Santander fined over limited cover

Santander signSantander has been fined £1.5 million for failing to make clear to customers that some of its products had only limited cover under a compensation scheme.

The bank did not update literature for more than a year after customers started asking for clarification about whether two products were covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), which gives money back to investors when firms go under.
City watchdog the Financial Services Authority (FSA) said customers began asking for clarification at the end of 2008 but it did not update its literature and training materials until January 2010.

By this time, Santander had sold £2.7 billion under its Guaranteed Capital Plus and the Guaranteed Growth Plan investment schemes. And £1.2 billion of these sales came after it had concluded that cover was limited in June 2009.

Imposing a £1.5 million fine, Tracey McDermott, the FSA's acting director of enforcement and financial crime, said: "When firms provide customers with literature about products, the information has to be correct and unambiguous. After all, it is there to help people make informed decisions about whether to invest.

"Considering that sales of these products took place between 2008 and 2009, a time of financial uncertainty, Santander should have moved more quickly to confirm under which circumstances FSCS cover would be available."

The material about the two products said that the guaranteed investments depended on the continued solvency of Santander and its subsidiaries, but did not specifically state that they were not always covered by the FSCS.

The cover offered by the FSCS was more limited than would be typically given to deposit accounts, which sees investors refunded losses of up to £85,000 per person per bank.

This was because they were held by subsidiaries of Santander. The FSCS scheme would have only paid out in certain circumstances, such as if Santander was insolvent and investors had a claim against it and for negligent advice or for mis-selling.

A spokesman for Santander said: "Santander is disappointed with the outcome and has registered its opposition to the FSA's findings. The FSA's final notice acknowledges that there is no evidence that the products were sold to customers for whom they were not suitable; and that no customers have suffered a financial loss." He added that Santander will not further challenge the decision, or the fine "in order to conclude a lengthy investigation process".

Five biggest taxpayer stings
See Gallery
Santander fined over limited cover

Most recently HM Revenue & Customs let Vodafone off the hook - for quite a sum. Vodafone paid out just £1.25 billion despite an original tax bill being closer to £8 billion (HMRC has always refused to reveal how much it thought the Vodafone final bill was). The episode was made even more shaming and painful because Vodafone was given several years to come good with the cash owed - even though it was sitting on a substantial cash pile at the time.

The Exchequer is estimated to have lost around £10 million to Goldman Sachs recently through an 'error' made by HMRC. The episode relates to an employee benefit trust run by Goldman allowing employees to take non-repayable loans that had no National Insurance contributions tied to them. HMRC did claw back the full amount from more than 20 businesses - but not Goldman. HMRC remains cagey about the details of the deal. Little HMRC accountability or transparency.

Huge problems with QinetiQ, the former Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, or DERA. A lack of clarity on contractual arrangements at the outset didn't help, allowing private equity company Carlyle to hammer the price down (why would you start negotiations when you didn't know the company's true value?). The Ministry of Defence behaved, it was said, like "an innocent at a table of card-sharps". Estimated cost to the taxpayer - £90 million. Huge sums were later made by QinetiQ management when the company listed.

The TaxPayers' Alliances estimates £2.7bn worth of taxpayer cash was wasted with a super-expensive 'National Programme for IT in the NHS'. The Department of Health, in the end, had very little to show for it as a consequence. Another example of poor management and a seemingly ingrained inability to provide taxpayers' with value for money.

"BT is paid £9 million to implement systems at each NHS site, even though the same systems have been purchased for under £2 million by NHS organisations outside the Programme", the Commons Public Accounts Committee noted.

Contentious. The Office for National Statistics estimated this has declined 3.4% since 1997, "with inputs increasing by 38%." The Centre for Economics and Business Research estimate that this inefficiency costs the taxpayer £58.4 billion a year.

Given the above record, are there any deals that the taxpayer has actually won out on? Not many, but the one successful project was the roll out of new Jobcentre Plus offices. It came in £314 million under budget, claims the Taxpayers' Alliance. A small cheer.


More stories

Read Full Story