Bradford & Bingley Share Discussion Threads

[homeboy35] 02/5/2015 16:29

It doesn't surprise me that you had shares in B&B, pvb, and were stitched up like a kipper by the corrupt financial sector of the UK

Ho ho ho, the last laugh and all that......................

[pvb] 02/5/2015 16:26

If it was a "going concern" why were its shares not priced at say 300p?

[daytraders] 02/5/2015 15:49

Think 20p was its lowest on the friday before being suspended, was more of a going concern than all the other banks, 20p would be the least we should get per share.

[pvb] 02/5/2015 15:34

You mean what? Shareholders should not only be compensated, but at a shareprice when the company was riding high?

[pwhite73] 02/5/2015 15:11

What is most annoying is that prior to its nationalisation BB was only capitalised at about £250 million due to an already collapsed share price.

That is all the compensation the government would be required to hand back to BB ordinary shareholders. If memory serves me correct just before nationalisation the shares were trading at about 20p.

[chesty1] 20/4/2015 20:06

Bradford & Bingley (B&B) Nationalisation - Update.



The attached press release together with the letter to Mr Miliband has been sent to selected journalists. The question posed is: Why did the UK Government support RBS and HBOS with over £60 billion of covert funding whilst destroying B&B as a viable business during the 2008 banking crisis......





A Letter to Ed Miliband asking why the UK Government favoured the Scottish Banks in the 2008 banking crisis.





London: Leeds. 20-04-15. The B&B Action Group (BBAG), a voluntary not for profit company limited by guarantee which represents nearly one million share/bond holders, has sent the attached letter to Mr Miliband. It believes the nationalisation of B&B in September 2008 and the sale of its savings book and retail network, which destroyed it as an ongoing business, was a flawed decision made in haste and inconsistent with the support given to Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) which had far weaker balance sheets than B&B.



Since then despite hundreds of freedom of information requests the B&B shareholders still do not know how and why it was destroyed by the UK Government. For nearly seven years Whitehall and Westminster have resorted to obfuscation, subterfuge and the 'public interest' refuge to avoid telling the truth which makes a mockery of open and democratic government. The spirit of Sir Humphrey Appleby is alive and well in the corridors of power.



In previous correspondence BBAG asked Mr Miliband if he would hold an inquiry or make reparations to B&B shareholders should he achieve power after the election in May. His response spoke of a 'world wide crisis', an excuse used by successive governments to justify the expropriation of B&B - an unacceptable smoke screen. The main causes of the UK banking crisis were the introduction of flawed accounting standards in 2005 by the UK Government and the European Union, which enabled greedy bankers to declare false profits, and the total failure of the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority in their duty of care to private savers and investors.



The banking crisis 'post mortem' by the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum indicates that B&B had a far stronger balance sheet than Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland. Furthermore public statements by Messrs Kent and Pym, chairman and CEO of B&B, both pre and post the nationalisation conflicted with the UK Government's justification of its action. Despite this the two Scottish banks secured over £60 billion of government support just days after B&B was expropriated and its savings book and retail network sold at a fire sale price, which destroyed it as an ongoing business. B&B shareholders, the former owners of the company, are entitled to know why the UK Government of which Mr Miliband was a senior minister ensured the survival of RBS and HBOS but destroyed B&B as a viable business.







And now the letter sent to Mr Miliband.



Dear Mr Miliband

The Nationalisation of Bradford & Bingley (B&B) Why did the Labour Party favour the Scottish Banks?




As chairman of the B&B Action Group (BBAG) I refer to my previous correspondence in which I asked whether you intended to hold an inquiry or consider reparations for B&B shareholders should you achieve power after the election in May. Your reply was the standard Treasury response, which is unacceptable to nearly one million B&B employees, share/bondholders and the wider Bingley community, as it spoke of a worldwide banking crisis and that due process had been followed at every stage of the valuation of B&B by Mr Peter Clokey, the independent valuer appointed by the UK Government. However the Compensation Order's terms of reference were far too narrow and the 'in administration' approach ensured a nil valuation and prejudiced legal claims and submissions to the independent valuer and the Upper Tribunal review body. Mr Clokey has stated that if his terms of reference had differed he may have come to a different conclusion.



'The worldwide crisis' quoted by successive UK Governments as justification of the expropriation of B&B is no more than a smoke screen. South America, Canada, the Middle/Far East, Asia and many UK, USA and EU registered banks were largely untouched, the main problems arose with some financial institutions in the USA, the UK and Europe. The reasons for the UK banking crisis was a bank and government generated credit bubble the catalyst for which was the introduction of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in 2005 by the UK Government and the European Union, which enabled greedy bankers to indulge in false accounting resulting in significant amounts of corporation tax paid on those false profits. This was combined with the failures of the regulatory authorities and the UK Government's light touch regulatory approach at a time when those same bankers were out of control.



The Banking Crisis 'post mortem' published by the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum clearly shows that B&B had a far stronger balance sheet than Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS), yet the latter received over £60 billion of covert support only days after B&B was expropriated and its savings book and retail network sold, thus destroying it as an ongoing business. The nationalisation of B&B was a flawed decision, made in haste and inconsistent with the treatment of RBS and HBOS, who are major employers in central Scotland which is the power base of the Scottish Labour Party.



BBAG's previous question to you regarding a B&B inquiry and/or reparations on behalf of nearly one million B&B employees, share/bond holders and the Bingley community, ordinary private savers and investors entitled to a duty of care from the Government and tripartite regulatory authorities, remains unanswered. A further question is why did the UK Government of which you were a Minister ensure the survival of RBS and HBOS whilst B&B, which had a far stronger balance sheet than those two banks, was destroyed as a viable business? Your reply within ten working days would be appreciated.




David Blundell

Chairman BBAG

0113 2813941

[e-mail]

[envirovision] 16/4/2015 15:30

loganair, I think AA shareholders were very lucky. I agree Santander appear to have been given a gift for next to nothing with B&B savings books.

However to be fair, Barclays could have taken it but passed as could the coop, but instead it committed suicide on something else, as did lloyds with hsbc.

I think there is no easy answer to any of this other than to say it was very clear most of those at the top running these banks had no concept of solvency or risk.

I think what is more shocking is that many of this directors and execs from the period are now turning up in similar roles or worse turning up in state appointed roles or organisations of compliance such as the FCA these days. All of them got to keep their prior bonuses and pensions, some even got sickening pay offs.

I entirely agree with you, Pym and indeed many others have gotten away with murder. Many of these people should be under civil and criminal scrutiny and facing courts and some of them should certainly have served some time in prison and certainly been stripped of pensions.

[loganair] 16/4/2015 14:14

envirovision - What about Alliance and Leicester which was fully taken over by Santander, at least their shareholders got some thing in return.

If I may also remind that as soon as the A&L take over had gone through that their CEO Richard Pym became CEO of B&B and with in a couple of months the branch network and savings books had been sold to Santander at a knocked down price and the rest of B&B taken over by the government.

When both Northern Rock and what was left of B&B become rolled up into one as a so called bad bank, Richard Pym became defacto CEO of that to.

Then in 2013 Richard Pym became Chairman of the Co-op bank and after less than a year in the roll left 13th October 2014.

And it was Richard Pym who signed off on B&B's Rights Issue just 6 weeks before being taken over by the Government.

When it comes to Richard Pym there are too many coincidences...

It also seems very unusual to me that a company making a loss for just the one year goes bust. The year before B&B had made several £100mln in profit and then the year after their loss was back into profit again and had been profitable ever since.

[daytraders] 16/4/2015 11:23

Yep well done on BBAG, i lost £7K over night.

[debbiegee] 16/4/2015 09:32

Hear Hear many thanks much appreciated !

[optomistic] 16/4/2015 09:23

It's good to see that someone is still working on the behalf of the wronged shareholders.

Our money was stolen from us overnight by Gordon Brown, it should be put right!

Thank you BBAG for your continued efforts.

[envirovision] 16/4/2015 08:46

I think its known why they did this. Rbs and bos were seen as to big to fail so they were rescued as a going concern.Smaller ones like B&B and N.Rock were not.Simples i think this guy is wasting everyones time.

[chesty1] 16/4/2015 08:28

Bradford & Bingley (B&B) Nationalisation - Update.



B&B Action Group (BBAG) makes formal complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman on grounds of Cabinet Office and Treasury 'maladministration'.



London/Leeds-31 March 2015: The nationalisation of Bradford & Bingley (B&B) in late September 2008 and the sale of its savings book was a flawed decision, made in haste and inconsistent with the treatment of Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland, which had far weaker balance sheets than B&B, David Blundell, the chairman of the Bradford & Bingley Action Group (BBAG), has contended.



Blundell commenting said: "That decision ultimately caused significant financial and emotional suffering for nearly one million B&B employees, share and bond holders as well as the Bingley community - who were entitled to a duty of care from the UK Government."



Since then numerous Freedom of Information (FoI) requests have been made in an effort to get to the truth. However, BBAG still does not know how or why B&B was destroyed as an on-going business. What it does know is that for over six years the Cabinet Office, HM Treasury (HMT) and the Financial Services Authority(now Financial Conduct Authority) have resorted to subterfuge, obfuscation and the escape route of 'public interest' to avoid telling the truth.



Blundell added: "Thus far the reasons that they have offered for the UK banking crisis are risible. The spirit of Sir Humphrey Appleby is alive and well in the corridors of Whitehall and Westminster."



In frustration BBAG appealed to the Parliamentary Ombudsman's office who advised at the turn of this year that the appeals process had not been exhausted and that complaints should be made to the Government departments involved on the grounds of "maladministration".



Therefore, on 6 January 2015 formal complaints were made to the Cabinet Office and HMT by recorded delivery with receipts for delivery signed on the 9 and 8 January 2015, respectively. But both departments failed to respond within the normal four-week limit, so email reminders were sent.



Blundell further pointed out: "The Treasury's reply on the 24 February 2015 attempted to justify the destruction of the Second Permanent Secretary Mr John Kingman's records, and stated that he was not involved in the B&B nationalisation. Then it abruptly closed the matter."



Leeds-based Blundell added: "This is unacceptable as the Treasury is on record in respect of Mr Kingman's involvement with Northern Rock and the recapitalisation of Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds, Halifax Bank of Scotland during the banking crisis."



BBAG also has difficulty in believing that Mr Kingman did not have, at the least, 'off the record' involvement in the B&B expropriation and that the Treasury was covertly briefing Robert Peston of the BBC in the months prior to the 29 September 2008 decision.



The Cabinet Office has still not replied despite BBAG's reminder, which serves as a further example of what Blundell described as "the appalling service that has been the hallmark of its behaviour towards BBAG" for over six years. "Their protracted attempts to avoid telling the truth make a mockery of open democratic Government," he noted.



Separate complaints on the above two Government departments have been completed and passed to the Parliamentary Ombudsman's office via Mr Alec Shelbrooke, MP for Elmet and Rothwell, who has supported BBAG's campaign ever since his election to Parliament in 2010.

[debbiegee] 06/3/2015 06:06

Than you guys for keeping us informed .

[pwhite73] 05/3/2015 07:49

SFO has launched a criminal investigation into the actions of the Bank of England during the financial crisis of 2007/2008.

In a nutshell it appears that banks that had the money like RBS paid for the extra liquidity help to stay afloat and banks that didn't like Bradford and Bingley were sent to the dogs.

[zastas] 18/1/2015 11:56

Thank you. Where is he now, that Kingman?

[birchin] 18/1/2015 11:25

B&B Action Limited; Registered in England No. 7239419
BBAG – Bradford & Bingley Action Group
PRESS RELEASE
8 January 2015
Kirktowers, Elmwood Lane
Barwick-in-Elmet
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS15 4JS
Phone: [phone]
Web:
www.bbactiongroup.org
Email:
[e-mail]
B&B Action Group appeals to the Parliamentary Ombudsman
In November 2014 BBAG appealed to the Ombudsm
an in respect of administrative
failures by the Cabinet Office , the Treasury
and the Financial Services Authority (FSA),
now the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA),
relating to the B&B nationalisation. David
Blundell the chairman of BBAG has had further
discussions with the
Ombudsman’s office
and based on the advice given formal complaints have been sent, recorded delivery, to
the Cabinet Office and Treasury as described below:
In 2008 the Cabinet Office responded to a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request in
respect of the B&B nationalisation stating
“ We have no files
whatsoever”, BBAG
doubted this statement at the time and its su
spicions were proved correct. In his book
“Beyond the Crash” published in 2010, Gordon Brown described his decision to
nationalise B&B in the ante room of the Oval
Office, the White House, Washington DC
in a transatlantic telephone call with Alistair Darling in the UK. However, it was only in
2011 after further FOIA requests that the Cabine
t Office finally admitted that it did have
files. BBAG has written to Sir Jeremy Heyw
ood, Cabinet Secretary, making a formal
complaint in respect of the untrue stat
ement made in 2008 which destroyed any
momentum the BBAG campaign may have achieved
in the months prior to the General
Election in 2010, particularly in respect of a judicial review. It also asked the question
“which officials were responsible for issui
ng the statement and what disciplinary action,
if any, was taken against them.”
Based on the same advice from the Ombudsman BBAG has also made a formal complaint
to Sir Nicholas Macpherson, Permanent Secretary
at the Treasury, in respect of BBAG’s FOIA
request for details of all communications between Mr Robert Peston a well known BBC and
Telegraph journalist and Mr John Kingman, the Se
cond Permanent Secretary at the Treasury
at the time of the B&B nationalisation. It was
Mr Peston’s well informed reporting that
caused a run on B&B shares and
which suggests he had access to
internal sources at the
Treasury. Mr Michael Fallon, the current Secretary
of State for Defence, certainly thought so in
the Treasury Select Committee meeting in
November 2008.The Treasury response was “We
have no such records and when Mr Kingman left the Treasury In December 2008 information
on his laptop, smart phone and other network resource
s were cleared. There is no record of
‘On the Record’ briefings by policy officials with
journalists.” The question that the Treasury
has to answer is – why were the records of Mr
Kingman, a senior official heavily involved in
the banking crisis, not digitally recorded and wh
ich officials sanctioned their destruction.
BBAG believes these government departments have been
guilty of gross misfeasance, it is also
examining the Financial Conduct Authority’s file
in respect of its responses to FOIA requests
with the intention of making a formal compla
int to its chairman Mr John Griffith-Jones.
CONTACT:
David Ward Blundell
BBAG Chairman
www.bbactiongroup.org
Tel: [phone]
NOTE TO EDITORS:
BBAG is a company limited by guarantee and a volunt
ary organisation whose sole objective is to
secure justice for B&B shareholders, the former ow
ners of the company. The committee members do
not draw emoluments or any form of personal expenses.
BBAG_Press_Release 010

hxxp://www.bbaction.com/BBAG_Press_Release_010.pdf

[zastas] 11/1/2015 14:29

Thank you; interesting times. Good to see a few others as JW are on the ball here, and confirming what so many have said and felt for years.

[pwhite73] 11/1/2015 09:35

"....One interesting, and potentially embarrassing, nugget now cast open to the cold light of day is that throughout the immediate crisis, the Bank and the FSA took the view that Northern Rock was perfectly solvent, something that appears to be confirmed by the current state of play; the taxpayer stands to make billions out of the run-off of the so-called “bad bank”. If Northern Rock’s problem was fundamentally a liquidity issue, rather than one of solvency, as later claimed by the government when it nationalised the Rock without compensation, then shareholders were indeed robbed. It’s a point long argued by Jon Wood’s SRM investment group, which built up a big position in Northern Rock shares ahead of the confiscation. Even now he’s re-instructing lawyers, all fired up by the new ammunition contained in the minutes."

[birchin] 07/1/2015 17:48

Politicians blamed as meeting called off

THE head of a campaign group seeking compensation for around one million former Bradford & Bingley shareholders has accused leading politicians of ‘further obfuscation’ after they failed to take up an invitation to a public meeting later this month.

David Blundell, chairman of Bradford & Bingley Action Group, has postponed the meeting planned for January 24 at St Columba’s Church, Knightsbridge, London. He had invited David Cameron, Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg to the planned BBAG gathering – and also contacted UKIP to ask its leader Nigel Farage to attend.

BBAG wanted to press the case for compensation it has been fighting since B&B’s mortgage business was nationalised and the savings arm and branches sold to Santander. during the banking crisis in 2008, leaving its shares worthless.

Mr Blundell, who praised Shipley MP Philip Davies for his continued support for the BBAG campaign, said the lack of response from senior politicians meant the meeting would be postponed until after the election.

He said: “ This is a further example of the obfuscation to which BBAG has been subjected for over six years by successive governments and explains why Whitehall and Westminster are held in such contempt by so many. “ BBAG is also awaiting a response from Information Commissioner Christopher Graham who was invited.

hxxp://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/business/11704654.Politicians_blamed_as_meeting_called_off/

[zastas] 07/1/2015 11:17

OK.

But now we need the Labour-HMG 2007-2009 Treasury minutes and the rest too. Unlikely to happen though, but why not?

[pwhite73] 07/1/2015 00:53

Vindicated at last.



Revealed: Bank of England files finally shed light on financial crisis meetings


Minutes from 2007 to 2009 reveal political infighting and loss of confidence in the system as banking sector teetered on brink of collapse

The minutes showed that the Bank of England, led by Mervyn King, clashed with Alastair Darling's Treasury Photo: AP

By James Titcomb, Mehreen Khan, and Alan Tovey

12:01AM GMT 07 Jan 2015


The UK financial system’s struggle to deal with the crisis has been laid bare by Bank of England documents detailing a power vacuum between the government and regulators.

The Bank has released hundreds of pages of crisis-era minutes under a new transparency drive from Mark Carney, shedding light for the first time on how regulators grappled with how to halt the collapse of the banking system.

The documents show how the response to the collapse of Northern Rock in September 2007 and the subsequent credit crisis was marred by political motivations, failures to take responsibility, and a lack of effective oversight.

Campaigners had demanded that the files be made public amid fears that their secrecy prevents the Bank from being held accountable for its actions. Mr Carney, the Bank’s Governor, said that the minutes, published today, “provide further insight into the Bank’s actions during [an] exceptional period”.

The documents – from meetings of the Bank of England court – reveal how the “tripartite” system of financial regulation devised by Labour’s chancellor Gordon Brown was exposed as wholly inadequate.

The system, under which the Bank, the then Financial Services Authority and the Treasury were supposed to work together to ensure financial stability, fell into disarray following the mismanaged collapse of Northern Rock before it collapsed into public hands. Before the crisis, the Bank did not have oversight of individual institutions, and there was no mechanism for banks at risk of failure.

Although Bank directors originally had faith in the system, saying in September 2007 that the early response to liquidity issues had “proven the sense and strength of the tripartite network”, by April 2008 it had concluded that the tripartite arrangement was “not sufficiently workable or relevant to managing a crisis”.

Ineffective communication between the parties, and to the market itself, meant that the Bank was handicapped in its ability to promote financial stability, exacerbating a run on Northern Rock that forced the central bank to provide billions of pounds in emergency support.

The subsequent response to the lender’s troubles, and attempts to prevent any repeats, was then undermined by the Labour government’s desire to rush through new laws, the minutes show.

The Banking Act, which set out how failing banks were to be dealt with, was hastily devised by Alistair Darling’s Treasury during 2008, despite fears that it could do more harm than good.

A meeting of the Bank’s non-executive committee in February 2008 detailed director warnings of “ill-conceived and rushed legislation programme”.

Directors later said that the proposals, which were “driven in the main by the need to demonstrate that the government was acting”, could have “damaging effects on the existing system of bank regulation”.

The Bank was unwilling to take on additional responsibility when the legislation was being devised, but agreed to because it wanted to “move away from a politicisation of the special resolution regime”.

It did this despite fears that its reputation as the independent body responsible for setting interest rates could be affected.

The Treasury also clashed with Threadneedle Street over the government’s support for Virgin’s proposed takeover of Northern Rock in 2007, which subsequently collapsed.

The tripartite response to Northern Rock's collapse showed the inadequancies of the system (Getty)

The Bank said in response to the release of the minutes that “the roles, in a crisis, of the Bank, the Treasury and the FSA were ill-defined”.

Even when the Banking Act was passed in 2009, the Bank raised concerns that it did not do enough. Minutes published after its assent said that the Bank had been given additional responsibilities to deal with failing institutions “without commensurate powers”.

“The inability to drill down to the level of an individual institution’s accounts and balance sheet in order to build up a picture of the system as a whole remained a large deficiency,” the minutes said.

The very first resolution performed by the Bank following the act – of Dunfermline Building Society in March 2009 – was affected by disagreements between the Treasury and the Bank over auctioning off assets.

In the years since, the present Government has abolished the FSA, bringing many new responsibilities under the remit of the Bank of England.

The minutes also showed a series of deficiencies at the Bank of England itself, with multiple conflicts of interest among members of the court and ineffective challenges to executives, led by the former governor Lord King.

For example, at a meeting in September 2007, a question about whether financial stability was being sacrificed in order to prevent “moral hazard” – taking excessive risks due to implied government support – was brushed aside.

Andrew Tyrie, the head of the Treasury Select Committee who had pushed for the minutes to finally be published, said there had been a “lack of challenge to a monolithic executive”.

“The Bank appears to have been a very hierarchical organisation, with clear signs of 'groupthink’ among its leadership,” Mr Tyrie said. “The executive rarely acknowledged possible weaknesses in its views or, other than grudgingly, admitted that it might have been unprepared for the crisis.”

Since then, Threadneedle Street has introduced reforms reducing the size of the court and appointing a non-executive chairman.

The minutes of the bank’s Transactions sub-committee, which at short notice approved emergency assistance worth billions of pounds, revealed the code names that were used to refer to banks on the financial life support. Royal Bank of Scotland was referred to as “Phoenix”, HBOS as “Fox” and Bradford and Bingley as “Badger”.

Anthony Habgood, the chairman of the court, said the Bank of England would continue to hold executives to account.

“While successive reforms in recent years have significantly enhanced the Court’s capability to hold the Bank’s executive management to account, there is scope to go further, with a simpler structure and a clearer commitment to accountability,” he said.

[pwhite73] 07/1/2015 00:39

Its all coming to light now. In a General Election year with no party having an overall majority a million votes is not to be sniffed at. Is the government paving the way to buy a million votes.



Labour plans were 'ill-conceived and misguided' during financial crisis

Bank of England meeting minutes reveal officials' concerns about Gordon Brown's plans to solve banking crisis

By Holly Watt

12:01AM GMT 07 Jan 2015

The Labour government put the financial recovery at risk by rushing through new laws despite the Bank of England warning they were ‘ill-conceived and misguided’, newly-released documents reveal.


Minutes from meetings held by the Bank's directors at the height of the financial crisis from 2007 to 2009 have been published for the first time.

The minutes reveal tensions between the government, the Bank and the Financial Services Authority, as they battled to stop the British economy collapsing.

Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown, then Chancellor and Prime Minister, claimed credit for saving the banking system, but the minutes reveal serious concerns over Labour’s strategy at the Bank of England.

The minutes reveal particular tensions over the drafting of key pieces of legislation to stem the financial crisis. According to the notes, Bank officials believed that the proposed legislation was being hurried for political purposes.

“It was stressed that it would be important to move HM Treasury from the current timetable,” the minutes noted. “If the present formulation was taken forward, there could be damaging effects on the existing system of bank regulation.”

The minutes hint that the legislation was being rushed “in the main by the need to demonstrate that the Government was acting to address the identified problem.”

The then Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, had to tell Mr Darling that “ensuring the legislation was right was far more important than meeting an arbitrary timetable”. Bank officials also debated “at what point in the process” they would tell the government that they would not commit to “an ill-conceived and rushed legislation programme”.

The current Governor Mark Carney said that the minutes provided insight into the Banks’ actions during “this exceptional period”.

“The financial crisis was a turning point in the Bank’s history,” he said.

Andrew Tyrie, the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, said that the Bank’s structure had not provided checks and balances during the crisis.

“On occasion individual directors did ask searching questions. But the executive tended to swat them away,” he said.

The structure of the Bank of England has since undergone major reform.

The documents also reveal that the Bank’s “Court” or oversight body met the day before Northern Rock collapsed in September 2007. However, they were not told about the impending crisis because several of the members had conflicts of interest.

They also reveal that the building society Alliance& Leicester had to be offered a £3billion lifeline by the Treasury in November 2007 before it was sold to Santander. The building society was referred to by the code word “Tiger” in confidential bank documents, which “emphasised that there needed to be considerable secrecy about this facility”. Queues formed outside Northern Rock when plans for similar measures leaked.