Five questions answered… on Royal Bank of Scotland’s PPI provisions

The cost of PPI mis-selling continues to rise.

RBS has set aside even more money to cover the cost of compensation claims for mis-sold PPI. We answer five questions on RBS’s PPI payouts.

How much more has RBS put aside to cover PPI mis-selling claims?

RBS has announced it will be setting aside a further £400m to cover future anticipated PPI compensation claims. 

It has also set aside another £50m to cover the cost of compensation from a recent computer systems failure which affected customers earlier in the year.

How much has the bank spent on PPI mis-selling claims already?

Including this latest fund, a staggering £1.7bn

What about other banks?  

In total, and including any latest provisions, the PPI scandal has cost UK banks £10.8bn. 

Lloyds banking group has also announced it has put aside a further £1bn of provisions to cover claims. 

What is RBS current financial position?

RBS, which is 80 per cent owned by the UK government, has reported a pre-tax loss of £1.26bn for the three months to 30 September, against a £2bn profit a year earlier. 

The bank is also bracing itself over possible steep penalties for any involvement it might of had in alleged manipulation of the Libor inter-bank lending rate. Barclays was recently fined £290 million for attempting to manipulate libor. 

Another big hit for the bank is a £1.5bn charge against its own debt due to an accounting rule that requires it to take a loss on increases in the value of its bonds. 

RBS's operating profits for the third quarter were £1bn, up from a £650m profit in the second quarter. However these figures discount the PPI mis-selling and other charges. 

What has RBS said?

Chief Executive of RBS, Stephen Hester, told the BBC: 

"The extraordinary challenges which RBS faced following the financial crisis are being worked through successfully"

"The five year restructuring plan is now in its later stages with important work still to do, including an emphasis on dealing with reputational issues now that the bank's safety and soundness has advanced so well."

Adding that the bank is too often was looked upon as putting the short-term interests of shareholders and staff above customers. 

Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.