Select Page

Whistleblower hotline (01326) 560229

Just one of many emails from victims who don’t believe the LLOYDS BANK claims about the number of settlements concluded under the Griggs Review.


Dear Noel,

I’m trying to make sense of the quoted Lloyds statistics relating to the Review. 

Quote: Benjamin Disraeli: “There are three kinds of lies- lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

The trouble is, Lloyds own their own Review statistics and Lloyds lie. 


  • How many ‘victims’ were barred from the Review because they didn’t meet the criteria Lloyds set? 
  • The offer and acceptance statistics don’t allow for those rejected from the Review? Or the grounds for rejection…
  • What is the story behind the Distress and Inconvenience payments, or the nebulous in-between element regarding company losses and related personal losses?
  • How many victims are indeed content with their compensation? All signed NDA’s so we’ll never know.
  • How were the original 67 victims arrived at (now reduced to 61)? How many did Lloyds find themselves? 
  • How many victims were placed in the Review by Lloyds after a Lloyds found and contacted them?
  • Were the low pay-outs mainly to those contacted by Lloyds and did this influence statistics?
  • How many other branches were involved in making companies vulnerable, softened up by harsh terms on the back of products and schemes like, for instance, the government’s Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme? Scourfield fed off a pipeline from vulnerable firms.
  • How many victims were faced with a ‘take it or leave it’ approach from the Bank? If they’ve signed NDA’s we’ll never know.
  • Why are Lloyds shareholders not being informed of the Review process?
  • Why has there been no call for any outside scrutiny from a truly independent revue of the Review? 
  • Has the Review process enabled Lloyds to buy victims’ evidence? 
  • If victims’ lawyers are generating full fees, why would lawyers currently criticise the process? Reputable lawyers can’t work on a success fee so an incentive to fully evaluate the process hasn’t yet occurred. It may well come.
  • With all of the evidence and information submitted, are Lloyds evaluating their own risk exposure, as the Bank has not yet fully accepted what went on within HBOS Reading and perhaps even other branches?
  • Will an investigation into the bank, based on what evidence the Thames Valley Police and PCC Anthony Stansfeld hold, expose a fraud deeper than has yet been realised?(Name withheld at the victims request but we are satisfied this person is a genuine victim)
                                                                                              Russel (I’m not a real Professor) Griggs