Ian Fraser journalist, author, broadcaster

Horta-Osório’s attempt to reinvent Lloyds is doomed unless the addresses sins of past

'Hounded by HBOS' - Lloyds Banking Group CEO António Horta-Osório at World Economic Forum in Davos, Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic creative commons license
Lloyds Banking Group CEO António Horta-Osório at the World Economic Forum in Davos, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Hounded by HBOS as Horta-Osorio urges Lloyds staff to “bring out their dead”

The patience of António Horta-Osório, the Portuguese-born chief executive of Lloyds Banking Group, seems to be wearing thin. According to a comment piece in the Sunday Telegraph, the former Goldman Sachs and Santander banker has pleaded with executives from Lloyds and the former HBOS to stop hiding the truth from him.

The paper’s business editor Kamal Ahmed wrote: “Those close to him reveal that there has been a simple message to executives during the planning of his first major set-piece as chief executive — ‘bring out your dead’. Mr Horta-Osório has asked everyone to ‘look under the drain covers”’ and give him an honest appraisal of where the bodies lie. If they don’t, there will be a ‘sense of humour failure’ if they come knocking on his door in 12 months’ time.”

Rather than write a lengthy piece detailing areas where Horta-Osório might care to shine a light and there are many, I wanted to focus on just one. This is something of which I only became aware a few weeks ago, and while less egregious than some examples, it does illustrates the bank’s double standards

Anita Williamson, who turned to blogging after being hounded for two and half years by the Bank of Scotland over a disputed £217,000 debt, recently summarised what she’s trying to achieve.

Williamson claims that the debt which Bank of Scotland, a bank owned by Lloyds since January 2009, only exists because the bank forced a sale of the Williamsons’ home in October 2008. The bank pushed through the fire-sale of the property despite its knowledge that the Williamsons had secured a tenant for three years — and that the rental would have covered the interest payments.

But the bank, which had just been bailed-out by the government of Gordon Brown, refused to listen to the proposal, instead taking the Williamsons to court in November 2008. It got a repossession order in January 2009. The 16th-century tithe barn they had lovingly restored over ten years was sold at a significant loss, creating a massive shortfall.

At the time of the sale, the Williamsons were already £27,000 in arrears, a situation Mrs Williamson had no knowledge of at the time. Her husband had been hiding their true financial problems from her (he was suffering from severe depression at the time, following a couple of bereavements and a failing property business). Yet, even though it knew Mrs Williamson was oblivious to the couple’s true financial position, the Bank of Scotland made no attempt to contact her.

Mrs Williamson spent the next two and a half years writing and explaining to the Bank of Scotland that the couple, who have three young children, don’t have the funds to settle the shortfall (her husband had built up other debts). On her Life After Debt blog, Anita Williamson wrote: “In spite of this the Bank of Scotland have continued to pursue us stating that they never write off debts of this sort and that we must make a payment arrangement. The Bank of Scotland are fully aware that we have three young children and my husband now earns only £15,000 per year. They have heard this not only from me but also repeatedly from the Citizens Advice Bureau who have been helping us deal with our creditors.”

The Bank of Scotland — which has continued in pretty much the same vein since it was acquired by Lloyds — has behaved abominably in this case, but what I find shocking is its double standards.

“Friendly” property developers and tycoons who borrowed billions from the bank — including West Coast Capital’s Sir Tom Hunter, Murray International Holdings’s Sir David Murray, Gladedale’s Remo Dipre and Tulloch Homes’s David Sutherland — have been exempted from repaying millions of pounds to the bank.

This happened as a result of deals the bank characterised as “debt-for-equity swaps” which, in reality, were more akin to “debt forgiveness” since the equity that the bank took in exchange for its debt was pretty much worthless.

Although their outstanding debt is a tiny fraction of the sums owed by these property tycoons, the Williamsons have been hounded by HBOS and Lloyds Banking Group, which are using means and foul to try and claw back their alleged debt.

The solicitors being used by Bank of Scotland are Cardiff-based debt recovery specialists Merrils Ede. In her Father’s Day blog published on 20 June 2011, Williamson described how she feels about the firm: “I have come to the conclusion that their unfaltering objective must be to milk their lucrative cash cow, the Bank of Scotland, for as much as they can get away with.  It would certainly logically explain their relentlessness in pursuit of us.  No doubt mine and my family’s well being are merely collateral damage in the overall scheme to line their pockets.”

However in the end of the day Williamson accepts her true oppressors are Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group. In her Careful Wishes blog published on 17 June2011, she said that her ultimate goals are:-

  • Exposure of Merrils Ede and the Bank of Scotland over their inability to distinguish between ‘can’t pay’ and ‘won’t pay’.
  • Exposure of Bank of Scotland’s abdication of its responsibilities to keep her informed on our mortgage. The bank has stated it feels no obligation to discuss arrears on joint borrowings with wives if they have already discussed the matter with the husband).
  • Exposure of Lloyds Banking Group for joining ranks with HBOS and condoning this behaviour by flitting between the role of persecutor and administrative incompetent for three years.

To a lesser extent Williamson would like to secure compensation from Lloyds Banking Group for:-

  • Escalating a problem to ten times its original size (see her International Woman’s Day blog post)
  • Unnecessarily repossessing her home when an alternative could have saved it and the Williamsons’ future equity.
  • Flaunting discriminatory practises against married women.
  • Neglecting to advise her to take independent legal advice, separately from her husband, at outset.
  • Causing three years of relentless pain and suffering while fully aware of the couple’s vulnerability and financial plight.

Further reading:-

Share this:
Scroll to Top