Getty images
Commercial customers and Lloyds Bank denunciators accused her of small businesses while trying to reduce loans after the 2008 financial crash.
The business owners who borrowed from Lloyds at that time told the BBC that their companies collapsed after the bank presented them to its business support unit (BSU), intended for customers it considered.
A denunciator told Panorama that there was a “scheme” of “small pigeon businesses” as “in distress” when they were “recoverable”.
Lloyds said he “categorically denied” allegations and his BSU “supported several thousand customers”.
During the 2008 banking crisis, the government has bail out the banks to save them from the collapse, including Lloyds which obtained 20 billion pounds of taxpayers’ cash.
So Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that, as a rescue banks, banks had to protect loans in small and medium -sized enterprises.
But over 15 years, the BBC heard allegations that the Lloyds BSU failed small businesses.
James Ducker, who sold financial products to companies for Lloyds in 2009, said that “the loan approach has become not to lend. Beyond that, recover as much money as we have lent as possible”.
He said that BSU customers were “easy choices”.
A denunciator who worked for a consulting company brought by Lloyds to advise small companies in the BSU told the BBC Panorama that, according to their experience, the companies described by the bank as in distress “were probably not in distress, they were recoverable. I think there was a model. There is no other way to say it.”
Wishing to remain anonymous, the denunciator accused the bank of “planning the administration of these entities before the reports that were produced. The business plan was completely ignored. They were not interested in saving the business”.
Lloyds said: “These historical allegations were entirely studied by the group and have proven to be baseless. They are categorically refused.”
“ I’m going to fight and fight ”
In 2009, Martin Woolls, a Weston-Super-Mare Ferry captain, had a residential mortgage with HSBC and unhealthy loans with Lloyds.
He had recently bought a new boat to extend his business, which he has run since 1981, and agreed to combine all his loans in a commercial mortgage and an overdraft with Lloyds – both obtained against his house.
The overdraft was authorized at an initial rate of 2.75%. However, in the wake of the accident, Martin’s overdraft prices increased to 16%. They culminated at 26.4% when he exceeded his overdraft limit. The basic rates of the Bank of England at the time remained static at 0.5%.
“Who devil in the world can face these interest rates? No one. No business, nowhere can face it. It is hideous,” he said.
Lloyds said that the increases in Martin’s rate were “in accordance with the terms” of his agreements and that he does not accept that they “finally in distress” his business “or” led to his collapse “.
In 2016, and with basic rates still less than 1%, Lloyds called Martin’s debts.
His business has become under and that the bank still requests the resumption of possession of his house, which Martin fights against the court. He said that the impact of obtaining the loan against his house was not properly explained to him.
Lloyds said that “the resumption of possession is still a last resort”, but it is “required in the interest of depositors and shareholders to protect its security when the loans are final”.
He said that many surveys of Martin’s case have found “no evidence of reprehensible acts”.
Unwanted sale
Keith Elliott borrowed 8.6 million sterling pounds in Lloyds in 2006 for his car auction company based in Yorkshire.
An internal e-mail of Lloyds of July 2008 described Keith’s activities as “profitable” but in short-term difficulty with cash problems while redeveloping a new site.
The bank suggested that Keith would face a non -executive director of PWC commercial consultants. Keith accepted, but the consultant, but not appointed non-EXEC, has always advised him to reorganize finances and to request an additional overdraft of 2 million pounds sterling. And in a week, Keith at BSU presented.
However, without Keith’s knowledge, Pwc advised Lloyds to sell the business, even if it still belonged to Keith.
In August 2008, a PWC partner sent an email to Lloyds saying: “It looks like an accelerated sale with significant costs / mandates for the bank to reflect the risk of equity you take”.
Keith told the BBC: “The fact of the question here – was their plan to steal my business behind my back. Yes or no? That’s all. That’s all we need to know.”
Keith did not want to sell the business or let Lloys take a participation, but in December, the bank called its loans and Keith’s activities collapsed, with PwC paid to supervise the break.
His Leeds company was sold for around 4 million pounds Sterling, although it was estimated at 13 million pounds Sterling a few months earlier, Lloyds taking a 15%stake.
Lloyds said that there was “nothing deceptive or unfortunate in the introduction” of PWC and that the consultants with which he worked had “experienced history of savings and development”.
He said that the BSU was not “designed to generate profits” and, in certain circumstances, a share participation can be taken with customer agreement “to reflect the risk level”.
He added that insolvency made him lose 5.5 million pounds sterling and that Keith’s personal expenses exhausted the money company.
PWC said: “Mr. Elliott’s unleated allegations were envisaged or surveyed by several authorities, no conclusion of reprehensible acts was made against PWC or its staff.”
Keith said Lloyds described his business as “robust” and said it was wrong to blame his failure on his expenses.
“ Police backchan ”
Kashif Shabir was a successful real estate developer who agreed with a loan of 3 million pounds sterling with Lloyds, but said that he was pushed by the bank in what he calls a “fire sale” of his assets after the accident.
Kashif suspects that the BSU had never really been there to support him, describing him as “a slaughterhouse”.
He turned to Avon and the Somerset police believing that he was the victim of a financial crime. Police told him that an exam had no evidence of crime. However, he later discovered that Lloyds had been informed that he was going to meet the police and that his case was going to be closed before the meeting took place. It was despite that the police told him at this meeting that there would be an additional examination of his case.
The independent office for the driving of the police (IOPC) found that the police had shared confidential information with Lloyds for “no apparent police goal”, but said that he had found no evidence of corruption.
The police of Avon and Somerset denied corruption “in the strongest possible terms”.
Lloyds said that he “went to less lengths in many years” to try to bring customers into this article “of return on the right track with their reimbursements, showing considerable abstention and understanding”.
He added: “Whenever complaints have been filed … They were fully investigated” and “no evidence of reprehensible acts was found”.
