rbs-reaches-it-incident-settlement.html

Thanks for that, it does provide a bit more hard information than I'd seen previously, and confirms a few of the rumours, although it's still a bit vague on the actual cause of the backout failure. The mirror bank seems like a good move although if it ever has to be used I can imagine there will be rather a lot of buttock clenching until it's proved itself.

pmduk

The only justifiable reason for the fine is to provide a warning shot across the bows of any other banking groups looking to save money by scrimping on IT. That said, I'm not convinced it was necessary, other than to provide Osborne with more funds to give away to the rich.

James_B.

pmduk wrote: »

The only justifiable reason for the fine is to provide a warning shot across the bows of any other banking groups looking to save money by scrimping on IT. That said, I'm not convinced it was necessary, other than to provide Osborne with more funds to give away to the rich.

I'm probably at the level that many would consider rich, but he's not giving any money to me. It's quite the opposite, I'm paying 47% tax on over 80% of everything I earn, which is higher than at all but the last few months of the Labour government.