Fraud complaint - Lloyds TSB

Chrissie01

We currently have had a complaint about fraud with both Lloyds and TSB - it has been with the financial ombudsman for 2.5 years!
Both banks are using everything they can to fight this off but we have lots of evidence.
The latest they are trying is they are challenging the ombudsman jurisdiction, by now saying that the split with Lloyds TSB in 2013 included an agreement that Lloyds would be responsible for complaints against closed products and therefore the jurisdiction that the FOS had with TSB does not apply and they are saying the FOS cannot now investigate.
The FOS are rolling over and letting this happen.
Does anyone know if this was actually part of the agreement split in 2013?
Long shot I know. But any thoughts would be gratefully received. We are going to continue to fight this. 
Many thanks.

born_again

I would fully expect that any terms of the agreement to split will not be in the public domain. FOS would clearly need to see any proof.

eskbanker

If you're complaining about something that happened before the split then it's not obvious why you'd be pursuing both Lloyds and TSB, but if it's separate issues post-split then I can't see why such complaints could be sidestepped?

I don't know if the detailed terms of the demerger were published but fraud is a criminal act so presumably the police are involved, so if FOS don't come up trumps then what prospect is there of a prosecution?

Chrissie01 said:

The latest they are trying is they are challenging the ombudsman jurisdiction, by now saying that the split with Lloyds TSB in 2013 included an agreement that Lloyds would be responsible for complaints against closed products and therefore the jurisdiction that the FOS had with TSB does not apply and they are saying the FOS cannot now investigate.

http://www.tsb.co.uk/assets/pdf/investors/tier-2-prospectus.pdf makes reference to a conduct indemnity that Lloyds provided to TSB:

The Issuer, TSB Bank and Lloyds Bank entered into the Separation Agreement on 9 June 2014 (the "Separation Agreement"). The Separation Agreement governs the separation of the TSB Bank Group from Lloyds Banking Group and certain aspects of the relationship between the TSB Group and Lloyds Banking Group including (amongst other things) the allocation of certain pre-Admission liabilities, including liability for breach of law and regulation and of customer terms and conditions.

Under the terms of the Separation Agreement, Lloyds Bank has agreed, subject to certain limitations, to provide each member of the TSB Group with a range of indemnity protection in respect of historical, pre-Admission issues (including issues in relation to the period between 9 September 2013, when TSB launched as a stand-alone bank and 25 June 2014). This protection includes a broad and, save in certain limited respects, uncapped indemnity in respect of losses arising from pre-Admission acts or omissions that constitute breaches of law and regulation relating to customer agreements or the relevant security interest securing liability under such agreements (the "Conduct Indemnity").

Chrissie01

Thanks for your reply.

To give you more context, my husbands ex partner used to work for the TSB and in 2003-2007 when she no longer worked for them she used her ex colleagues and friends in the bank to get 3 mortgage advances on their property without my husband knowing. She controlled all their finances and left him in 2014 broke and with a high interest only mortgage. Basically she took all his money and the money out of the house too. She also got a member of staff to move 20k out of my husbands account into her savings account. He complained to both Lloyds and TSB in 2018 (I found documents in the house and we uncovered everything - he was always kept in the dark, and it is only through my involvement that the veil has been lifted). Both banks quoted the 6 year timebar. FOS noticed a failing in the final response letter with TSB so gave themselves the jurisdiction to pursue them. After 6 months TSB said that Lloyds were actually responsible for these products. Lloyds have now challenged the original jurisdiction by saying that the separation agreement states that Lloyds will take responsibility for complaints on products that were closed before the split of 2013. And so therefore the jurisdiction the ombudsman had with TSB was flawed and thus this jurisdiction cannot be transferred to Lloyds. I'm not sure if that's the same as the quote above? It's quite heavy jargon language for me. The police did do an investigation into this but they weren't great and closed it without following procedures - we have to send over more work to them to get it re opened after complaining to them. Any more help or advice would be gratefully received. Thank you!

eskbanker

Chrissie01 said:

To give you more context, my husbands ex partner used to work for the TSB and in 2003-2007 when she no longer worked for them she used her ex colleagues and friends in the bank to get 3 mortgage advances on their property without my husband knowing. She controlled all their finances and left him in 2014 broke and with a high interest only mortgage. Basically she took all his money and the money out of the house too. She also got a member of staff to move 20k out of my husbands account into her savings account. He complained to both Lloyds and TSB in 2018 (I found documents in the house and we uncovered everything - he was always kept in the dark, and it is only through my involvement that the veil has been lifted). Both banks quoted the 6 year timebar.

Under FCA regulations, financial institutions are entitled to reject complaints as timebarred if they're more than six years after the event concerned, or three years after the complainant became aware of it or reasonably ought to have been aware of it.  If your husband's ex left him in 2014 then they should have gone through a formalised financial separation, or at the very least he should have been aware then that all was not well with his financial situation at that stage, so I'd have thought that the banks would be entitled to timebar complaints 4 years later.

Chrissie01 said:

FOS noticed a failing in the final response letter with TSB so gave themselves the jurisdiction to pursue them. After 6 months TSB said that Lloyds were actually responsible for these products. Lloyds have now challenged the original jurisdiction by saying that the separation agreement states that Lloyds will take responsibility for complaints on products that were closed before the split of 2013. And so therefore the jurisdiction the ombudsman had with TSB was flawed and thus this jurisdiction cannot be transferred to Lloyds. I'm not sure if that's the same as the quote above? It's quite heavy jargon language for me.

I'm struggling to follow exactly what was happening here with all the references to 'jurisdiction', but in terms of which bank is responsible, my understanding is that Lloyds effectively took ownership when the TSB split happened in 2013/4, so the current post-split TSB doesn't retain any responsibility for anything before that, even if it was branded as TSB at the time (it was a separate legal entity then).  However, the FOS hold the key here - their remit normally prevents them from pursuing institutions who've legitimately timebarred complaints, so it's not clear on what basis FOS considers that further action is warranted.

Chrissie01 said:

The police did do an investigation into this but they weren't great and closed it without following procedures - we have to send over more work to them to get it re opened after complaining to them.

It sounds like your husband's ex committed fraud with the collusion of Lloyds TSB employees, so if there's sufficient evidence of this then it definitely seems worth continuing to pursue her via the police.  Even though the bank appears to have a get-out clause allowing them to sidestep a complaint, that doesn't give them immunity from prosecution, but much will depend on the weight of the evidence.

It might be worth engaging with Citizens Advice if you haven't already?
  

Chrissie01

Thank you again so much for your expertise on this.

Sorry for confusing you about jurisdiction references. it is a term the ombudsman service use - basically if a bank refuses to deal with a complaint due to the time bar then the ombudsman service can overrule this if they believe there are exceptional circumstances. In this way they would make a jurisdictional decision to have the right to investigate the complaint. We complained to both banks initially in 2018 as we didn’t know who dealt with what post 2013/4 split - both time barred it but TSB didn’t make this clear on the final response letter so the ombudsman made a decision that they could investigate. After a year of TSB looking into this it’s taken them all this time to say actually Lloyds are responsible and Lloyds are stating that they have time barred it and so the FOS should never have made this decision to investigate TSB in this way because they were never responsible for the products.

Back to what the ombudsman can do for us. They can overrule a bank using the time bar if they believe there were ‘exceptional circumstances’. We are arguing there were and we can evidence it. These are the facts that my husband was in a financially abusive relationship with her for 30 years. We have reports from his therapists over the last few years that she has narcissistic personality disorder. She presented as a loving partner but stole from him throughout. She ran his business accounts - she never let him near the money side of things - she committed fraud multiple times and one day she just walked out the door and never answered her phone to him - this is called ghosting and is emotionally cruel and abusive designed to render someone totally confused and question their own sanity. He was completely demented and didn’t know what had happened. She played games with his head throughout. She had a lot of power over him in lots of ways which is too much to go into here. When she left he was a complete mess - he didn’t even know how to pay a utility bill. She had completely disempowered him over 30 years and this can all be evidenced through medical reports. He didn’t understand anything about what had happened to his finances except that she said 200k of his personal money had gone into saving his business. (a complete lie) His whole understanding of his 30 year relationship was based on lies and it was only when I met him in 2016 and started clearing out the files in his house in 2018 that I discovered paperwork that led me to put all the pieces of the jigsaw together. I have spent years getting info off the banks through DSAR’s which evidence the full picture. The police have always said these things hardly ever go to court and have been trying to push it off their desk but we are going to send them more evidence tomorrow and hopefully get it past the threshold to go to the CPS. She was interviewed by the police for an hour asking her about all this evidence. She had a top lawyer who is known for getting people off fraud other her and she said nothing in the interview. 
Essentially though we are trying with all our might to get the ombudsman to accept these exceptional circumstances. They give an example of exceptional circumstances that a person may have been incapacitated at the time and unable to complain in time. My husband was certainly mentally and emotionally incapacitated for years after she left him. And for many years before that for various reasons all to do with the warping of reality that she did to him (called ‘gaslighting’)
Thank you so much for listening and helping me clarify the situation. I have been the main driver of trying to get justice for him for 3 years now and we have had so many doors closed in our face, it feels great when someone is genuinely trying to help. Many thanks again.