JOHN GUIDI (Virgin Money – CYBG Hunger Striker) AND HMG Economic Secretary to the Treasury, John Glen MP.

[NOTE At 5. below the Press Conference and an Open Letter to the Prime Minister on Wednesday 29 January 2020]

From: John Guidi [email address redacted]

Sent: 01 February 2020 16:55

To: [email protected]; [email protected]

Cc: andrew bailey [email address redacted]; ross.mcewan [email address redacted]; ross.mcewan [email address redacted]; Jocelyn R Turner; david.duffy [email address redacted]; lewis.shandsmith [email address redacted]; Ian Lightbody; Brian Little; ‘Rogerson, Lindsey (TR Product)’; rachelwolcott [email address redacted]; [email protected]

Subject: Application to Sist Proceedings

Dear Minister

I have had the opportunity to discuss this with my colleague Gurch Samra and recognise that you Minister do nothing about individual cases, HOWEVER it is alarming, and disconcerting, that the evidence available to us is that you have done nothing in your tenure for the last 25 months either ……….for example:

  1.     What new legislation proposals were brought and received Royal Assent in Parliament during your tenure on any SME lending / complaints / third party debt etc. since January 2018? 
  2.     In relation to the future can you point to anything in the Queen’s Speech, for the forthcoming Parliamentary Session, in which you , as EST, have persuaded colleagues to include … based on the multiple pieces of individual cases and the 7 debates in Parliament during your tenure – any proposals for SME Lending / complaints / third party debt etc?
  3.   HM Treasury, under your instruction, has opposed the openness of enabling the FCA to share the areas in which they ask that HM Government should consider legislation, within our democracy.

HMT response to Regulatory Perimeter report on 10 October 2019  Interim Chair  Catherine McKinnell said “It was disappointing <..> that the Government does not see the case for providing a formal power for the FCA to request changes to the perimeter.”

In the FCA’s response, which the Committee received on the 14 October and has published today, Andrew Bailey, Chief Executive of the FCA, said:  “We share the Committee’s view that there could be a more structured and transparent approach for identifying and engaging with HMT on perimeter changes.  This could allow for a regular opportunity to consider what activities are covered by regulation, and hence transparency surrounding changes to the FCA regulatory perimeter.”

Commenting on the FCA’s correspondence, Ms McKinnell said:

“The Treasury Committee has recommended that the FCA is given the formal power to suggest changes to the Government over what it regulates, which could help the FCA to protect consumers.”

“Disappointedly, yet perhaps unsurprisingly, the Government rejected our recommendation, opting instead to keep the opaque system as it is.”

“The independent FCA, on the other hand, shares our view, rather than the Government’s that a more formal or structured approach would provide greater transparency to the process”

“The Committee awaits the work promised by both the FCA and the Government, and we will continue to raise these issues in our evidence sessions.”

18 October 2019 – Reuters – MPs publish correspondence showing FCA supportive of formal power to redraw perimeter

Meanwhile, the Vulture funds appear to be untouchable by the law yet they use their distorted version of law for their own benefit to destroy the honest and hardworking, tax paying SME’s and individual people of this country and leave them destitute as a burden on the state while they themselves pay no taxes in the UK, Ireland or anywhere else.

  1.     You, EST, have never published any correspondence to demonstrate that any effort has been made by you, or interest in what UK Finance has done, to bring further banks in to the BBRS since December 2018. 
  2.     In relation to same, if there are Banks who “refuse” to join on a voluntary basis …for example, we learned from Dean D Eye at the recent Press Conference, Zurich Dunbar – how and what has the EST done to encourage same or alternatively provide a Compensation Fund, underpinned by HMT? We know the SME Alliance wrote to the Minister last August suggesting part of that 1 billion RBS special dividend could be diverted directly or in some manner for same.

As a result of these examples (and many more) you are aware that the “Banking Victims for a Future” campaign, of which I am member of one of the participating groups, wrote an Open Letter to the Prime Minister.

This was handed in to Downing Street last Wednesday, after a Press Conference, with many journalists and others in attendance. The Mission of that group goes beyond our individual cases ……

Business –  “The objective is to have Banks put things right, redress customers, where they should be redressed, and continue to reinforce our work that Banks really need to earn people’s trust.  Without this redress through a credible Business Banking Resolution Service (BBRS) followed by an appropriate closure and reconciliation process, within each bank, for the last 20 years we will not help this nation and its people, through many small businesses, PROSPER in a post- Brexit United Kingdom”

People – “In relation to the People’s UK Mortgage Prisoners – “We do not want to be left behind within our Prime Minister’s hope for our nation.  We didn’t deserve this and should not continue to suffer. We insist that our “People’s Government” provide a solution and reflect it in the chancellors budget speech on 11th March 2020, to the nation”…..

I believe that these Mission statements will resonate with our Prime Minister, even if not shared by you Mr. Glen.

As the current Minister you are again invited to provide any evidence of what you have actually achieved in the last 25 months?

John Guidi

Sent: 31 January 2020 17:07

To: John Guidi

Cc: ‘HOLLINRAKE; andrew bailey [email address redacted]; lewis.shandsmith [email address redacted]; phil.chronican [email address redacted]; Jocelyn R Turner; david.duffy [email address redacted]; Ian Lightbody; Brian Little; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: RE: Motion to Sist [ADDGDD-Active.FID3830212]

Dear John Guidi,

Thank you for your correspondence, which the Economic Secretary has asked me to respond to on his behalf. As he has stated publicly, the Economic Secretary is aware of the pressing need to resolve historic disputes between banks and small businesses. This is why he is an advocate of the new Business Banking Resolution Service (BBRS), and urges all parties to choose the best course of action to resolve such cases – whether via the BBRS, the courts or other forms of mediation and arbitration.

However, I hope you can appreciate that the Economic Secretary is unable to intervene in individual cases. While the Treasury sets the legal framework for the regulation of financial services, it does not have investigative or prosecuting powers of its own and therefore does not have the powers to direct firms to take particular courses of action.

I appreciate that this may be a disappointing response, but would like to thank you for making the Minister aware of your concerns.


HMTLogo_smlOffice of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury

Her Majesty’s Treasury | 1 Horse Guards Road, London, SW1A 2HQ | | Twitter: @hmtreasury 

From: John Guidi [email address redacted]

Sent: 27 January 2020 12:20

To: [email protected]

Cc: EST Action – HMT <[email protected]>; ‘HOLLINRAKE, Kevin [email address redacted]; andrew bailey [email address redacted]; lewis.shandsmith [email address redacted]; phil.chronican [email address redacted]; Jocelyn R Turner  [email address redacted]; david.duffy [email address redacted]; Ian Lightbody [email address redacted]; Brian Little [email address redacted]; [email protected]

Subject: FW: Motion to Sist [[redacted]]

Importance: High

Dear Minister

Please find enclosed reply from Promontoria ( Chestnut ) Ltd for your consideration and action.

John Guidi


From: Devine, Joan <Joan.Devine [email address redacted]

Sent: 27 January 2020 12:07

To: John Guidi [email address redacted]

Cc: Patrick.Fulton [email address redacted]

Subject: RE: Motion to Sist [redacted]

Mr Guidi,

I have taken instructions. Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited, the Second Defender, do not consent to the proposed motion to sist the court action proceeding under court reference [redacted]

Joan Devine


Addleshaw Goddard LLP


Tel   [redacted]

Mob [redacted]

View our office locations 

From: John Guidi [email address redacted]

Sent: 24 January 2020 15:13

To: Devine, Joan <Joan.Devine [email address redacted]>; Fulton, Paddy <Patrick.Fulton[email address redacted]>

Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; ‘kevin.hollinrake[email address redacted]; andrew bailey [email address redacted]; lewis.shandsmith [email address redacted]; samantha barrass[email address redacted]; phil.chronican[email address redacted]; Jocelyn R Turner [email address redacted]; david.duffy[email address redacted]; Ian Lightbody <ianlightbody[email address redacted]>; Brian Little [email address redacted]; [email protected]

Subject: Motion to Sist

Importance: High

Dear Mrs Devine and Mr Paddy Fulton ,

Please find enclosed my proposed motion to sist the court case scheduled for debate on the 17th of February . Court reference GLW–A205—19.  As you will note the reason for this request is to allow for the adjudication of the eligibility criteria of my case against the Clydesdale Bank and National Australia Bank ( NAB).

It is my hope that this request will be supported by your clients. It would be helpful if a response to the request for a pause in court proceedings is answered in the very early course. As you are aware a court process is scheduled for the 17th of February.

In support of my request I would ask that your clients recognise as a matter of this Peoples Government policy that our current Economic Secretary to the Treasury Mr John Glen  would encourage this on a voluntary basis by your clients, no doubt he can add to that himself.

I await your clients response.

John Guidi