MSE News: NatWest and RBS wages, benefits and other payments 'missing'

beamerguy

eskbanker wrote: »

It doesn't say it all, no - it outlines the principle that directors are personally liable but that only comes into play if there is a case to answer in terms of specific acts or omissions with enough evidence for a prosecution. He was obviously (and rightly) held accountable for the massive losses and paid with his job but in itself that's not necessarily indicative of, say, negligence or fraud - it isn't enough to say that things went badly wrong and therefore someone must be prosecuted! What specifically do you claim he did (or failed to do) that would justify a prosecution?

I'm not trying to defend the guy by the way, just curious about the way lynch mobs work!

Company law is Company law, you know what happened so you must make your own mind up, I do not think this forum really is the place to continue this subject, suffice to say it will be left with the CPS.

"LYNCH MOBS" ... Doubt you will find out how they work here, an Internet search may help you

Herbalus

beamerguy wrote: »

It says it all --- "Directors may incur personal liability, both civil and criminal, for their acts or omissions in directing the company"
I trust you will agree that the acts of Goodwin is covered by this ?

Does that mean that you expect every CEO to be held criminally responsible if their expansion plans don't work out?

I don't view the legislation as a free hand to make cases against directors who have failed. You could after all argue that Tesco's failed venture into America was an act that cost the company a lot of money - should somebody be prosecuted for that?

The word 'may' is key. It would almost certainly have to be the case that a director deliberately acted in a criminally negligent way to have committed a legal offence. Taking too many risks is foolhardy but not illegal.

beamerguy

Herbalus wrote: »

Does that mean that you expect every CEO to be held criminally responsible if their expansion plans don't work out?

I don't view the legislation as a free hand to make cases against directors who have failed. You could after all argue that Tesco's failed venture into America was an act that cost the company a lot of money - should somebody be prosecuted for that?

The word 'may' is key. It would almost certainly have to be the case that a director deliberately acted in a criminally negligent way to have committed a legal offence. Taking too many risks is foolhardy but not illegal.

Of course not, nobody said that.
All you need do is google FRED GOODWIN and read what has been happening. Lets face it, very few directors get knighted adding the word SIR to their name. Goodwin was stripped of that showing just how serious his actions were.

Probably 99% of company directors don't get up to this ....

BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16821650

Mr Goodwin oversaw the multi-billion-pound deal to buy Dutch rival ABN Amro at the height of the financial crisis in 2007, which led to RBS having to be bailed out to the tune of £45bn by taxpayers.

There had been a growing clamour for Mr Goodwin to be stripped of his honour following thousands of job losses at RBS and in the banking industry since then, and the impact on the wider economy.

After the removal of the knighthood, a Cabinet Office spokesman said: "The scale and severity of the impact of his actions as CEO of RBS made this an exceptional case."
Both the Financial Services Authority and the Treasury Select Committee have investigated the reasons for this failure and its consequences.
They are clear that the failure of RBS played an important role in the financial crisis of 2008/9 which, together with other macroeconomic factors, triggered the worst recession in the UK since the Second World War and imposed significant direct costs on British taxpayers and businesses.

All other CEO's are rather timid compared to this

Robbie64

I wonder if the NatWest have now sorted out their latest problem? On Wednesday I was due to have both a credit paid to my bank account as well as a Direct Debit taken from my account. Up to now neither has happened.

I've just checked on the Direct Debits screen on my NatWest internet banking service and my DD that was due to be taken on 17/06 is now listed with a "Last Requested" date of 19 June, along with another DD that is due out tomorrow. When I checked the same screen this time last night the "Last Requested" date for my DD was still showing for the one taken last month so I guessed that nothing would be credited to / debited from my account this morning.

Fingers crossed that tomorrow my account will both be credited and debited with the payments that were due in / out yesterday.

beamerguy

Robbie64 wrote: »

I wonder if the NatWest have now sorted out their latest problem? On Wednesday I was due to have both a credit paid to my bank account as well as a Direct Debit taken from my account. Up to now neither has happened.

I've just checked on the Direct Debits screen on my NatWest internet banking service and my DD that was due to be taken on 17/06 is now listed with a "Last Requested" date of 19 June, along with another DD that is due out tomorrow. When I checked the same screen this time last night the "Last Requested" date for my DD was still showing for the one taken last month so I guessed that nothing would be credited to / debited from my account this morning.

Fingers crossed that tomorrow my account will both be credited and debited with the payments that were due in / out yesterday.

Robbie, think about it, why do you bank with them ???

NICHOLAS_2

beamerguy wrote: »

Robbie, think about it, why do you bank with them ???

I bank with natwest, they gave me an account when i had bad credit history, they also gave me a business account and a cheque book.

How are they different from other banks, exactly? I remember not being able to pay my mortgage when halifax had a black out!

If 600,000 people have been paid late, apparently, how many of those 600,000 has a late payment made a difference to? My guess is a small number, the types that live hand to mouth relying on child benefit for their 10 kids and other benefits or their wages because they are on low pay so don't save.

I'd bet 80% of the people affected have plenty of money to tide them over.

beamerguy

NICHOLAS wrote: »

I bank with natwest, they gave me an account when i had bad credit history, they also gave me a business account and a cheque book.

How are they different from other banks, exactly? I remember not being able to pay my mortgage when halifax had a black out!

If 600,000 people have been paid late, apparently, how many of those 600,000 has a late payment made a difference to? My guess is a small number, the types that live hand to mouth relying on child benefit for their 10 kids and other benefits or their wages because they are on low pay so don't save.

I'd bet 80% of the people affected have plenty of money to tide them over.

How long is a bit of string, we will never know. the point still remains, a major system failure for the 3rd time, not something I have heard of from other banks

stclair

beamerguy wrote: »

How long is a bit of string, we will never know. the point still remains, a major system failure for the 3rd time, not something I have heard of from other banks

Lloyds and Nationwide have had several IT glitches over the past few years the latest one only being last week. I don't think any system can be failure proof.

beamerguy

stclair wrote: »

Lloyds and Nationwide have had several IT glitches over the past few years the latest one only being last week. I don't think any system can be failure proof.

Glitches yes, not meltdown. Agreed that all systems are subject to a few problems, RBS SEEM TO TAKE THE LEAD in this area and, I do note you work for RBS

eskbanker

beamerguy wrote: »

All you need do is google FRED GOODWIN and read what has been happening.

[...]

All other CEO's are rather timid compared to this

Perhaps you might like to Google the likes of Asil Nadir, Mike Coupe and Chris Ronnie to learn about the difference between CEOs convicted of actual offences in a court of law (plus, say, Robert Maxwell) and one who merely had a decorative honour withdrawn at least in part because of "a growing clamour" from the fickle court of public opinion.