Professor Philip Lane:

It is clear that, number one, where customers are affected, the bank will write to the customer stating its calculation. What is very important is that we built into the examination, from the word go, an appeals process. We also provided help for customers to take appeals, but without in any way compromising the right of individuals to go to the ombudsman and, in turn, to the courts system. Therefore there are several layers of additionality. Given the range of experiences each person has had, there may well be a significant number of cases that did go to internal appeal, the ombudsman and the court. We allow for that so it is a one-way bet. A person is not compromising his or her ability to take these other channels, which already exist, by accepting the initial offer from the bank.

We have laid out principles of redress. For pre-2013, we are using moral persuasion to say how it should be done. We know we only have redress powers after 2013, but we are saying how we expect people to behave. Therefore, the original offers should respect those principles, but it is entirely open to each individual to move along with appeals, the ombudsman and the courts system.