That seems to be a distinction without a difference. Offering loans is done by the staff at Bank of America to the same degree that "the act of killing was done by staff (plural) at TfL, rather than by the organisation itself."
But when you read "Bank of America offers loans" you automatically assume that it's a company policy change, right? It's unlikely that the reason they are now offering loans is because the low-level staff who you ask for loans just happen to feel like it.
That said, yeah, there's a lot of wiggle room, and I've never known anyone argue about misuse either way... but in general, one way just sounds natural to our ears, and one sounds off, and which way sounds natural/off varies depending on scenario.
edit: I did actually have a slight "am I talking bullshit?" moment, rang up my mother who teaches English as a foreign language among other things, she backed up my interpretation so I'm more confident now.
I didn't say that Bank of America made a policy change; I sad that they offered a loan. The persons doing the offering of said loan are low-levels, presumably acting within the bounds set by company policy; however, the degree to which they adhere to the policy is not relevant. In terms of who is physically doing what, this really is a distinction without a difference, except that to your ears it sounds wrong (which is fine; that's the difference between dialects).
My point is simply that in American English, there are strict rules about number. I thought that English English had similarly strict rules about number that just happened to differ from those that Americans use; apparently not. Interesting.
"In British English, collective nouns can take either singular (formal agreement) or plural (notional agreement) verb forms, according to whether the emphasis is, respectively, on the body as a whole or on the individual members; compare a committee was appointed with the committee were unable to agree."
