Serious Fraud Office: Bryan Evans

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Byron Davies]

I am grateful for that intervention, which goes to prove that there are many ongoing cases.

Mr Evans believes that Mr Harlow was determined to prevent him from refinancing with another bank as Lambert Smith Hampton would lose the contract for the development, which could in turn lead to Poolman and Harlow having to reimburse Lambert Smith Hampton for that loss, which is commonly referred to as a clawback.

Mr Evans engaged Geldards solicitors in Cardiff. Over a period of time, Mr Karl Baranski of Geldards discovered that Barclays had no legal charge over EPL’s land and therefore its actions to date could be challenged. Mr Baranksi also pointed out to Barclays that Lambert Smith Hampton was in a conflict-of-interest situation.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. As I listen to him laying out the particulars, it seems to me that we are hearing the same plot, although with different characters, as in our recent debate with the Minister and in the point made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). When I asked the Minister, who is a good friend, about when the Serious Fraud Office gets involved, he helpfully laid out its statement of principle. It considers

“whether there is new species of fraud…whether actual or potential economic harm is significant…whether the actual or potential financial loss involved is high”

and so on. I suggest that that threshold has been passed.

[Byron Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

Mr Baranski also pointed out to Barclays that Lambert Smith Hampton was in a conflict-of-interest situation. In a shocking twist, Lambert Smith Hampton assured Barclays that it had never represented EP Leisure or Mr Evans. Mr Evans says his solicitor then presented Barclays with irrefutable evidence to the contrary, which it subsequently ignored.

At that time, Mr Evans took his case to the police. Detective Inspector Runnells and Sergeant Owen of South Wales police interviewed Mr Evans with regard to his allegations. The two detectives then interviewed Karl Baranski and Jonathan Griffiths of Geldards. As a result of those interviews, Mr Sainsbury of Barclays bank was informed by Sergeant Owen that they would be travelling to London to see a report written by Bob Harlow in October 2009.

On arrival in London, Mr Sainsbury was represented by Mr Jonathan Hoey of TLT Solicitors. Mr Hoey was told that if he sat in on the interview, he could no longer represent Lambert Smith Hampton. He assured the police that he was now “100% the bank’s man”. As will be shown later, that was not to be the case. At the meeting, the bank refused to show the police the report, and this is where Mr Evans’s story takes a rather unwelcome turn: the police returned to Swansea and decided to take no further action, with DI Runnells stating that he did not think fraud had been committed.

Mr Evans says he has asked the police on numerous occasions how they can conclude there is no case to answer if the evidence at the centre of the fraud has been withheld. He believes that the police have more than enough evidence to seek a production order for that report, but to this day they have shown a great reluctance to do so.

Mr Evans is of the opinion that the police have spent an inordinate amount of time and public funds to avoid seeking a production order, which would have had no financial cost. He has dealt with several senior officers of South Wales police—in fact, they are too numerous to mention. At present, Mr Evans is dealing with a new inspector, Detective Inspector Hough. Mr Evans states that the situation has got to the point where Barclays bank now says it cannot release the report as it belongs to Lambert Smith Hampton, which in turn says that it cannot release the report as it belongs to Barclays—a farcical situation, to say the least. One may ask why, if this report is so innocuous and could vindicate the actions of both Lambert Smith Hampton and Barclays, they will not release it.

Returning to the situation with Barclays, in May 2012, after a lengthy period of negotiations, Barclays, in order to “reflect what had transpired”, offered to reduce EP Leisure’s debt by £1 million, lift the receivership and refinance the outstanding balance of around £1.25 million for 12 months. During that period, EP Leisure would seek to refinance with another bank, give Barclays legal charges over the property and make monthly payments of £3,600. The deal was to run until June 2013. Mr Evans also had to sign a confidentiality agreement.

At this point, it should be noted that Mr Jonathan Hoey of TLT Solicitors, despite the assurance he gave to the police in London, was now representing Barclays bank, the two named receivers and Lambert Smith Hampton. Mr Evans tells me that during the negotiations, Mr Hoey tried to force Mr Evans into dropping his allegations against Lambert Smith Hampton as a condition of the deal with Barclays. Mr Evans refused to do so and reported Mr Hoey to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for abuse of power and conflict of interest, but it was unwilling to take any action, saying, “I know you think it’s blackmail Mr Evans, but it’s just business.” Mr Evans has stated unequivocally that the SRA introduced the word “blackmail” and he did not.

During the following 12 months, Mr Evans discovered that the receivers had acted illegally by signing contracts in the name of EP Leisure and registering for VAT in the name of EP Leisure. That registration has now been voided, but those actions made it impossible for Mr Evans to refinance. He kept Barclays fully informed of the situation and carried on making the agreed monthly repayments after the June 2013 expiry date. Indeed, payments were made in July, August and September and were accepted.

In October 2013, Mr Evans received a letter from Barclays asking for full repayment, otherwise action might be taken to recover the debt. Just two days later, EP Leisure, without any warning, was placed into administration by Barclays, with TLT once again acting for both the bank and the administrators. EP Leisure’s land was sold within days and it has now been wound up, despite Mr Evans telling the administrator that the company could well be owed substantive damages. Mr Evans believes that that is just a sinister ploy to silence him and prevent the truth from being exposed. He intends to reinstate the company and pursue all claims. Furthermore, Mr Evans has reported the circumstances of the sale to the police, who say they intend to investigate, but I am sure Members will appreciate that Mr Evans has dwindling faith in their intentions.

The domino effect of the aforementioned action has resulted in Mr Evans and his family losing absolutely everything, including his house. He poses the following questions, which need to be answered. Why have the police prevaricated and refused to properly investigate serious allegations of fraud? Why have the police refused to seek a production order? Why has the SFO also refused to take any action? How can a solicitor—in this case, Jonathan Hoey of TLT—represent Barclays bank, Lambert Smith Hampton, the two named receivers, Andrew Hughes and Roger Poolman, and the administrators without a conflict of interest?

How can a firm of valuers that had been representing EP Leisure for many years devalue EP Leisure’s assets significantly then become receivers and take control of EP Leisure’s land and income? How can Jonathan Hoey of TLT, as an officer of the court, negotiate a settlement with EP Leisure on behalf of Barclays bank with the knowledge that the settlement could not be honoured? For instance, he would have known that the receivers had possibly acted illegally, hence his insistence that as a condition of the settlement, Mr Evans would take no action against them.

This case and others give rise to wider questions surrounding the motives and actions of the banks and receivers involved in such cases, and whether there has been collusion and fraudulent representation. What we are dealing with here has had a devastating effect on the victims and their families, with a trail of devastation and ruined lives. These cases must be answered, and it must be ensured that the law on such matters is upheld by the Government.

In conclusion, Mr Evans believes there has been a conspiracy to defraud, but to date, no one has been held accountable. He continues to seek justice for himself and to reinstate his business. The whole episode remains, frankly, a mess that could easily have been resolved by the relevant actors performing their roles with transparency and diligence throughout the whole sorry affair. It is not too late, and I have secured this debate in the hope that we will receive positive action for Mr Evans.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I know that the hon. Gentleman raised that point in an intervention in the September debate, so he has consistently advocated on behalf of his constituent. It would be wrong of me to start prejudging or second-guessing what the independent prosecutorial authority should do—that would be inappropriate—but I can tell him that the co-ordinated work that he, his constituent and other similarly affected people do, of course, improves the intelligence picture. It cannot do anything but assist the authorities in understanding the true extent of frauds of this nature, so I am grateful to him.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Solicitor-General is giving a very helpful answer. Is he struck, as I am, by the incredible system similarities between the case outlined today by the hon. Member for Gower (Byron Davies) and the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) and I outlined? The parallels between the two cases are incredible, and I know of at least half a dozen more out there that other Members of Parliament have raised.

[The Solicitor General]

I have heard the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower. Although I do not want to start making evidential judgments about similar fact evidence, I take the point.

In the brief moments I have left, I turn to the specific allegations that my hon. Friend has made today. It is, of course, unusual to comment in detail on specific allegations, but I want to say a few brief words about the case.

As has been explained, Mr Evans had obtained a secured loan from the bank in relation to a land development in 2007 on the basis that the land would be turned into a mixed leisure development. It was valued accordingly at between £4 million and £6 million. However, by 2009, due in part to some planning permission issues, the development had not been carried out. The bank appointed a receiver and the value of the land, which was security for the loan, was reassessed and subsequently put at the dramatically different figure of £1 million. The allegation is that this was an orchestrated devaluation by the bank and the receiver.

The reason why the SFO has not opened a formal investigation relating to Mr Evans’s allegations is that they do not, of themselves, amount to the type of matter that the SFO is there to investigate. That is not to minimise the seriousness of the allegations. The situation would have a significant impact on most of us if it happened to us, but in the context of the SFO criterion, the potential scale of the loss is somewhat limited and the allegations are not complex. They relate to one surveyor falsifying a valuation on behalf of a bank, and therefore I have to be honest and frank and say that the issue of the wider public interest does not actually apply, so the situation would not call for an SFO investigation.

However, as I have said, the SFO will keep the allegations and the information that it has received on file, and will consider the matter again if further information comes to light. In particular, given the points that hon. Members have made today, if there is evidence to suggest that the allegation is part of a more widespread issue, the matter will be revisited.

I hope that what I have said gives my hon. Friend the Member for Gower some assurance that the Serious Fraud Office has fully considered the allegations referred to it and will consider any further evidence, but, for perfectly proper reasons, at this stage has decided not to investigate the allegation.

Question put and agreed to.