I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has took the time to read my story and supported me.
JUST A REPOSSESSION!!
“THE TRUTH THAT LIES BEHIND THE MIRROR”
“I don’t care if it’s not your signature, sometimes people are allowed to do that. Anyway, I have decided. This has gone on long enough and if you don’t be quiet I will have you removed from this court for contempt”.
District Judge Humphrey Roberts
Southport County Court 21st February 1997.
" Mrs Dickson I have received a fax from the Bradford & Bingley, stating that they would not be attending today. However, should I be likely to find in your favour (which I do), then I must adjourn until tomorrow, in order to allow them to contest your application."
District Judge Newman
Chester county Court 9th June 1998
“Mrs. Dickson if we allowed the like of people like you to win against the financial institutions, the whole fabric of society would collapse“!!
His Honour Judge G.O. Edwards Q.C.
Chester County Court 10th June 1998
“I have some unease about the circumstances in which years after the possession proceedings were begun, the applicants defence to the possession proceedings was Struck Out"… "I can see this is a retrospective account and if the Bradford & Bingley did not have the correct documents then they should not have initiated Possession Proceedings in the first place…”
His Lordship Sir Ronald Waterhouse
Royal Courts of Justice 16th June 2000.
I consider that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice against my husband and myself, whereby, a great number of influential people have systematically and deliberately abused their position of power by their acts of conspiracy, perjury, forgery and concealment. I believe that I am in possession of more than enough supportive evidence to substantiate the following account of events.
We have fought long and hard, through the legal system for more than thirty years against this injustice to no avail. I believe that what has taken place should be as Judge Turner stated , “a matter of public interest“. My intention regarding my case, is to pursue justice to the end, an application has already been lodged with the European Court of Human Rights and I am hopeful. However, as I am now a widow aged seventy, and after more than thirty years of going along with the system, I feel it would be imprudent of me to continue being frivolous with my time. It is also a major factor, that due to my reliance on the legal system and given the source and extended concealment of the matter, any legal representation I have had over the years on the face of it, appears to have been dubious at best. Whenever we have initially consulted solicitors matters appeared to have run smoothly for only a short while, after which I suspect intimidation has altered the course of justice. I intend ultimately, to publish this letter along with some of my supportive evidence on the internet. What I desire most in my life now, is to realise there has been some form of accountability. Many faceless and nameless people have destroyed our lives by their wide scale corporate crime. In honour of my husband’s name, I intend to expose their actions by any means available to me, as I would like nothing better than to see this abomination of human rights widely exposed throughout the media as I believe it should be. One thing is for certain, the atrocities that have been meted out to us over so many years, will not go unaired with me to my grave.
My intention in this expose', is to lay bare the perpetrators of this atrocity against us, in all their vulgarity.These people have stolen everything from us with their lies and subterfuge, they have stolen, our home, our lives and our livelihood. Lucky for me, despite all that has occurred, I have not allowed them to break my spirit; so I continue with my fight, content to let the public act as our Judge and Jury.
On examination of the evidence now available to me, the indications are that what has occurred, began as a malicious “set up” which has continued to date as an equally malicious “cover up”. Whilst we have struggled desperately and powerlessly to expose the truth, the “cover up” has been strongly supported throughout, by misrepresentation of the facts to the Courts involving, perjury, fraud and forgery. It is no easy matter to uncover a “cover up” especially so when contrived by legal minds, nevertheless I consider our findings to be substantial and irrevocable.
The Bradford & Bingley Building Society PLC (now Santander) took illegal Possession of my home on the 9th June 1998 with the support of a fabricated mortgage account. They simply assumed an arbitrary figure, because they had no authentic account in my name. Bradford & Bingley have attempted to make their records appear legal only with flawed and fraudulent evidence. They have yet to prove their figures to any
discerning body by the production of an unadulterated account, with unadulterated source documentation. The evidence set out below supports my assertion that the Bradford & Bingley will never be able to do that. As will be noted, such documentation is non existent. In response to our recent complaint, the Financial Services Association have queried our complaints with the Bradford & Bingley regarding the disputed mortgage account in my name, used by them in the Possession Proceedings. Bradford & Bingley refused to provide access to the accounts. Had they have done so, The Financial Services Association would no doubt have exposed the truth. Instead, they have been misled with lies and simply informed “that all the issues have been examined through the Courts“; We have never had a fair trial whereby, the evidence has been examined and tested. My Defence was Struck Out in the first instance and upheld throughout. Our Opponents have been allowed to withhold documentation that would have proved detrimental to their case and beneficial to our own and produce dubious and fraudulent documents that have never been questioned or examined.
The property in question that was our home, is a listed sixteenth century farmhouse. At the time of purchase in 1978 it was a derelict building, set in an acre of farmland. Its renovation was a hands on affair and involved many years of self sacrifice and hard work, as can be appreciated by the before and after photographs. The finished product, represented our life savings. Following the Possession, Bradford & Bingley, with an in-house sale, sold the property for a mere £166,000, with the help of in -house surveyer valuations, purporting to be independent. There was no surplus cash from the sale, excepting a few thousand pound which the Society chose to withhold ; Court Costs of £80,000, fines and arrears were calculated to incorporate the whole of the sum obtained from the sale. Inconceivable, when one considers the original dispute relating to the mortgage account in 1980 with the Bradford & Bingley’s predecessor The Merseyside Building Society, was in the sum of £4,500; I estimate the current market value of the property in question to be now in excess of £750,000.
The events relating to the Possession of my home are unbelievable, even to myself, but true nevertheless. It is a complex and convoluted story which I believe can only be fully understood by starting at the beginning. The story involves many players and although the time span has been more than thirty years, it will be noted that all parties have continued to work in concert; it has proved to be a good team effort in corruption. All of the events detailed below are at some point inter-related. Because of concealment and perjury by all the guilty parties, we have found ourselves to be thwarted at every level, mainly due to our perception of the true situation at any one point in time, which we are now aware was only what we were meant to believe. There are a series of links that taken singly could be dismissed as coincidence. Combined, they form a pattern which is undeniable. The truth of this matter is forever in flux and one needs to work at it in the attempt to keep up. By examining the issue from the start, it is easy to see how we have been insidiously sucked in, by intelligent, cunning and well informed people who have
proved to be ruthless in maintaining their own agenda. What remains unsupported by evidence, is based on informed speculation and is due only to the fact that concealment is still the overriding defence mechanism used by our opponents.
Chronological History of Events are as follows;
1974-80 Bartley Cocks & Bird Solicitors.
The above named firm, was a Liverpool based firm of solicitors who were instructed by my late husband throughout the 1970s. My husband (Alan) dealt with the Senior Partner in that firm, a Mr. Eric Capper. Over a number of years Alan came to rely on Mr. Capper in all manner of financial dealings. I believe that in the 1970s their arrangement was more applicable than it would be in today’s climate. A solicitor committing fraud in those days was practically unheard of ! Alan relied on Mr. Capper to manage his finances at every level and trusted him implicitly. Alan’s business at the time entailed the purchase of properties, demolition and construction work, Mr. Capper dealt with all of the business transactions. It was small business only, although to ourselves the sums of money entrusted to Mr. Capper were substantial. At the time I owned a number of small value properties, the related transactions were also dealt with by Mr. Capper. I never dealt with Mr. Capper personally, he conducted my business through Alan on my behalf, he also conducted transactions on behalf of my daughter and her husband. It was to transpire that Mr. Capper did not hold separate client accounts as should have been the norm. Instead, he lumped all three accounts together under my husband‘s name. This served him the means to confuse and wangle financial issues and so facilitate his criminal activities.
I met Mr. Capper only once in 1980. The lasting impression from this encounter, is of a small elderly man, traditional old school type of solicitor; a man who would easily inspire trust in his clients. His demeanour however, served to belie the true nature of his character.
Alan allowed Mr Capper to manage his financial affairs without question, he held him in esteem and above all he really liked him as a person. Monies were simply passed over by Alan to Mr. Capper, who in turn paid off bills and sorted out problems. Thus relieving Alan of the majority of business pressures, especially so as most of his work was often out of town. The solicitor/client relationship was built up over a number of years and Mr Capper was a phone call away to sort out any problem. The issues were varied e.g. contracts, settling of bills, legal disputes etc. Mr. Capper was perceived by Alan as his anchor in a storm.
In understanding the financial situation as it evolved, one needs to understand the nature of Alan in dealing with financial issues.
Throughout his life he had a casual attitude toward money, careless even, generous to a fault, his money was spent by treating people, my daughter and myself in particular but his generosity was extended to everyone he knew, generosity was part of his nature. He was not however the typical business man, financial problems were taken lightly and at times his good nature would overrule his common sense. I can see that Alan’s attitude towards money combined with his easy going trusting nature must have made him an ideal target for Mr. Capper. But as will be shown, he proved to be only one of many victims to succumb to Mr. Capper’s criminal activities. Alan had taken the trouble to pay for professional legal management of his affairs and trusted that he was being provided with that service. By the time he discovered that this was not the case, it was already too late.
It was not until 1977 that Alan was alerted to the fact that his account was not being managed in accordance with his instructions. Our first indication, came about because Bartley Cocks & Bird had failed to maintain re-payments on a touring caravan, which they had undertaken to do. As a consequence the caravan was repossessed by the finance company without any warning. I telephoned Alan at work and he in turn contacted Mr Capper who apologised profusely, claiming to be unaware of the details assuring Alan that there was nothing to worry about, he would investigate as to what had gone wrong within his office and correct it. Mr. Capper took full responsibility and settled the bill in full, as was the requirement of the finance company. The outstanding debt paid by Bartley Cocks & Bird was £750. The finance company then returned the caravan to us.
According to Mr. Capper, his internal investigation indicated that it was the clerk Mr. Hoose who had caused the problem, as he had been misappropriating funds and had been pocketing Alan’s money. Alan was called to Bartley Cocks & Bird office and Mr. Hoose admitted to him that he had indeed been doing this. Alan was assured that Bartley Cocks & Bird would calculate how much had been taken and we would be reimbursed. Mr. Hoose had been very upset at the time, he broke down to Alan, claiming that his wages as a clerk had been insufficient to meet his personal debts, as they had recently bought a house, had a new baby and could not pay their bills. Alan was sympathetic rather than annoyed and was pleased that Mr. Hoose had not lost his job.
Some time later, Alan’s Bank Manager alerted him to the fact that whilst he had been working out of town, Mr. Hoose had been cashing counter cheques in his name for substantial amounts. Once again there were recriminations Mr. Capper again investigated and it was alleged that Mr. Hoose had somehow acquired one of Alan’s cheque books and had been forging his signature to obtain funds. Months went by and there was no progress regarding reimbursement, Alan was compelled to instruct his then accountant Mr. Ashley, the task of calculating the misappropriated funds. Mr. Hoose finally denied stealing the amount calculated by Mr. Ashley, but admitted to stealing the sum of “about £5,000” he was subsequently dismissed from Bartley Cocks & Bird; strangely, he was
employed by another firm of solicitors! (could that mean one wonders, that this was his reward for being the scapegoat for Mr. Cappers thefts?) Throughout this time, at no point was Mr. Capper’s integrity called into question, he continued to assure Alan that as soon as the sums were properly calculated we would be reimbursed by Bartley Cocks & Bird. Eric Capper, remained Alan’s mainstay.
1978 The Property in Question.
Whilst house hunting I fell in love with an old derelict farmhouse that was due to be auctioned a few days later, this allowed no time for the usual preliminaries, valuations, surveyors etc. We had only seen the property from the outside; I wanted it desperately. Initially, Alan being a demolition contractor, considered the property no better than one of his many demolition jobs. It took some time but, eventually he came to love it as much as myself.
I still live in the same lane, but now in a small rented bungalow. I find myself, even after all this time, unable to go up the lane in the direction of my house, I only ever turn left out of my gate; to turn right and go past the house is too heartbreaking, the house meant everything to us. It may well be “only bricks and mortar“, as everyone keeps reminding me. But, they are my bricks and mortar. The fact that someone has stolen my house from me, makes it none the less mine. Its new inhabitants, as far as I am concerned, are no more than squatters in my property.
The property was auctioned locally in August 1978. Alan and myself attended; it was un-chartered territory for me. I was surprised at the speed and finality of the sale, the property was ours there and then, within an hour or so. During the course of the sale, we were informed that due to the property’s derelict state, the vendor Mr. Holland ( the farmer) as an incentive for the buyer, had deferred finalisation of the sale for six months; this, to allow the buyer some renovation time, the property as it stood was un-mortgage-able. The vendor’s solicitors were Leo Kennedy & Glover of Ormskirk. The sale price was £23,000. A deposit was paid immediately of £2,300, leaving a balance of approx. £20,700. At the Auction we signed agreements with the vendor and their solicitors in accordance with the above sale details as explained to us at the time. Nothing occurred to alter our perception of this arrangement until 1980.
Alan and myself decided there and then, that we would concentrate on paying as much as we could in reduction of the outstanding amount in order to limit the amount of mortgage we would require in the given six months. We also decided to do as much work as possible on the property, to bring it up to standard in the same allowed time. Following the purchase of the property I resigned my post as a Theatre Nurse and dedicated all my free time to the renovation. Driving between Liverpool and Ormskirk, I worked at the house daily. Alan also worked there as
often as his business would allow and always at weekends, when we would work well into the night. The project overtook our life and proved to be a pleasure. We had limited assistance, just one handy young man as a labourer, only when absolutely necessary would we employ a tradesman; the renovation was a hands on affair.
The condition of the property was far worse than we had imagined and the cost to correct matters far more. Serious structural damage was discovered, unavoidable delays occurred, due to the property being a listed building. There were binding regulations regarding suitable materials, council decision hold ups, etc. The property was riddled with woodworm, there was no drainage system and renovation was difficult to say the least. We overshot our six month deadline but were finally able to obtain a mortgage in September 1979; at least we believed we had. The alleged mortgage was in my name in the sum of £7,500 and was arranged for us between Bartley Cocks & Bird Solicitors and The Merseyside Building Society, Liverpool. Monthly repayments were in the sum of £110 and we commenced payments forthwith.
From the outset, large sums of money were paid to Mr. Capper of Bartley Cocks & Bird. Naturally, as we paid these monies to Bartley Cocks & Bird for a specific purpose, we had no reason to believe our instructions were not being complied with. As far as we understood all of these monies entrusted to our solicitor, had been paid directly to the vendors solicitors Leo Kennedy & Glover in Ormskirk in reduction of the outstanding property bill of £20,700. The sums of money paid by ourselves to Mr. Capper, during this period, ranged between a few hundred pounds, up to £7,500 this latter amount being from the sale of one of my own properties. In our estimation, these monies plus the £7,500 mortgage, should by rights have more than finalised the debt.
During the course of our work at the house we had become friendly with the vendor Mr. Holland, (Jim) we were in constant contact with him as he also worked around the farm every day. Jim and his wife Sarah were to become our next door neighbours and moved into the adjoining building shortly before ourselves, we were and remained always on the best of terms. Throughout the period in question, there was never any indication from Jim of problems related to the transaction, he was ever sympathetic regarding our building and council problems. The financial details relating to the property were never discussed with him. We naturally assumed his solicitors kept him informed and as we had complied with the arrangement, we were under the impression that everything was in order. Jim never indicated otherwise.
It has been calculated by solicitors, that according to Mr. Capper’s ledger account, the actual amounts overpaid to him by ourselves for the property, was "a figure nearer £37,000".
Throughout 1978 and up until April 1979, Alan and his accountant continued to confer with Mr. Capper regarding the misappropriation of funds, with no headway. Finally exacerbated, Alan lodged a complaint with the Law Society and on 18/04/79 Weightmans Solicitors (a top Liverpool firm of solicitors) were delegated to investigate our complaints.This at least was the way in which we perceived it!
It is important to note here, that these dates are indicative of the fact that Weightmans investigation of our complaints of misappropriation of funds by Bartley Cocks & Bird had been under way for almost 6 months prior to our obtaining the £7,500 mortgage in September 1979; One wonders what they were doing!
Significant also is the fact that during this period in time and contrary to our beliefs, the Legal Profession as it then stood meant that, the Law Society and the Solicitor’s Indemnity Fund were one and the same body. We now know that Weightmans were the acting solicitors for the Solicitors Indemnity Fund and remain so. On the advise of his accountant, Alan remained at Bartley Cocks & Bird as Mr. Ashley considered that, leaving at such a crucial stage would be detrimental to his being reimbursed by Bartley Cocks & Bird. Mr. Capper always claimed to be doing his best, but claimed to be “getting nowhere, as the figures were not working out“!
It was not until August 1979 that any suspicions were roused regarding Mr. Capper’s own integrity. Alan’s Bank Manager alerted him to the fact that Mr. Capper had been into Lloyds bank, Liverpool and cashed a cheque in Alan’s name in the sum of £2,000, which he then deposited into his personal account. Mr. Capper had requested a blank signed cheque from Alan under false pretences, claiming it was to be used to pay a small bill of approx £50 “not sure of the exact amount” so requesting of Alan the amount to be left blank. The monies were withdrawn from a loan account set up with the specific purpose of a property transaction. Mr. Capper was duly confronted and was obliged to pay the £2,000 back to the bank a related letter to Alan from the Bank Manager dated 17/08/79 refers to its repayment to the bank.
It is recorded however within Mr. Cappers client account as a deferred cheque; thereby accounting for £2,000 of his stolen funds. likewise as with many of his ledger entries, the £750 Mr. Capper had been obliged to pay back to the finance company for the return of our caravan is recorded as a deferred cheque.
Whatever Weightmans investigation had turned up by this time can only be speculation, but given what was to materialise regarding false
accounting, misapropriation of funds and forgery within Mr. Capper's client and office ledger books, one would be naive to believe that Weightmans were ignorant as to the nature of those accounts after
so many months of investigation. Even from this early date, it is clear they were not conducting their investigation in a manner a client would suppose. Weightmans, chose to put Alan to proof, e.g. exact amounts missing, requesting receipts, times, dates, paid to whom and for what purpose, whether paid by cash or cheque. Some details Alan was aware of, but our comprehension as to how when or what for was the privileged knowledge of the culprits, we knew only a large sum was missing.
Given their expertise, Weightmans had to have known. We did not know then that Mr. Capper was fraudulently keeping accounts in this smart way to accommodate his thefts. The evidence available to us now indicates that Weightmans as the investigators were alert to the fact that, Mr. Capper was a prolific thief and forger and his fraud was conducted by doctoring his accounts. Their subsequent investigation is supportive of this fact.
The Merseyside Building Society
We were unable to move into the property until March/April1980 and in the summer of 1980 in a bid to obtain a cash boost for our renovation, we applied for a further advance from the Merseyside Building Society in the sum of £4,500. It was only now that we were to discover from Mr. Capper that our monies, paid in trust to himself, had not been paid to the vendors Solicitors as we had been led to believe. Mr. Capper informed Alan that nothing had been paid to the vendor via Leo Kennedy & Glover, not even the £7,500 mortgage money advanced from Merseyside Building Society in September 1979! Furthermore, what funds he still held were insufficient to complete the deal. We were now informed, that unless we forego our expected advance of £4,500 we were in danger of losing the property.
Alan and I had visited the offices of Bartley Cocks & Bird together, as I had been required to sign something. I do not remember the exact date and given the situation I do not truly remember signing anything, but remember leaning over the desk as if to sign something. There was a big argument taking place between Mr. Capper and Alan regarding what Mr. Capper had done with all the money if it had not gone as it was supposed to, to the vendor. Repeated suggestion to me over the years that I did in fact sign the Legal Deed that day has proved confusing. It may well be that I signed something, which could have been any one of the number of documents it is alleged I signed in the presence of Mr. Capper, including application forms for the planned cash advances, plus three legal charge documents.
The time herein referred to, was my one and only encounter with Mr. Capper and the only time that I ever visited Bartley Cocks & Bird offices. An undeniable fact is that, I could only ever have possibly signed one document in Mr. Cappers presence. The confrontation that ensued culminated with Alan calling Mr. Capper a thief and informing him, that if we did not receive the cash advance as expected, the matter would be reported to the Law Society and Mr. Capper would find himself in serious trouble. This argument curtailed any further dealings with Bartley, Cocks & Bird as our instructed solicitors. Despite all this, we did not receive the
£4,500 cash as expected. Instead, we were later informed that we were to be held liable for a £12,000 mortgage.
The story goes, according to Bartley Cocks & Bird Affidavits that, the Merseyside Building Society had a dilemma on their hands at the time, in that they were not in possession of the deeds and the auditors were due to examine their books. They apparantly managed to get around their dilemma by overwriting the prior mortgage in my name in the sum of £7,500 and using the surplus £4,500 towards the shortfall outstanding to the vendor; Mr. Capper allegedly was compelled to make up the remainder of the shortfall himself. A £12,000 was unacceptable to us and we refused to acknowledge such a debt. Alan reported Mr. Capper’s actions to the Law Society as he had indicated.
Only one payment was ever made by ourselves to the Merseyside Building Society in reduction of the alleged £12,000 mortgage. This being the initial payment recorded onto the account on 26/11/80 in the sum of £125.00. Recorded only on Bradford & Bingley headed note who claim there are no original Merseyside Building Society mortgage statements, allegedly copied from a Merseyside Building Society ledger page. As you will note the original date on the Bradfords statement was December 1985, crossed out and corrected to suit. I presume the £125 payment to have been an oversight on our part, taken over from where our previous payments for the £7,500 mortgage repayments were curtailed. Unaware that Mr. Llandsbury was party to what had occurred, Alan contacted him at the Merseyside Building Society to inform him that we had not received the £4,500 cash and therefore refused acknowledgment of a mortgage we did not consider we owed.
Our request at the time was that the £7,500 mortgage be reinstated, after which we would resume our repayments. Alan impressed upon me, the importance of not making any payment whatsoever as this would be considered an acknowledgement of liability for the £12,000 mortgage debt. Mr. Donald Llandsbury Laurie appeared to be understanding and helpful. To us, he claimed ignorance as to what had gone wrong, but informed Alan that he had heard rumours relating to fraud occurring at Bartley Cocks & Bird. Also he informed Alan that he would lodge his own independent complaint to his Governing Bodies and any impropriety of Bartley Cocks & Bird regarding the mortgage would be dealt with through the Building Society's own insurance. We were not to worry as the Society would be reimbursed. Matters regarding the mortgage, were then left to the Merseyside Building Society. Meanwhile the mortgage repayment plan we were informed, was suspended until matters had been rectified.
No other payments were ever made by us to Merseyside Building Society. Mr. Llandsbury Laurie at some early stage telephoned our home and spoke with myself as Alan was not in. He said he was concerned that, because the mortgage was suspended, the property was not insured under the mortgage agreement for bricks and mortar. He suggested that I tell Alan, that we could either send him a cheque for a specified amount and he would do it for us, or alternatively we would need to take out appropriate insurance cover ourselves; we did the latter. This conversation was our final contact with the Merseyside Building Society. However, it has been alleged by the Bradford & Bingley, that mortgage re-payments were ongoing and the account was kept active (in secret and in arrears) by the Merseyside Building Society until 30/07/82.
Two critical events occurred in 1982 which could have been the determining factors in forcing the Merseyside Building Society to cease recording the account; first of all Mr. Capper was imprisoned, secondly The Merseyside Building Society became computerised. Building Societies of course, are not legally allowed to let a mortgage run for longer than three months. I believe that according to law, they are duty bound to take legal action. Which no doubt would have been their action if this had indeed been a legitimate case. Building Societies are overall answerable to their shareholders.
I was to discover, but not until 1996 and believe it to be a significant factor in this case, that The Merseyside Building Society was set up as a pioneering financial venture for a number of influential Liverpool Solicitors!
Donald Llandsbury Laurie, was the Secretary of the Merseyside Building Society and as far as I am aware, he was the one and only person ever to man the Merseyside Building Society office, he was also a Director. We were not to discover until 1997 that the surveyor for the Merseyside Building Society, Mr. Stephen Llandsbury Laurie, was his brother and even later that he was also a Director of the Company. Whilst we worked at the farmhouse, we met Mr. Stephen Llandsbury Laurie on a number of occasions knowing him only in his capacity as surveyor on behalf of the Merseyside Building Society and not making any connection to his relationship with the Manager (as we then considered Mr. Llandsbury Laurie ). And of course our dealings with him were prior to the downturn of events. Initially he came to the house to evaluate the work that had been done in preparation for the £7,500 mortgage, which agreement we believed at the time we had legitimately entered into in September 1979. The unfolding events appear to indicate that no such mortgage ever existed, the Merseyside Building Society according to Mr. Capper's Affidavit (a pack of lies in any event) allegedly paid the £7,500 first mortgage advance to Mr. Capper without obtaining the deeds as security!
It transpired that the vendor still had the first claim to the property by way of a mortgage as he was still in possession of the deeds; I knew nothing about this Legal Charge, although it is alleged I signed it in the presence of Mr. Capper, I did not. (Further, when in1997 Bradford and Bingley were requested to send all mortgage documents to the Forensic Handwriting Expert, they omitted this one)! Whilst we were negotiating a second mortgage in the sum of £4,500 with the Merseyside Building Society, Stephen Llandsbury Laurie (the surveyor) again came out to the property quite frequently throughout the continuing renovation to evaluate works done. We would sit and drink coffee together, discussing the mortgage details. He had overseen progress of the works because, according to him, before we were eligible for any mortgage whatsoever the roof had to be finished, the completion of which resulted in the alleged first advance of £7,500. I point out this relationship to indicate that we knew Mr. Stephen Llandsbury Laurie in a casual friendly way in his role as surveyor. However, I feel it is a significant point to bear in mind in relation to the turn of events, that given his familiarity with the person who manned the office (his brother) and himself being a Director of the Society, he would have also been involved with occurrences back at the office, in particular the viability of advances being made to clients by the Merseyside Building Society.
Therefore, what I am suggesting is, there had to have been awareness at the Merseyside Building Society related to the status of the £7,500 mortgage and the fact that the Society held “NO DEEDS“. It appears to me, that everyone involved in this affair at the time, had to have known the true situation. It was only ourselves kept in the dark to be used as their scapegoats; the guilty parties all round were exercising their own agenda for covering the fraud they were involved in.
In 1997, the above mentioned Legal Charge document in the sum of £7,500 (undated) in favour of the Merseyside Building Society was forensically analysed by Mr. Michael Ansell, a forensic handwriting expert of some note. Mr. Ansell was commissioned by myself, at my own cost and of my own volition. Regarding this particular document amongst other discrepancies, his report states ”there is some hesitation in connection of the K to the S and the O to the N…” “..after the typed entry thereon the words TO HOLD had been obliterated with correcting fluid”. ( Mr Ansell’s emphasise)
I have been led to believe that in Law, such a document being undated is indicative of the fact that it never occurred although, no one has applied that law in my case.
The said relied upon Legal Charge document dated 30/7/80 in the sum of £12,000. Also analysed by Mr. Ansell on 2/12/97,reveals that“with electrostatic detection apparatus in the signature area faint impressions of a surname Dicksion…” “…in this area the features observed in the region of the signature lead me to doubt that this signature is authentic”. Bartley Cocks & Bird secretary in her Affidavit is specific regarding the date I visited their office and states that it was on the 28th July 1980, a couple of days prior to the date of the said signed document. There are a number of documents including applications to the Merseyside Building Society, all allegedly signed by myself and witnessed by Mr. Capper. At best, only one document could have been signed by me in his presence, as I was only ever in his presence once. Whatever it was I may have signed on that day, would have been contrived to suit the fraudsters and could have been any one of the documents in our opponents supportive evidence, These two highlighted Legal Charge documents in my opinion, have been discounted by handwriting forensic evidence in any event.
The evidence now available to me indicates collaboration at the time between Merseyside Building Society & Bartley Cocks & Bird.
Specifically between Mr. Capper and Mr. Donald Llandsbury Laurie. It appears that the Merseyside Building Society were non committal within their own records as far as any mortgage agreement in my name is concerned. It never featured in their Annual Returns as a debt, it was never acted upon legally, there was never any further contact between ourselves and the Merseyside Building Society from 1980. Bradford & Bingley took over the Merseyside Building Society by Transfer of Engagements in April 1985 it was not until almost a year later that without any substantiated supportive documentation, the Bradford & Bingley decided to create a mortgage account by retrospectively inventing figures to give the appearance of an ongoing mortgage account in my name dating from 1980 up until 1985, this being the date when the Society took over the Merseyside Building Society by Transfer of Engagements.
During the course of my investigations, I managed to obtain copies of the Merseyside Building Society Annual Returns, from the Registrar of Friendly Societies. They dated from the inception of the Merseyside Building Society, the first being 1980 and the final one 1985 up to and including the Transfer of Engagements. Within these documents there is a page appertaining to “number of mortgages in arrears… how many and the amount of arrears“. This information is duly completed and signed by the Secretary, Mr. Donald Llandsbury Laurie as being true. However, these documents do not record a figure that would encompass a mortgage in arrears to the extent ours is alleged to have been between, 1980 and 1985. Their Annual Returns dated 31/03/85 states that at that time they had five mortgages in arrears, the total amount outstanding is recorded as £3,265. Bradford & Bingley cannot claim therfore to have even bought a debt in my name, much less a legitimate mortgage account from the Merseyside Building Society. This indicates that the Bradford & Bingley, deliberately set out to defraud me, using the invented figure of the £27,000 they initially claimed, was the debt they had acquired in my name from the Merseyside Building Society at the Transfer of Engagements in 1985 as their starting point.
In 1996 Bradford & Bingley presented two cheques, to my then solicitor, made payable to the Merseyside Building Society, both dated 1981. These cheques, were put forward as supportive evidence for Bradford & Bingley in their attempt to prove their allegation that contrary to our Defence, we had maintained an ongoing mortgage arrangement with the Merseyside Building Society. The two cheques, one in the sum of £200 and one in the sum of £100, one allegedly signed by my daughter and one allegedly signed by my husband, provided for Bradford & Bingley, a correlation with the payments falsely recorded on a Merseyside Building Society mortgage account in 1981, the mortgage statement referred to is recorded on Bradford & Bingley note. I disputed the authenticity of both cheques from the outset to my then solicitor (who did nothing about it ). It was not until my Legal Aid had been discharged and it came down to myself to deal with their fraudulent misrepresentation that I had them sent for analysis to Mr. Ansell, his Report is dated 31/3/97
I wrote in person to Mr. Ansell and arranged that the cheques be sent to him. Reluctantly he provided me with a Report, saying that he usually only dealt with the legal profession (I should be so lucky) and I would need to take legal advice as to specific requirements. I was and still am ignorant as to what determines “specific requirements” Nevertheless, the report states as follows;
There was "doubt regarding the authenticity of the signatures… “one of the cheques is in three different inks…the ink of the date the same as the main body of writing on the cheque but different from the bank entry and that of the signature…it could have been signed blank. He also writes to me 21/4/97 saying “..there is some doubt that the cheque for £100 was written or signed by Julie Fuller and that the cheque for £200 was written or signed by your late husband.”
I knew beyond doubt that the cheques could not be anything else but fraudulent, because, our presentation of them could not have occurred under any circumstance. In the first instance, we had arranged in 1980 with the Merseyside Building Society not to continue with repayments until re-instatement of our £7, 500 mortgage. We stood by that arrangement and were not contacted in relation to it again by the Merseyside Building Society. And secondly, in July 1980 we had ceased to deal with Bartley, Cocks & Bird. Therefore, in 1981, when the cheques were allegedly presented by us, we had no financial dealings at all, with either the Merseyside Building Society or Bartley Cocks & Bird. I suspect, these two cheques to be remnants from Mr. Capper’s old stock. Who actually utilised them in order to present a false record of account or the actual reasoning of the culprits to do such a thing, still escapes me. It could only have been conducted as a collusion there is no doubt about that.These misleading recorded payments remain to date, without so much as a preliminary legal investigation.
Payments allegedly paid by ourselves and being recorded at Merseyside Building Society in 1981 of which we have no knowledge, are as follows;
3rd February 1981 £100
23rd February 1981 £200
16th March 1981 £100
6th April 1981 £100
24th April 1981 £100
15th June 1981 £100
23rd June 1981 £100
8th July 1981 £150
9th July 1981 £150
4th August 1981 £150
An important date to note here, is the initial payment recorded on the 3rd February 1981 (by person or persons unknown) the date, coincidently! Happens to be a few days before the Law, Society’s Forensic Accountants were scheduled to investigate the accounts at
Bartley Cocks & Bird offices; this investigation, according to the Findings and Order, took place on the 9/2/81. The two cheques presented as evidence of our culpability are dated 17th February 1981 in the sum of £200 and 20th August 1981 in the sum of £100. Both declined by the bank and returned to Merseyside Building Society “refer to drawer”. The falsification of this account appears to have ceased on 30th July 1982 with an interest calculation.
The final entry of monies being paid, as will be seen, correlates with the public exposure of Mr. Capper’s theft. Not to be misled, Mr. Capper could not have been the lone culprit,as suggested through the courts, given the Merseyside Building Society had the cheques pass through their hands; this can only be a conspiracy. The final calculation entry in July1982 correlates with the Merseyside Building Society accounts
becoming computerised and a couple of weeks following the imprisonment of Mr. Capper. Any conceivable scenario regarding the misrepresentation of the Merseyside Building Society account, can only be understood as a collaboration, involving who knows who.
Significant also, another larger and just as, if not more, misleading payment, in the sum of £1,999 which was recorded as an alleged payment onto the mortgage account in 1985 immediately prior to the Transfer of Engagements. This alleged payment is recorded only on Bradford & Bingley headed mortgage account sheets. Years were wasted by ourselves whilst we tried to get to the bottom of this payment, as it formed credence to Bradford & Bingley’s allegations of our awareness of an ongoing account. In 2000 the £1,999 recorded for all those years as a payment was changed in a list of Bradford & Bingley Supplemental Documents, from being recorded as “received payment” to now read “FINES RE-CREDITED”. By this time my home had been re-possessed. Presumably, it was no longer a necessity for Bradford & Bingley to misrepresent this piece of evidence through the Courts as it had served its purpose. At one point during court proceedings, just prior to a Hearing, I asked my Barrister Mr. Jackson to query this large and other alleged payments, stating to him that “Bradford & Bingley must know who paid it, it is to do with their own recording of the account and if we can find out who has paid it, then we will know who has been creating a misleading account” Mr. Jackson responded with “you can’t go into court claiming someone has been paying your mortgage for you”!
In 1997 I managed to track down the whereabouts Mr. Donald Llandsbury Laurie and spoke to him personally. This entailed, first tracking down his brother Stephen who lived in Birkenhead Merseyside, he informed us that "he had resigned from that Company because of all the bad things that had gone on"! He also informed us that Mr. Llandsbury Laurie lived somewhere in Preston and that he had become an employee of the Bradford & Bingley. We then spent some time visiting the Town Hall of his home town going through the Town Hall register of addresses. Mr. Llandsbury Laurie at first claimed not to remember anything specific about my mortgage account. The information given to me by him implies otherwise. Although he generalises many issues, his statement is also an acknowledgment. Mr. Llandsbury Laurie stated as follows;
1. He was sworn to secrecy by Bradford & Bingley regarding my account.
2. The Annual Returns were compiled by the Directors of the Company, not himself.
3. Any fraud relating to a mortgage becomes no longer a matter for the Society. All paperwork is put in the hands of the investigating solicitors, who would be the only ones with access to the mortgage account. The Merseyside Building Society would be covered by the Law Society for any loss incurred.
4. There would be no necessity for the Merseyside Building Society to record anything on the account once it was in the hands of the investigating solicitors.
5. There were no missing documents at the time of Transfer, every scrap of paper was recorded into Bradford & Bingley’s records. The Bradford & Bingley took everything from Merseyside Building Society, even the computer.
6. No documentation was destroyed, he did not know what they were talking about when they claim “everything related to our mortgage had been inadvertently destroyed at the time of the Transfer”.
7. He had been first employed and then pensioned off from the Bradford & Bingley, so could not be held responsible for the £1,999 payment recorded on our account in 1985.
8. There should be no difficulty in tracing who had made payments on our account as Bradford & Bingley record payments on a daily ledger sheet, after which it is recorded onto a daily bank sheet.
It appears to me that by giving the above information, Mr. Llandsbury Laurie, is attempting to put the onus on the investigating solicitors, i.e. Weightmans for the criminal activities related to the mortgage. It is undeniable that they were in control of the court case relating to the mortgage in 1981, at the time when the fraudulent payments were entered on the account and they certainly play a significant role in all of the court cases since. In fact, the name of Weightmans runs like a thread through this affair from start to finish. In applying for a bank loan in 1984 Alan’s then solicitor acquired the deeds on our behalf, as far as we were concerned they were obtained from Merseyside Building Society, there has been a letter produced supportive of this fact. (in my possession) Given the above conversation, Mr. Donald Llandsbury Laurie implies otherwise. If the Merseyside Building Society continued to hold the account and the deeds then this is contrary to the account given to me by Mr. Llandsbury Laurie, unless of course he was conspiring with Weightmans, which is the most likely scenario.
I have requested clarification from The Bank of Ireland, Victoria Street, Liverpool the bank where the loan was obtained and who it was had requested the deeds. Unfortunately, they were unable to assist. It is worth noting here, a statement made by our Counsel to our then acting solicitors 3/9/97 that he required to see one of my Affidavits in order to “blot out” any references I made about “ fees of Weightmans and the related problems”. At the time in question, my references to the payments had only been as to who could have made payments. It was not until later, when I considered Mr. Llandsbury Laurie’s comments, that “the investigating solicitors would have been in control of the mortgage” that my suspicions were raised in relation to Weightmans.
Part of the sale agreement at the auction of the property, included an interest charge which we were initially informed was £3, 04 a day. It was to commence from the expiry date of the 6 months grace allowed, up until completion of the transaction. Following the fiasco over the £12,000 mortgage, we were then to discover in 1980 that the £3.04 had been quoted in error! The correct daily amount according to Mr. Capper was £10,77; a significant difference over a much longer period of time than we had speculated . On calculation, this sum amounted to quite a few thousand pounds. We were obliged to pay the larger accumulated interest direct to the vendor as an additional consequence of Mr. Cappers’ misappropriation of our money; the extra amount I now suspect was probably given as a compensation to the vendor for his inconvenience.
Leo Kennedy & Glover have since denied to me that they acted as solicitors for the vendor on completion of the sale. They informed me that Mr. Holland (the vendor) changed solicitors to Brighouse Jones of Ormskirk. Brighouse Jones also deny any part of the transaction, they claim that Mr. Holland became their client only following completion of the sale. It is apparent to me, that one of these two firms of solicitors is not prepared to implicate themselves in whatever took place regarding the transaction of the property. This means that we have never been able to ascertain what if any payments were ever made to the vendors solicitors prior to 1980.
It has transpired that Mr. Pomphret, a Senior Partner at Leo Kennedy & Glover at the time of the transaction, went on to become a District Judge at Southport County Court; a Court, which later plays a key role in our demise. Another strange fact is, That according to exchange correspondence, between Leo Kennedy & Glover and Bartley Cocks & Bird, prior to and about the time of the transaction, the matter was being dealt with at Leo Kennedy & Glover by a Mr. Holman. During more recent legal action there has been a Mr. James Holman at Weightmans, who appears to have remained influential in my case throughout. Any correspondence to my acting solicitors from Weightmans requests the reader to contact Mr. James Holman. A copy of one of his letters, to my then acting solicitor 5/2/99states ”we would not have thought that
it breaches a confidence or will incur any costs if you were to tell us whether your client’s application succeeded or not and/or whether Mrs Dickson is to Appeal”! (What could be behind Weightmans unhealthy interest in my legal action as late as 1999? After all, the Court Action was between Bradford & Bingley and myself)!
Wondering if there could be a link between the two Mr. Holmans’ I contacted both firms in order to ascertain the identity of both and whether or not there could be any connection. I was assured otherwise, by Weightmans. I was informed that the Mr. Holman from Leo Kennedy & Glover The person in charge of the sale at the time, was a Senior Partner, his name is Mr. G. Martin Holman. I was informed however that following his semi retirement he continued to work for Leo Kennedy & Glover on a temporary basis, whilst at the same time he also worked for Weightmans on a temporary basis. The full name of the solicitor at Weightmans is Mr. James Holman. Personally, I consider, that it has to be more than coincidence that these two solicitors with the same surname have both dealt closely with important issues related to my case from start to finish and that Mr. Holman of Leo Kennedy & Glover should have worked also for Weightmans. These two firms are not in close proximity, Weightmans is situated in Liverpool City centre, Leo Kennedy & Glover (now Kennedy’s) is situated in Ormskirk. These presumably independent of each other establishments, are at least 15 miles apart.
Following the withholding of our mortgage money in 1980 and after having to pay out to the vendors because of Bartley Cocks & Bird’s misappropriation of funds, Alan was threatening to initiate Court Action if he failed to get any satisfaction from the now long drawn out investigation. Because of the deadlock, it was proposed by Weightmans, that they would engage an independent accountant, whereby Mr. Cappers client ledger accounts in our name would be provided to them, along with supportive receipts etc. from Alan. The choice of accountants, as proposed by Weightmans was Michael Moss & Sons of Manchester. I was told, it was Mr. Moss himself, who went through these accounts with Alan, making an early assessment that Alan’s total losses were somewhere in the region of £40,000.
The Early Court Action
On 7/10/80 Bartley Cocks & Bird served a writ on me claiming £3,288.60 “as payment by way of indemnity in a loan secured from the National Westminster Bank LTD with interest to date procured to facilitate balance of purchase money outstanding on Derbyshire’s Farmhouse…” The Bartley Cocks & Bird case as laid out within Mr. Capper’s & his secretary’s Affidavits, was that in July 1980 the Merseyside Building Society had requested the deeds from Bartley Cocks & Bird, as their auditors were due to check their accounts and the
Merseyside Building Society did not hold the deeds as security for the
£7,500 Legal Charge, now nearly a year into of being repaid by ourselves. It is alleged in the Affidavits of Bartley Cocks & Bird that Mr. Llandsbury Laurie and Mr. Capper arranged a meeting at Bartley Cocks & Bird offices and had determined between themselves that the solution
would be to overwrite the £7,500 Legal Charge with a £12,000 Legal Charge, the difference to be withheld to enable paying off the vendor in order for the Society to gain possession of the deeds. This amount apparantly, did not suffice to satisfy the outstanding debt. It is alleged that Mr.Capper secured a loan from Bartley Cocks & Bird office bank account, which served to settle the outstanding amount to the vendor.
There is evidence in support of the fact that when Mr. Capper finally settled the debt with the vendors solicitors in 1980, the sum required from him was still, as from the outset, £20,700. There are no supported details of financial transactions between Leo Kennedy & Glover and Bartley Cocks & Bird; (the exact details have been concealed from us and the facts have been turned into lies in order to mislead the courts). This said sum represents the amount to vacate the Legal Charge Mr. Capper had entered into in my name with Leo Kennedy & Glover on behalf of the vendor without my knowledge, in October 1978 (the signatures on this document have not as yet been forensically analysed). I believe Mr. Capper’s reasoning for doing this was to enable him to withhold monies without pressure. The alleged amounts Bartley Cocks & Bird had been obliged to borrow from their office bank varies depending on whether the amount stated, is taken from Mr. Capper’s Sworn Affidavit or his secretary’s, she states approx £10,000, he states approx. £3,000.
On 10/11/80 Alan counterclaimed against Bartley Cocks & Bird for misappropriation of funds, requesting in his Statement of Claim as follows;
” An account of money's received by the Defendants and their servant,
servants agent, or agents on behalf of the Plaintiff and for judgement for the amount found to be due and for damages for professional negligence as solicitors for the Plaintiff . ”
We were subsequently informed on 10/12/80that Weightmans (supposedly our delegated investigating solicitors) were to act as Defence solicitors on behalf of Bartley Cocks & Bird in the proposed Proceedings!!!
It had never been my responsibility to deal with any troubling issues, therefore I never attended any Court Hearings, Alan attended Court on my behalf. I never made any appearances at court even to accompany him, I was as ever, protected from the harsh realities of life, it was strictly his domain. I was content with my position; it was not until after Alan’s death that I was to be thrown to the wolves.
The case against me in 1980/81 proved to be a nonentity. From what I can gather, there was only ever a Preliminary Hearing, after which Weightmans Adjourned twice on the grounds that, the case was dependant on the outcome of Alan’s case against Bartley, Cocks & Bird. The case against me was withdrawn on 10/10/81.
It has transpired however, that there were far more serious reasons for Weightmans to Withdraw from the Action. Bartley Cocks & Bird had undergone an investigation of their accounts, by the Law Society’s Investigative Forensic Accountants. The investigation already referred to which took place on 9/2/81. Weightmans therefore, had been fully aware of Mr. Capper’s fraudulent actions at least since the outset of both our court cases. My belief is that both Court Cases were used to facilitate the removal of our true client record which was one of complaint and allegations. There is no doubt, we were excluded as complainants from the investigation of Bartley Cocks & Bird fraudulent accounting . The investigation according to the Findings & Order revealed Mr. Capper had been misappropriating clients funds and had committed forgery.
I suspect that the Writ served on me was the initial move in a “set up” to “cover up” about the mortgage double dealings with the Merseyside Building Society and to provide excuses for Mr. Capper and Bartley Cocks & Bird Solicitors, namely ourselves, whom it is claimed owed him a lot of money through the Courts. Their plan however badly backfired on them, because Mr. Capper couldn’t be kept down, he continued with his fraud and forgery, until one of his clients (brighter than ourselves) alerted the Fraud Squad. The Court Action against me was unsustainable in any event and I believe it was meant to be Withdrawn at some convenient point in time, which never materialised for them. There was no dismissal for Mr. Capper in February 1981, the issue was concealed from all, whilst the court cases continued being played out on a false premise. It was a few days before Weightmans (Withdrew) their case against me on the10/11/81, that their cover up strategy blew up in their face. The Fraud Squad had “swooped” on Bartley Cocks & Bird and Mr. Capper's fraudulent activities were ground to a halt. Weightmans needed now to chart a new course.
They did, but unfortunately for us we were still earmarked as lambs to the slaughter. Four things are for certain
1. We were not enlightened.
2. The investigating forensic accountants at Bartley Cocks & Bird were not instructed to include our losses in their findings (if indeed they were even informed of our allegations).
3.The Fraud Squad were not instructed to include our losses in their findings ( if indeed they were informed of our allegations).
4. Finally, we were cheated out of receiving Justice through the Court by Weightmans Withdrawal of the case. Where does one go from there?
When it had first been discovered by us that Mr. Capper himself was stealing from us, I had told Alan to go to the police, he had responded with “ I can’t do that to Mr. Capper he’s an old man” Instead, with no solution in sight and us not getting our money back, Alan chose to report Bartley Cocks & Bird to the Law Society.
Mr. Capper’s Formal Admission to the police on or about 5/11/81 reveals that regardless of the Law Society’s investigation in February 1981, he had continued to forge signatures and defraud many people on a regular basis throughout 1981. It can be no coincidence that, the Bartley Cocks & Bird case against me was Withdrawn on the 10th November 1981, when Mr. Cappers final act of theft, as recorded by the police is dated 30th October 1981, after which date, he had deposited his forged cheque, waited for its clearance, withdrew the funds and had spent it prior to his arrest. Had Weightmans, not Withdrew their case at that point, there is no doubt in my mind, that we would have won both cases hands down, our allegations would probably been combined with the catalogue of fraud being dealt with by the Fraud Squad . Weightmans, continued to Defend Mr. Capper against Alan in his continued Legal Action, whilst maintaining their concealment of the Fraud Squad intervention. We were not to find out that fraud had been uncovered at Bartley Cocks & Bird until 18/6/82, only when it became public knowledge in the local press and Mr. Capper had been given a prison sentence to pay for all his misdemeanors to the exclusion of those commited against ourselves.
1981 Alan’s case ran as follows, Weightmans produced to the Court, on behalf of Bartley Cocks & Bird a re-written false set of accounts as evidence. Alan was aware of their extensive irregularity because of his earlier examination of the originals with Mr. Moss. The originals are fraudulent also, but differ from the re-write. Alan filed a Writ on the 7/5/81 as follows;
1 The Defendants have supplied to me accounts on 15th April 1981, which said accounts are a re-writing of the Defendant’s Ledger sheets, which I believe is contrary to Law.
2 …the accounts previously supplied indicate that there is a credit balance due to me of some £40,000
3 The Defendants have not filed an Affidavit in the Court verifying the accounts as required by law.
Alan’s Court Action against Bartley Cocks & Bird continued to run into 1982. The case was transferred to the Chancery Division, later Adjourned and finally Struck Out on the technicality that Alan had failed to produce his documents in time. The reason he had been unable to produce the required documents, was that as explained above Michael Moss (the independent Accountant) had refused to release any of Alan’s papers back to him and refused to give any explanation. This was
inexplicable at the time. It was also to materialise that the case had been Struck Out in error as according to his then Barrister and contrary to Weightmans claim, Alan's case had not “run out of time”. I believe he Appealed that Judgement.
From all accounts, the final court appearance in Alan’s action against Bartley Cocks & Bird, was a bazaar affair. The Judge at the previous Hearing, had Ordered that the case come back before him. There had been some indication or Order that Bartley, Cocks & Bird would have to pay £20,000 into court. On arrival at court, it was claimed that the court file could not be found. There was no Judge available and no court room available. A spare Judge and a spare room was found. The Judge claimed to know nothing of the case. The expensive Barrister Alan had instructed, just sat and stared in front of him, he did not speak a word. Alan attempted to speak on his own behalf and was informed that this was not allowed, as he had instructed a Barrister and only the Barrister could speak. When silence reigned, the Judge then said “has no one got anything to say about this case then” with which, Weightmans solicitor stood up and said “yes we would like it Struck Out…” . It was duly Struck Out. Alan’s Solicitor at the time broke down in tears on the steps of the Court telling Alan how sorry he was but there was nothing he could do about it. Alan returned home with no further illusions of receiving justice in this case and commented to me, “it makes no difference what we do, or what proof we have, they are not going to allow us to win”.
How always right he was.
Regarding the mortgage, Alan was informed from the outset from his solicitors, that as matters stood, the mortgage in the sum of £7,500 was illegal, because there had already been a mortgage in place (albeit unbeknown to ourselves) and as such, in Law the £12,000 mortgage in my name could not stand, as one cannot create a legal mortgage from an illegal mortgage.
I believe, our biggest stumbling block, was our ignorance as to the true status of the Law Society at that time. We believed their role to be, supportive of the common man and not as it seems to have been, a protection system in support of acting solicitors. We were also ignorant of the fact that when we complained to the Law Society, it was actually the Solicitors Indemnity Fund, the very people we now realise were working against us.
When In June 1982, without any prior indication, we were to read in the local press that Mr. Capper had been sent to prison for gross fraud and forgery. Notably, in these proceedings he was not represented by Weightmans. Contrary to the truth, his Defending Counsel stated that “..no private individual had suffered loss..”
I obtained a copy of the Findings and Order as used for Mr. Capper’s Disciplinary Tribunal, held in his absence after he had been sent to prison. This document claims that a Mr. Galagher, assistant to Mr. Harold Greenhalgh FCA Law Society Investigator, examined Mr. Capper’s accounts on the 9th February 1981. The investigation reveals numerous thefts to the investigating body. It fails however, to mention Mr. Capper’s alleged £10,000 loan from the office bank account which was current at the time of the investigation, according to the Sworn Affidavits of Bartley Cocks & Bird. This surely should have been reflected in the investigators calculations. It does state however, amongst other thefts, that he stole £749.56 out of clients accounts to pay his office rates, he had also made up a false bill of costs on deceased client accounts, one in the sum of £1,200 and another in the sum of £1,500 . The overall thrust of this Tribunal Document appears however to try and deflect from Mr. Cappers thefts by indicating that we “the Dickson’s” as they wished to call us were a contributory factor to his predicament. It states in the Findings & Order that regarding ourselves “No separate client ledger account was maintained for these clients, the relevant transactions being recorded in the name of Mr. A. Dickson (Mrs Fuller’s father).” It then falsely claims, that a shortage was caused by “over payments” The largest of these in the amount of “£4,020.76 had arisen in relation to Mr. & Mrs. Fuller.“
This, I believe was yet another piece of camouflage for Mr. Capper's thefts regarding my daughters purchase of a property, which as the tribunal indicates, my daughter and my son in law were held responsible for the sum in question. Ultimately it was paid following court action. However, that is another story, except for the fact that the sum was also used by Mr. Capper to explain away some of Alan's missing money with the excuse that due to a "misunderstanding... assumed these were connected with 25 Derby Hill Road and proceeded on this basis..." as revealed in a letter dated 4th February 1980. Therefore, Mr. Capper managed to steal this sum of money twice.
The only way in which our complaints appear within the Tribunal document, are by the use of Mr. Capper’s fraudulent entries in our client ledger account as being factual and presented to the tribunal as the cause of his dilemma e.g. the £4,020.76 allegedly owed by my daughter, the £2,000 Mr. Capper had been obliged to pay back to Lloyds Bank because he had attempted to steal it, was presented at his Tribunal as a returned cheque of Alan‘s. Likewise, the £750 he had been obliged to pay to retrieve our caravan because our money had been stolen, was also falsely presented at his Tribunal as a returned cheque. Clearly Mr. Capper, could not enter the truth in his accounts e.g. £2,000 re-paid which I attempted to steal. This misrepresentation of the facts, meant that our complaint procedure had been turned on its head and Mr. Capper’s fraudulent accounting upheld to minimize his culpability.
The indication here is, that if the Law Society Investigation Officer was independent he had been fed some seriously false information as far as our client account was concerned; Weightmans were fully aware of the whole story, but the compiler of the Tribunal Document, does not seem to be aware that by the time of their investigation, “the Dickson’s” had been waiting for the outcome of Weightmans investigation of fraud against themselves for almost two years.
The Formal Admission of Mr. Capper, confessed to the police in October 1981, makes no reference to any of the crimes mentioned in the Findings and Order, which had been known since February 1981. The Formal Admission, records Mr. Capper’s first act of fraud as being committed in March 1981, about four weeks later . Furthermore, nothing of the fraud recorded after the investigation of Bartley Cocks & Bird by the Law Society and listed below, is mentioned at his Tribunal despite the fact that the Tribunal Hearing did not take place until 5th January 1983, by which time he was in prison and all of the thefts catalogued below were common knowledge.
One wonders, that the Law Society knew about so many thefts before Mr. Capper embarked on the summer of 1981 spree and yet failed in their duty to protect the public.
Extracts from the Formal Admission, all of which monies were used for Mr. Capper’s personal use, as follows;
12th March 1981 Forged cheque for £500.
16th March 1981 Forged signature of Partner Charles J. Cocks to obtain £1,202.83
14th April 1981 Sale of Liverpool Corporation Stock asset of deceased client £354.33
19th June 1981 Dishonestly obtained a cheque for £3,411.74 drawn against the account of stockbrokers and deposited into personal account.
22nd June 1981 Forged three signatures to obtain £200. Cash from a trust fund
2nd September 1981 Forged three signatures to obtain £700. cash from a trust fund
26th October 1981 Forged three signatures to obtain £95 cash from a trust fund
29th October 1981 Received a cheque by mistake of £3,500 paid it into joint account of his partner Mr. Cocks and himself
30th October 1981 Dishonestly caused the said above mentioned cheque representing capital due by repayment of Liverpool Corporation Bond, to be deposited in his personal current
account“… and has since used these monies for his own use
It would prove interesting to see in what way Mr. Capper recorded the above little transgressions, in his (now irrefutable) client ledger accounts and cash book.
Note the omission of Mr. Cappers previous acknowledged forgery and theft, note also the date 22nd June, this was the date that Mr. Capper Swore his accounts as true; the same piece of paper Bradford & Bingley are using against me in Court as a pathetic piece of their supportive evidence.
The above dates correlate with our court action. One of the above dates actually falls on a court day appearance. Mr. Capper must have committed his fraud en-route to Court. Or alternatively if he had not been called to appear, when he knew his investigators were otherwise
occupied. Obviously Mr. Capper was a prolific embezzler and forger. His Governing Body had been alerted by ourselves two years prior to his above recorded fraud. I believe his thefts from Alan over so many years must have proved a much more lucrative venture for him than any of us can imagine. And, from the ashes of all this corruption, Bradford &
Bingley not to be left out of the scam, resolved to raise some money for themselves. “People like me” didn’t matter; after all, they were a “financial institution“. As his Honour G. O. Edwards Q.C. stated, thereby, endorsing their stance when he allowed them the right to steal then sell my home so much less than its market value on 9th June 1998, without any scruples whatsoever.
Bradford & Bingley
April, Bradford & Bingley took over the Merseyside Building Society by Transfer of engagements. We had no indication of this occurrence. It was not until 10 months later that the Bradford & Bingley made contact with us by sending an alleged up to date mortgage account in February 86 of £27,166.00 with the request to commence repayments in the sum of £276 a month from March 1986.
About April/May 1986, the Branch Manager of the Bradford & Bingley a Mr. Gale, paid a visit to our home, to discuss matters with us regarding the alleged now Bradford & Bingley mortgage. Mr. Gale was given as much information as was then available to us, which in my opinion ,was substantial enough for the Bradford & Bingley to stop and query the legitimacy of what had taken place at the inception of the mortgage arrangements (we were not to know then that they were far more aware of the true situation than we were). It was Mr. Gale, who first informed us of the alleged repayments on their inherited Merseyside Building Society mortgage, in particular, the larger sum of approx. £1,900. Mr. Gale informed us that this payment had been made just prior to the takeover! We informed Mr. Gale that we were not responsible for making any payments never mind such a big one and he assured us he would investigate: we heard nothing more from Mr. Gale.
Those payments have remained un-investigated on the account to date, despite the numerous times I have queried them during Court Action. No legal body has ever raised one investigative question in relation to the misrepresentation of that account. In 1997, prior to a pending Hearing, I was discussing the said payments in conference with our Barrister (Mr. Jackson), expressing my view that it should be raised at the Hearing. I considered that all the Bradford & Bingley had to do to clarify the situation, was to ascertain where, when and by whom these payments had been made, especially the final large sum, as this would reveal the
culprit once and for all. Mr. Jackson responded with the strange statement “you can’t complain to the Court, that someone has been paying your mortgage for you“! I impressed on him the deeper implications behind the payments but when we appeared at court our Barrister chose to not to question them except in passing. The Judge made comment, that Mr. Capper may or may not have made payments onto our mortgage account but “that’s as maybe” The Judge also commented that Mr. Llandsbury Laurie may or may not have accepted payments off Mr. Capper but when Mr. Capper got into trouble understandably! Mr. Llandsbury Laurie, may not have wished to be involved!
When Bradford & Bingley initially made contact with us, Silverbeck & Co. Solicitors, Liverpool, were instructed by my husband to deal with matters. The solicitors commenced correspondence with Bradford & Bingley requesting, sight of the title deeds, a break down on how Bradford & Bingley had arrived at their figures and informed them that “ it may be that our clients have the right to make a claim against the Law Society Compensation Fund in relation to matters that were being dealt with by the Merseyside Building Society”
Following the examination of provided documentation from Bradford & Bingley, Silverbeck & Co. sent a further letter dated 21/3/86 to Bradford & Bingley he states “we understand an arrangement was reached between Mr. Capper and the Merseyside Building Society, an arrangement that we considered to be illegal. The letter was sent to Mr. Wilkes, Assistant Administration Manager for Bradford & Bingley. Mr. Wilkes passed the letter on to another department with annotations as follows; ”WRW Int. audit not interested simply supply Silverbeck & Co. with statements as to how the figure of £27,166 is arrived at. you reply but keep me informed.” This response proved to be the catalyst which determined all future fraud and misrepresentation of flawed material by the Bradford & Bingley.
An Application was made to the Law Society for Compensation in May 1986. Our understanding of matters at that point fell far short of what we are now aware of. The Law Society wrote back to inform us that that "the Compensation Fund was meant only as a last resort… “ any claim …in the first instance, be made against Mr. Tunstead (Bartley Cocks & Bird Partner) who in turn would have been insured against any dishonesty on the part of his partner“. I believe our solicitors were informed that at the time referred to Mr. Tunstead had not been a partner. Some time later (too late) this statement was rectified. Third Party Proceedings were then advised by our Barrister, perhaps cost prevented this action being undertaken by ourselves. However, that did not prevent Bradford & Bingley from pursuing this avenue from the start.
Mr, Capper remained a partner in Bartley Cocks & Bird up until his retirement in February 1982 according to The Law Society. Surely on a number of counts this cannot be correct. In the first instance, there is no doubt that his fraud was uncovered in February 1981 by the Law Society, after which the fraud squad was called in regarding his further criminal activities which continued up until he was apprehended in November 1981. And finally, given the fact that his governing bodies were fully aware of his misdemeanours, why would his leaving Bartley Cocks & Bird be classified as retirement and not dismissal, or as one would suppose, Struck Off as a Solicitor!
Bradford & Bingley initially provided documentation claiming us to be liable for the £12,000 mortgage in 1986, with arrears and fines dating back to 1982. In support of their claim against me, it was alleged that, prior to this date we had maintained payments on the mortgage. These payments allegedly made by ourselves throughout 1981 are presented only on Bradford & Bingley headed note. It is alleged 11/4/96 that all the documentation relating to the Merseyside Building Society mortgage in my name was “inadvertently destroyed“. On the 2/04/01 we were informed that all account information from the Merseyside Building Society was “transferred to the Bradford & Bingley “computer to computer“. However, although their computer to computer information has afforded them the spurious evidence allowing them to obtain Possession of my home, Bradford & Bingley have yet to prove this. No one to date excepting myself has called on Bradford & Bingley to prove this assertion, obviously they cannot, their computer to computer evidence can only verify that they did not acquire a mortgage account in my name from the Merseyside Building Society. Instead they have been compelled to resort to hand written source documents compiled in December 1985 ALSO ON BRADFORD & BINGLEY HEADED NOTE. Moreover, these hand written source documents did not come to light until January 2000.How unbelievable is that ?
This enlightening source document, was included within a large bundle of insignificant, irrelevant and confusing documentation. Whether this action it was so designed as to cause it to be overlooked, or whether Bradford & Bingley had been compelled for some legal reason to include it after all this time, or whether it was included to cover themselves for future reference or whether it had been included by mistake can only be speculation. The fact is, they had excluded it throughout their Possession Proceedings, a deliberate withholding of crucial evidence for sixteen years!! This misdemeanour will now hopefully be dealt with at the European Court of Human Rights.
When Bradford & Bingley’s Court action was taken against us in 1986 we assumed that the same as ourselves, they were being deceived regarding former events. We had no way of knowing at that time that
misleading accounts were being created fraudulently by themselves, to be used as their supportive evidence. Because of our gullibility regarding Bradford & Bingley’s major role in all this, our position in relation to Court Action was seriously undermined.
In 1996, we were to discover, Bradford & Bingley could not have been ignorant too all the prior facts. The evidence now reveals that it had taken them some eight months to create a fraudulent mortgage onto their books (it was created in December 1985) following the Transfer of Engagements in April/May. When Bradford & Bingley had taken over the Merseyside Building Society, Mr. Donald Llandsbury Laurie became an employee of theirs.
If one supposes that Bradford & Bingley had not believed our account of events, they would undoubtedly have questioned Mr. Llandsbury Laurie. Had he disputed our assertion, then the obvious action would have been for the Bradford & Bingley to take Legal Action against us using Mr. Donald Llandsbury Laurie as their prime witness. In view of the fact that the Secretary of their predecessors, The Merseyside Building Society had been secretly in their employ (until I uncovered the fact myself in 1996) and as he was the very person who had made the fateful decision regarding our alleged mortgage, which we had maintained from day one, speaks for itself.
Bradford & Bingley, continued to claim their figures were correct and finally with no ground being gained, Alan made an offer through his solicitor,14/01/87 offering a settlement to accept the mortgage of £12,000, Bradford & Bingley’s base figure, this would have meant the disregarding of fines and arears. A more than reasonable offer in my estimation. In fact I did not agree with Alan about it at the time, being of the opinion, that we were condescending to pay more than we had offered initially i.e. (£7,500 ) and the fact that it had dragged on for so many years, was their fault and not ours. Moreover, the initial offer had been made whilst we were under the illusion that we had had the benefit of that amount, for the simple reason, we were not holding the Merseyside Building Society responsible for what went wrong; (We now realise that we had not had any benefit whatsoever and blame for what occurred, equally lies with the Mersyside Building Society). Alan’s response to me was that he was “fed up with it all” and wanted it out of the way. It was immaterial, our offer was rejected out of hand. Bradford & Bingley replied on 04/02/87 requesting that, we make a more realistic offer. We did not, at that time. A comment made within Bradford & Bingley's letter of refusal of our offer, is as follows; "Your clients…have had the benefit of “rent free” occupation…for numerous years”!!!
On the 14/10/87 Bradford & Bingley served their Writ for Possession and Action commenced on 27th November 1987 at Southport County Court. Bradford & Bingley, were Ordered to provide Further & Better Particulars of the Particulars of Claim. The questions asked of them were
1 Who was the money alleged to be paid to?
2. Whether cash cheque or otherwise?
3. If cheque identify payee?
Had Bradford & Bingley been truthful to the Court from the outset, rather than maintaining there had been an ongoing mortgage account, then the Court would possibly have made an unbiased assessment and that would have put an end to it. Instead Bradford & Bingley set out to deceive and so embarked on their own fraudulently misrepresented Court Action with the aim of Perverting the Course of Justice. Supported by what they knew to be fraudulent, forged and otherwise flawed evidence, compounded by their own fraudulent snippets of accounts.
It took until 25th September 1991 for Bradford & Bingley to resume their case with Amended Pleadings; three years they spent unable to come up with any Further and Better Particulars. Which of course they could not. Instead they implemented what turned out to be, their usual strategy of Amended Pleadings. They were now to rely on the unfounded fact that we had acknowledged the mortgage by our (alleged ) payments to the Merseyside Building Society and also that “signature was receipt”. Alan’s Barrister, Mr. Peter Cowan drew up a draft Claim that Bartley Cocks & Bird to be included as Third Party to the Proceedings.
From 1991 onwards proved to be a bad period in time for us personally. Three weeks following the above referred to Court Hearing and following 2 years of uncontrollable high blood pressure, on the 16th October 1991 Alan suffered a severe and physically disabling stroke. He was hospitalised for some time, after which he had to master the physical damage caused by the stroke. Leading up to and during this period, he was obviously incapable of overseeing litigation, or anything else for that matter. His lack of involvement during this and later periods, appears to have served a purpose for his opponents, who have used his sometimes sporadic responses with solicitors etc. to undermine his character.
Within weeks of his stroke, on the 11th February 1992, it was determined at Southport County Court that, as Alan had been insisting, the case would go to trial at a higher Court, and include Bartley Cocks & Bird. An Order was made that the case be transferred to Liverpool Crown Court for Setting Down. NOTHING HAPPENED.
1992, The trial was set to be heard 27th March 1992 at Liverpool.
14/07/93 Unbeknown to me at the time, Alan had made a further offer in settlement of the mortgage in the sum of £30,000. This offer was also rejected on 19/07/93
1994 The case was transferred to Manchester Crown Court in order to accommodate the necessity of a Chancery Judge. It had taken until 1994 until the trial was finally put down in the listings at Manchester, to be heard on the 8th & 9th September. The case was then allegedly Adjourned by Consent of all parties and the Court File was returned to Southport County Court. It was claimed later, by Bradford & Bingley that the court file had mysteriously gone astray and they would have to reconstruct their file.
The truth, differs somewhat from the above sanitized version. What I have managed to uncover, is that Bradford & Bingley and a former solicitor of Alan’s conspired to have the trial Adjourned without either Alan’s Consent or knowledge. On the 22/9/94 Bradford & Bingley’s solicitors had written to Mr. Dave Rose, a solicitor at Neil Wright &Co ( It has transpired according to various correspondence that Neil Wright & Co had never actually been on the Court Record as acting for Alan in this particular action although they did do some work on it) Bradford & Bingley solicitors state in their letter as follows, “we intend to date this Consent Order September 1994, and should you , therefore, have been removed from the record on the 14th September 1994 we will pre-date the Consent Order…..”. (I assume these actions to be illegal ) copy of the said signed Consent Order.
The question here is, if Bradford & Bingley did not have a legitimate Consent Order from Alan or his solicitor on the day the trial Hearing was Adjourned, under what pretext did they obtain the Adjournment.? And, why on the 9/10/95 would Bradford & Bingley, correspond with a different solicitor, indicating an awareness of the fact, that Neil Wright & Co. had never officially put themselves on the court record to act for Alan in this action? Their statement in this correspondence is as follows; “we have confirmed with the court that the solicitors on the record for the Defendant are still recorded as Yeo & Little Solicitors”.
It was not until 1997 that I was to uncover the fact that the file had not just gone astray as alleged. The file had been sent by recorded delivery from Manchester High Court to Southport County Court (this was acknowledged by them). The recorded delivery receipt, with its reference number confirmed the fact, that it had been delivered safely to Southport County Court. A memo note dated 5/6/97 from Neil Wright & Co solicitors, referring to a conversation the secretary had with a court official from the Southport County Court Office. The memo reveals that regarding the Bradford & Bingley File” they had been told to shred everything up to 1991...she found a Defence dated 1987 and said she would fax it to me”. See fax and the accompanying Defence, (which no doubt had been saved from shredding for its usefulness; it was used as supportive evidence by our opponents in any event. Who knows what was in the file that Bradford & Bingley had wanted destroyed and out of the way to be replaced with anything but the truth. Their corrupt reconstructed case was not to see the light of day until after Alan had died; Bradford & Bingley must have believed they were home and dry with only a grieving widow to contend with.
Following the “fixed” Adjournment of the above Hearing , Dave Rose of Neil Wright & Co, informed Alan that Bradford & Bingley had Withdrawn the case, because officially it was claimed their intention was to include Bartley Cocks & Bird as Party to the Proceedings but Dave Rose informed Alan that, “off the record, we believe the losing of the file was a tactical withdrawal from the Action by Bradford & Bingley”.
Alan was diagnosed as being in heart failure. One of the consequences of Bradford & Bingley‘s injustice to him, was that despite considering our home as our legal property by right, we had never had the usual financial benefits enjoyed by other home owners. Whilst my husband struggled in his last years, Bradford & Bingley held our finances in a stranglehold, knowing their Possession Case against us was unwarranted, which in ten years, despite their best efforts, they had failed to get off the ground, even to the extent of a full Hearing.
Alan had always depended on a successful Court Action that would unveil the truth, as we could no longer afford to continue with dead end litigation, our opponents taking the initiative was the next best thing, or so we thought. Instead, Bradford & Bingley Court Action had been ever current, but never active. In the early stages of his illness had he been given the benefit of an honest trial, I have no doubt that Alan would
have won his case. He had a strong character and a good memory for detail, which was unaffected by his stroke. By 1994 however, Alan had
become seriously ill with desperate breathing problems and I would not like to speculate on how he would have fared conducting his desired day in court by then. I personally know, that Neil Wright & Co. were fully aware as to the dire state of Alan’s health in 1994/5 . I also know from their papers that they maintained a close contact with Bradford & Bingley and Weightmans James Holman, regarding progress of the case even without instruction, or any known reason for that matter. Knowing as I do the underhanded double dealings that have taken place, it is a foregone conclusion that all parties were aware of the dire state of Alan’s health. As far as I am concerned, they had decided to bide their time after successfully sabotaging the evidence.
Shortly before his death, Alan asked me to attend the Offices of Neil Wright & Co. with my daughter and nephew, as Dave Rose wanted to discuss something with me. I had never been there before, but knew Dave Rose from visits he had made to the house to see Alan. Dave Rose sat us down and proceeded to enlighten me about a number of issues, all appertaining to the complete mess of our financial situation, all of which I had been totally unaware. It was scary information. Alan had obviously requested Dave Rose to do this for him, due to his concern over his rapidly deteriorating health. (A poor reflection on me, that my own husband had felt unable to tell me face to face about his many concerns; I did reassure him on my return, that these things were immaterial to me and he was my only concern ). I inform you of this event as it discloses without doubt that Dave Rose could not have been better informed regarding the deterioration of Alan’s health. I believe the evidence indicates that Dave Rose acted as intermediary with Weightmans & Bradford & Bingley. The deepest cut was that Alan considered this man enough of a friend to entrust him with such a task. He had dealt with Dave Rose since he had been a trainee solicitor and he had been made welcome at our home on many occasions; Dave Rose was considered a friend by Alan. I believe, what followed from the Bradford & Bingley was premeditated and disgraceful.
Following ten long years of being unable to prove their case, Bradford & Bingley finally came up with their (I believe pretext) Court Application to include Bartley Cocks & Bird as Third Party to the Proceedings in October 1995; to arrive through the post two days after Alan’s funeral the 11th October 1995. After 10 years, I feel sure nobody could consider this a coincidence. Bradford & Bingley, must have felt confident that they finally had their chance. The only person now to overcome, was me and I was ignorant to many of the facts. Although the property was in my name, Bradford & Bingley were fully aware that I had never been involved in anything, no one from the outset (1979) had ever seen or spoke with me. Bradford & Bingley must have considered I would be trapped with all their fraudulent paperwork and themselves home and dry.
The summons that was served on 11th October 1995 from Bradford & Bingley was for Alan to appear at Southport County Court on the 21st November 1995. The case was Adjourned Sine die “for all parties to reassess the situation”!
I now know that the way in which Bradford & Bingley chose to “reassess the situation” entailed collaboration with Weightmans in providing them with ever more flawed evidence from a so called “abundance of documentation being held at Weightmans offices” ( whether or not predetermined, it had been done early in 1996 prior to their next court date).
Following the death of Alan, I was compelled to face up to a sequence of critical events, Bradford & Bingley being just one. Being relatively ignorant of the finer details, I set about collecting as many of Alan’s old files as possible from various firms of solicitors. I was shocked at the contents of the documentation, realised the extent of his struggle and like Bradford & Bingley I chose to “reassess the situation” by stepping into Alan’s shoes. The injustice of it all was clear to see and my determination to see the matter through at that point in time, has never wavered.
My Own Court Action
In December 1995, on recommendation, I instructed a firm of solicitors, Thelwell Fagan, Wirral, who from the outset queried many issues with Bradford & Bingley, some such issues are as follows;
1. The lack of Merseyside Building Society records and correspondence relating to ourselves?
2. The nature of the alleged mortgage?
3. Whether or not Mr. Llandsbury Laurie was to be called as Witness or did they intend to provide a Witness Statement from him? We had alerted our solicitor to the fact that Mr. Llandsbury Laurie had become an employee of Bradford & Bingley in 1985. It was only now that Bradford & Bingley became aware that we had discovered their close connection with him.
4. What documents were possessed in relation to account Roll No. 2772? This roll No. referred to the £7,500 mortgage which up to this point had never been referred to, we had brought its debatable existence to the attention of our solicitors.
5. How had the arrived at sum, been calculated.
We had always known that Bradford & Bingley could not be in possession of authentic evidence supportive of the legal right to my property and now we felt they were having to disclose that they too knew that fact. I foolishly believed at that time, that Bradford & Bingley were just beginning to realise that the Merseyside Building Society and Bartley Cocks & Bird issue had misled them as it had misled us.
It was now that Bradford & Bingley began to put pieces of evidence forward to my solicitor, which consisted of untested and fraudulent documentation related to the early court cases 1980/82. Initially, I was shown the two cheques which allegedly supported the claim that I was being dishonest when I said we had never made any re-payments in reduction the £12,000 mortgage.
My solicitor, Mr. Bogle, was provided a recorded conversation between ourselves and the Bradford & Bingley accounts/records office with a Sheila Firth, 20/11/95. It was legally transcribed, extracts read as follows;
“Mrs Dickson your name does not appear anywhere in Merseyside Building Society records…“ “...This department has conducted an extensive search over a couple of days, with head of the fiche department assisting…” We have searched through all of the share certificates, the ledgers, roll register and everything related to Merseyside Building Society and concluded that your name does not appear on anything whatsoever, right from the time the Merseyside Building Society took over the Stockport Building Society at it’s inception“... “Your mortgage with the Bradford & Bingley was not initiated until 1985 and there is nothing appertaining to you prior to that date” (the tape and transcript is in my possession).
Where does this little conversation leave our understanding of us having a £7,500 with the Merseyside Building Society on which payments were made by us? There is a Merseyside Building Society mortgage account which shows such payments, but then again there is also a Merseyside Building Society Mortgage account for the £12,000 mortgage, with payments recorded on it which we did not pay. The thorough investigation at the Bradford & Bingley office referred to above, is in contradiction of any advance whatsoever being made from the Merseyside Building Society. The Legal Charge document in question is undated (a foolish or clever solicitor)? The investigation at the Bradford & Bingley Records Dept. also indicates that no £12,000 advance was ever made to me from the Merseyside Building Society.
As the only record of a mortgage agreement is with the Bradford & Bingley Building society according to their own records Dept. And as I never entered into any contract with Bradford & Bingley, under what criteria have they taken Possession of my property?
After ten years of a stagnated court action, Weightmans had afforded the Bradford & Bingley access to their “abundance of documentation from various court cases” (all flawed) from which Bradford & Bingley selectively chose what they deemed would support their case to gain Possession of my home.
By March 1996 with the benefit of their additional (flawed, untested, and fraudulent) evidence, Bradford & Bingley allegedly now decided to dispense with their necessity of Third Party Proceedings, WHY! The evidence suggests that this decision had been determined on or before September 1994 when the case was underhandedly Adjourned in order to shred the file, this being the preliminary measure for what Bradford & Bingley had in mind. Which I believe, was to include additional supportive fraudulent material. Pleadings were again Amended, this time, to “Strike Out the Defence on the grounds that it Disclosed No Reasonable Defence“.
Bradford & Bingley’s chosen selection of additional documentation included the following;
Two forged cheques.
Bartley Cocks & Bird’s, re-written ledger accounts, blatantly fraudulent and acknowledged as such in the early Court Action.
“Sight of”! Bartley Cocks & Bird cash book. Which corroborated the said ledger account.
Affidavits, allegedly bearing signatures of my own, Alan’s and his then solicitor. Mr. Peter Malpas.
A computer printout, purported to be compiled by the Merseyside Building Society just prior to the takeover, undated, ( undoubtedly fraudulent, the first piece of Bradford & Bingley fraud my brother spotted, the figures cannot be as purported i.e. computer generated) However, it has been printed off the Merseyside Building Society computer.
Two Legal Charge documents allegedly signed by me and witnessed by Mr. Capper.
Sworn Affidavits of Mr. Capper and his secretary Freda Cole.
The allegedly Sworn Affidavit of Mr. Essery Ellis, Senior Partner at Weightmans.
This added to, Bradford & Bingley’s own fraudulent retrospective account.
The above evidence in more detail as follows;
1.The two cheques, payable to and deposited in the bank by Merseyside Building Society. Used to support the allegation that there had been an acknowledged ongoing mortgage, with repayments. As discussed above, these cheques were later discredited by Mr. Michael Ansell the forensic handwriting expert.(surely this makes the Merseyside Building Society culpable)
2. A typed rewrite of the fraudulent accounts of Bartley, Cocks & Bird, which had already been discredited in the courts. It differs greatly from the original handwritten accounts. (copies of both are in my possession) There are many discrepancies on both accounts and between the accounts. There are receipts in my possession, which appear on neither. The entries are fraudulent, in that they claim to be other than what
they actually were. As analysed by Silverbeck & Co. and another former solicitor, the accounts when calculated reveal that Bartley Cocks and Bird had received in excess of £37,000 for the property, not taking into account our other losses and discounting any mortgage advance.
3.The cash book of Bartley Cocks & Bird, which has yet to be seen by any other party than Bradford & Bingley’s junior solicitor. It was alleged that Weightmans would not allow it to be copied due to its fragility. The solicitors word for what she had allegedly seen in the cash book sufficed as supportive evidence against me. On numerous occasions, either ourselves or acting solicitors at our request have allegedly tried to gain sight of the referred to abundance of evidence controlled by Weightmans, especially the elusive cash book, to no avail. In all this time, for one reason or another, we have never been granted Discovery by Bradford & Bingley.
4.Sworn Affidavits, allegedly signed by myself, Alan and Alan’s then solicitor, in 1981.The signatures thereon belong to none of us, the signatures do not even attempt to copy our signatures. They are undoubtedly blatant forgeries, which even to the layman , appear to have been written in the same hand, how they have been accepted through the courts amazes me. The Affidavits are allegedly witnessed by a Commissioner of Oaths, J. L. Tetlow. A commissioner of oaths who also, allegedly witnessed the signature of the Senior Partner of Weightmans during the 1980-82 Hearings. The Affidavits, were put forward as evidence against me by Bradford & Bingley following the death of Mr. Tetlow in 1994. The same year as the Court file allegedly went astray and everything in it prior to 1991 was shredded! It took Bradford & Bingley until 1996 to collate their new material and go for Strike Out.
5. The computer printout, is a fraudulent document compiled with the sole purpose “to deceive” it purports to be a Merseyside Building Society document compiled in 1984 prior to the Transfer. It is not! Its source document was not handwritten until December of 1985 by the Bradford & Bingley. It is incomplete due to photocopying and there is no original. It is alleged that this document was compiled on a computer, photocopied and then, the original was destroyed! The only explanation that seems plausible for this anomaly, is that the document has been computer generated on the Merseyside Building Society computer, following the Transfer of Engagements.
6. Two Legal Charge documents allegedly signed by me and witnessed by Mr. Capper. As discussed above, these two Legal Charge documents have been discredited by Mr. Michael Ansell, the forensic handwriting expert. Bradford & Bingley, for reasons best known to themselves, failed to provide Mr. Michael Ansell with the original of the first Legal Charge document, despite the fact that I wrote to the Chief Executive of the Bradford & Bingley at the time, requesting that all the related mortgage documents including the applications allegedly signed by me be forwarded. This first Legal Charge document which was in favour of
the vendor in the sum of £20,000 is a document which I never even knew existed, much less signed. The only signing of my signature regarding the property and the vendor, was conducted at the local public house, were the auction was held, sometime in August 1978 and there was no Mr. Capper there. Whatever document I signed on that day, witnessed by the legal representatives who were there at the time, was in agreement with the vendors conditions as detailed above. I believe Bartley Cocks & Bird in collusion with the Merseyside Building Society, created this first Legal Charge as a forerunner for what was to follow. The document in question has been allegedly signed by me and witnessed by Mr. Capper in October 1978; impossible, I did not meet Mr. Capper until 1980.
7.The two Affidavits of Bartley Cocks & Bird compiled in 1980 in support of their false claim against me at time. Knowing the situation at Bartley Cocks & Bird at the time indicates, they have been compiled in order to cover Mr. Cappers misdeeds. Truly flawed evidence, compiled by a criminal in the attempt to conceal further uncovering of fraud and forgery, what weight should ever have been placed on such documents. They nevertheless, have been used as supportive evidence by Bradford & Bingley against me, despite the fact that the Court Action they were originally compiled for was withdrawn for lack of evidence and substance by Weightmans in 1981. Mr. Cappers secretary Freda Cole however, is specific about the date I visited their office. She states it was on “29th July 1980” the document in question, is in fact dated 31st July 1980.
8. An Affidavit allegedly Sworn by Mr. Essery Ellis (senior partner of Weightmans) before Mr. J.L. Tetlow Commissioner of Oaths on 16/9/82 This Affidavit states that Mr. Cappers accounts are sworn as true. The senior partner at Weightmans after investigating Mr. Capper had to have known his accounts were anything but true. Further, the Affidavit appears to me, to have been forged, as the both signatures on the Document appear even to a novice, as written in the same hand. How could a senior partner at Weightmans, have had the audacity to Swear an Affidavit in support of their client, accounts being true in September 1982, when that same client had just been sent to prison for multiple forgeries and fraud within his accounts in June 1982.
9. The retrospective account of Bradford & Bingley’s can be demonsrated as fraudulent, when calculated with the relevant interest rates of the Merseyside Building Society as shown in the Report of Mr. Bob Clegg. (Part 1)(Part 2)(part 3)
When Bradford & Bingley first proposed to include all this additional evidence in 1996 our solicitor at the time strongly objected. He corresponded with them as follows “you are wrong to introduce additional rights of action after more than 10 years of litigation“. Bradford & Bingley’s response to this criticism was , “there is no limitation in respect of fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation of trust”! (Well, that statement must also apply to myself). Eventually, without my solicitor analysing any of the material he had questioned, my file was submitted for Counsel Opinion. Counsel inexplicably, found in favour of the Bradford & Bingley. They were given permission to use their flawed evidence and Counsel concluded in his Opinion, that I had “no chance
of winning my case“. This decision also meant that I was no longer eligible for Legal Aid. Mr. Bogle, my solicitor advised, that the Amount of Legal Aid still remaining was enough to enable him to negotiate a settlement with Bradford & Bingley on my behalf and I would be wise to do this. I am not wise and never will be. I chose instead to seek a Second Opinion, which also proved negative. After which, I was truly on my own.
In December 96, just in time for Christmas, the expected Writ arrived, with its Amended Pleadings. The Court date was set for 21st February 1997 to be heard at Southport County Court.
On February 21st, I attended the Hearing at Southport County Court. Bradford & Bingley’s Amended Pleadings, were as they had intimated. Without the benefit of legal representation, I compiled and Swore my own Affidavit to the best of my ability. I considered that the contents revealed the flawed nature of the evidence now being used against me. My Affidavit was as informative as it could be at the time. I also informed the Judge that the cheques put forward as proof that I had acknowledged an ongoing mortgage, were in the process of being analysed. In my opinion, I felt at the time, that the Judge had been provided with enough information, to see matters were other than what was being presented by Bradford & Bingley.
Prior to the Hearing, in discussion with Bradford & Bingley’s solicitor, I expressed the fact that the signatures they were relying on did not belong to me. The solicitor replied, that there had been some controversy at their office relating to the authenticity of many of the signatures and they had “queried them“, but they had been instructed to go ahead nevertheless.
District Judge Humphrey Roberts was the residing Judge. As supportive evidence Bradford & Bingley presented him with a copy of Bartley Cocks & Bird re-written accounts along with Mr. Essery Ellis’s Sworn Affidavit affirming them as Sworn as true! An Affidavit in support of the fact that Weightmans had allowed Bradford & Bingley solicitors, the liberty at their offices to examine and select from an “abundance of documentation”. This would have been anything I suppose, which they considered supported their claim that I had no Defence. It was also alleged that, they had “gained sight of Bartley Cocks & Bird’s cash book” it had corroborated the relied upon entries recorded in the ledger account. It was alleged that Bradford & Bingley had not been allowed to copy the cash book due to its fragile condition. In addition, Bradford & Bingley provided to the Judge as evidence, an Affidavit dated 1981, allegedly signed and Sworn by me, in which it is claimed, I acknowledge the benefit of the mortgage.
In order to “reinforce” her assertions, the solicitor falsely informed the Judge that “I had pursued this case through my husband and it was Struck Out twice.” The Judge then proceeded to highlight entries in the ledger account speaking aloud “monies in and monies out” I informed him that the set of accounts he was relying had already been “discredited in the courts and renowned as fraudulent” he ignored me and turned to the Affidavit allegedly Sworn by me, I pointed out to him that it was “not my signature on the document”. Judge Humphrey Roberts then said to me “sometimes people are allowed to do that“! “ And if you don’t be quiet I will have you removed from this court for Contempt…. I have decided…. This has gone on long enough.” And with that, Bradford & Bingley were given Possession of my home. Not one question had been posed to my opponents. Every piece of evidence they had used was flawed and known by them to be so and accepted by the Judge without any consideration whatsoever.
Judge Humphrey Roberts had Erred in Law to have allowed Bradford & Bingley Possession. He had taken it upon himself to test! my Defence without a trial, when this was nothing to do with the wording of their Application. On these grounds I decided to Appeal the Order of District Judge Humphrey Roberts. It should have been straight forward. It was not.
In February 1997, I had wrote to Mr. Michael Ansell with copies of the two fraudulent cheques and samples of original signatures from the same period, requesting that he obtain the originals from Bradford & Bingley and forensically examine them on my behalf. Also some time in 1997 my brother tracked down a Mr. Stanway Johnson who had been the Auditing Accountant of Merseyside Building Society . We had hoped
that perhaps information held by him, may throw light on what had taken place in the early days. He was most helpful, but unfortunately, he had just cleared out his garage of all his old papers, which he had retained for the required statutory seven years. Mr. Johnson , knew nothing related to our dealings with Merseyside Building Society but informed us that nothing was held separate as we had been informed was the case, all records were in their entirety when transferred to Bradford & Bingley. He informed us that Merseyside Building Society had become computerised in late 1982 and all information relating to client accounts was recorded onto three computer discs which were rotated on a daily basis and that these discs were passed to the Bradford &Bingley. In late 1997 Mr. Llandsbury Laurie confirmed to me that these discs were passed over at the time of the Transfer of Engagements. Nevertheless, neither ourselves nor our agents have been able to, ascertain what, if anything is related to myself on these discs. If Bradford & Bingley had anything truly supportive of their Action against me, I am sure, it would have been well disclosed by now.
Family rallied round to provide me with funds for litigation. Being unaware at that time of Neil Wright & Co’s duplicity in this affair, we instructed them to act as our solicitors as we considered they were somewhat familiar with the issues involved. The Barrister instructed on our behalf was a Mr. Nicholas Jackson. I was about to discover for myself that litigation was a costly business. A few conferences with our Barrister plus solicitor costs amounted to quite a few thousand pounds and covered only one Hearing.
Our Appeal was to be heard at Southport County Court on the 16th June 1997. In the event, there was no Hearing. Her Honour Judge Bernstein, summoned Mr. Jackson into chambers where they had a private Conference. On his return Mr. Jackson said that, Her Honour Judge Bernstein “refused to deal with the matter as she personally knows people who were involved“. As My Appeal was a straight forward matter, in that Judge Humphrey Roberts had erred in Law, I believe that regardless of Her Honour Judge Bernstein’s personal knowledge, she should have allowed my Appeal. What had been determined in Chambers was that my Case be transferred to Liverpool Crown Court. Judge Bernstein had made an Order that we compile and lodge a paginated bundle within seven days.
We were led to believe by our solicitors, that the pending Hearing was to be a straightforward matter, just my Appeal. We had discussed with Neil Wright the urgency for a forensic accountant to officially discredit the Bradford & Bingley evidence. We were informed that there was no necessity yet to deal with putting any case together. We were already in
possession of Mr. Ansell’s Report, which discredited the cheques provided by the Merseyside Building Society. A couple of days prior to the Hearing, Neil Wright’s secretary informed me in passing, that the evidence was to be considered. I queried this with Neil Wright, he assured me, this was not so. However as I was leaving the secretary said to me “ I am sure they are going into the evidence, I don’t think Neil understands”. I knew there was no doubt he understood, so why would he be implying to both myself and his secretary otherwise? I was concerned. I decided to double check with the Court and was informed by them that the “Hearing had been booked for four hours, so obviously, there was to be an examination of evidence“. I was nervously aware of the possibility that the Court Hearing was not going to be as expected and as a precautionary measure, I compiled, Swore and lodged my own Affidavit ensuring that our handwriting Report would be part of our Defence. Just before we went into Court I was informed that Bradford & Bingley had arranged to have their own Application heard at the same time as my own as this would save me on the costs!
24th September 1997 The Hearing was before His Honour Judge Marshal Evans. Mr. Jackson my Barrister, represented me and Bradford & Bingley’s Barrister was a Mr. Timothy Grace. I had been under the impression that as we were now being dealt with at the Crown Court
the Hearing would be a public affair, something I desired. It was not, both Barristers, took off their wigs and gowns and informed me that the matter was to be heard in a closed court. From the outset, it did not go well for us. Judge Marshal Evans claimed he had not been provided with my Affidavit or exhibits, my barrister allowed him the use of ours. This meant that there had been no prior considerations of my new allegations. My Appeal was allowed. The Judge then went on to deal with Bradford & Bingley’s case, he referred to many of the issues as he discounted them one by one, he never questioned Bradford & Bingley regarding any evidence including the Michael Ansell Report.
The Judge determined that it appeared something had gone on with Bartley Cocks & Bird and the Merseyside Building Society which appeared to cause the repayments on the mortgage account to cease 1982! He commented that “Mr. Capper may or may not have made payments on the mortgage but that’s as maybe”. Bradford & Bingley won the Possession with their Amended Pleadings now re-worded as “Strike Out the Defence as frivolous and vexatious and an Abuse of the Court”. The Judge ruled that, “signature is receipt“… “She had the benefit of the mortgage“. I hope the reader is as surprised as I was on that day, when the Judge determined that, Bradford & Bingley could have their Possession based on the £7,500 mortgage alone, as this sum
represented the majority. In his summing up, he quoted from and relied upon statements from the alleged 1981 Affidavit, ignoring the fact that I had Sworn in my new Affidavit that it was not my signature, he also stated that my then solicitor Mr. Malpas had also acknowledged we had the benefit of the mortgage, (Mr. Malpas’ signature is in the same hand as my Affidavit). The Judge refused me right of Appeal against his Judgement. The Possession Order was upheld.
If the Bradford & Bingley had been forced to change their strategy to avoid examination of their evidence, which apparently they had. Then this indicates that from the first instance we had provided to them the solution i.e. re-instatement of the first mortgage in the sum of £7,500, which at the time we offered this to Mr. Llandsbury Laurie in 1980, we were under the impression we had had the benefit of it. (although given the evidence now in my possession, rules this out ).
If it had taken Bradford & Bingley up until 1997 to arrive back at square one, I do not think we should we have been penalized for their lack of perspective? Moreover, as far as I am concerned, the contents of the 1980/82 Affidavits, regardless of the fraudulent signatures, are now irrelevant in any event. We no longer believe anything that we were led to believe from that period of deception. We were lied to regarding all of the issues. The information we have gleaned over the years, has dramatically altered our perception of our then beliefs.
With a Judgement as above Bradford & Bingley may as well have been given a licence for corruption. Does such a Judgement imply that they had been wrong in refusing our two substantial offers of settlement? Does such a Judgement imply that they owed us a vast amount of compensation for all our wasted time and money being dragged through the courts, when in the end they had to resort to an acknowledgement that “well it appears that something occurred regarding the expected advance of £4,500”? Bradford & Bingley were allowed to maintain their Possession based on the £7,500 mortgage as they said “it is Possession only, and not a Money Judgment”. The Bradford & Bingley have always shied away from a Money Order; a Money Order would involve scrutiny of their fraudulent accounts. We did not realise this fact at the time.
It was in light of the above Court Judgement that I now decided to track down Mr. Llandsbury Laurie myself. I also wrote once again to Mr. Michael Ansell requesting that he analyse the signatures on the Legal Charge documents. The Bradford & Bingley were talking of quite a few documents that had allegedly been signed by myself in the presence of Mr.Capper.
After speaking with Mr Llandsbury Laurie I wrote to Neil Wright & Co. providing him with all the information I had obtained. I asked of him, would such information, perhaps allow me the right of Appeal? The Barrister concluded that it would not.
I was to discover a number of questionable and disquieting matters in relation to the above Court Hearing. The Hearing itself was unusual in that both matters were dealt with together. When this was queried at Court some time later, Bradford & Bingley described it themselves as a Hybrid Case! Whether by oversight or audacity, when I retrieved my file from Neil Wright & Co. included in the bundle were related office notes. e.g. Dave Rose aptly writes 6/97 “I don’t think she has a cat in hells chance”.
Referring to Mr. Nicholas Jackson (my Barrister ) the secretary writes “He said that the Counsel for the other side is actually his flat mate so he will be able to discuss the case with him”
Another entry reads “Counsel has said that it was important that he have the opportunity to edit any statement made by her (me) as he is eager to blot out the references that she constantly makes to the situation of fees of Weightmans and the related problems”. at this point in time, I had only ever questioned the fees; the monies that had been recorded onto our mortgage account that I had known nothing about, I had never associated these payments with Weightmans.
Following my letter to Neil Wright & Co. regarding my conversation with Llandsbury Laurie, Neil Wright’s secretary sent a copy via fax to Mr. Jackson, she writes on her covering letter to the Barrister undated“…I know you will just love this!” After which in relation to my request for an Appeal, Neil Wright & Co. fax Mr. Jackson thus, "Please could you do a short advice on Appeal to cover us” (their emphasis).
Other enlightening material, within the documents collected from Neil Wright & Co. includes the exchange correspondence between themselves and Bradford & Bingley solicitors, related to the earlier conspiracy to backdate Alan’s Consent form in 1994/5 written material, making references to conversations between themselves and Weightmans including Mr. James Holman and the exchange correspondence relating to Southport County Court and the shredding of the file. And for this little escapade, we paid thousands of pounds.
Initially, under the impression that I was not eligible to take my case to the Court of Appeal I had made the initial moves to put my case to the European Court of Human Rights. My Eviction date had been set for 27th November 1997, this was set aside at Chester County Court, to allow
time to either sell or re-finance the property and pending the review of the European Commission. It was suspended until the 29th January 1998. I instructed Mr. Ansell again, this time to analyse the signatures on the Legal Charge documents. Bradford and Bingley did not respond to Mr. Ansell’s letters and I wrote to their Chief Executive in December, requesting that all of “the alleged Legal Charge documents and the related applications allegedly provided by the Merseyside Building Society be sent to Mr. Ansell… I required Mr. Ansell’s Report for the European Commission“.
Keith Parks Solicitors
I had also instructed local solicitors Keith Parks, Ormskirk in December to arrange to put my house on the market and to organize the taxing of Bradford & Bingley’s Court Costs 22/12/97.At Keith Parks Solicitors I was dealt with by a Mr. Tony Lea. I received a letter with accompanying forms from them regarding valuation arrangements for the sale of the property in late December 1997.
By early January 1998 I had informed Tony Lea that we were going to Appeal at Court of Appeal, I was later requested by him to bring in all my paperwork on Friday the 9th January to the office. On attending, Mr. Lea informed me that their firm had a top solicitor by the name of, Mr. Colin Sinclair. Mr. Sinclair he said, “dealt with all of their Court of Appeal cases and he had expressed great interest in my case and wished to discuss it with me“. I agreed and was ushered into Mr. Sinclair’s room, where he discussed the case with me in some detail and concluded that there was no reason for me to sell the property and regardless of the fact that the I intended the European Commission to review my case, he considered that I had a good enough case for Court of Appeal. He informed me that he would have no trouble in obtaining Legal Aid on my behalf and he was so confident I would win, that until my Legal Aid was granted, he would do all the preparatory work for me on a no win no fee basis. There was a deadline however because the Application would have be lodged before the Eviction date of 29th January. One can imagine how I felt with this unexpected good fortune, following my disastrous previous few years. It was heaven! And with such guile, Colin Sinclair managed to woo me into a false sense of security.
Colin Sinclair took charge of all my documentation and allegedly, began work straight away on the Court of Appeal file; the weight of the world was finally off my shoulders! My Application to the Court of Appeal was
a request to Appeal out of time. Colin Sinclair assured me everything was in hand and I would be able to pick up the prepared documentation on the 21st January in time to lodge it at the Appeal at Court of Appeal by Thursday the 22nd January. We had booked our travel to London. On the 21st Colin Sinclair telephoned to say “cancel your travel arrangements as the documentation is still not in order”. I telephoned Mr. Sinclair on the evening of the 23rd “…he said “no panic, I am due to go to London myself on Wednesday the 28th and I will lodge it myself” I queried the time element and he said it would be O.K. Besides he said “ I am expecting the Legal Aid Board to give their decision on Monday the 26th and that will allow me to instruct a Barrister in London whilst I am there”. On the 27th I was unable to contact Mr. Sinclair. Keith Parks office told me that he was at Court and would not be in the office until morning, I queried the London trip and I was informed “no that has been cancelled”. We decided to collect the documentation the next morning and take it Court of Appeal ourselves.
On the morning of the 28th, whilst my nephew went to Chester Court to make an Application to Set Aside the Eviction Order (It could not be heard until the 29th when it was Set Aside ) my brother and myself went to Keith Parks at 8.45 am, to collect our documents. No one knew the schedule of Mr. Sinclair. We were told to come back at 10.30am when we were informed that he had gone to London as he had a number of appointments there and they presumed that included the lodging of our Application. I telephoned the Court of Appeal Office throughout the day our Application did not get lodged. If Colin Sinclair’s appointment had been with a Barrister on that day as he had suggested to me earlier, it was certainly not on my behalf!
I then applied to Court of Appeal for the required documentation in order submit my own Appeal and started work on it immediately. It was in the post by the 5th February (out of time thanks to Keith Parks). I had heard nothing else from Colin Sinclair, he had vanished. I contacted Keith Parks and spoke with Mr. Bonner a partner in the firm, requesting an explanatory letter from them to provide to the Court of Appeal. It was refused Mr. Bonner said “if you had such a letter you could hold this firm responsible“. Mr. Bonner then informed me that Mr. Sinclair had been dismissed. Initially when I went to Keith Parks to collect my documents, it was to be informed they were missing. Later I received a telephone call, telling me to call at the office as my documents had been found! Along with a secretary, I went into the same room as Mr. Sinclair had first conducted his interview with me, excepting for part of my paperwork, the room was empty of any documentation, cupboards, desk, shelving all totally empty. The only paperwork in that room was my file (minus an extra box which was never returned) and the Application I had signed for Legal Aid. The file was lying in the bottom of an otherwise
empty cupboard, the signed Application for Legal Aid with the file as I had last seen it; it had not been applied for! Mr. Sinclair had done some work on the file; this was used by me as supportive evidence to provide reason for my now being out of time with my Application to the Court of Appeal. As far as Mr. Sinclair was aware at that point in time, his actions had effectively sabotaged our only chance.
I faxed a letter to Bradford & Bingley’s Solicitors on the morning of the 16th February following confirmation from the Court of Appeal that my Application had been accepted and provided to them the reference number. Coincidently! Within hours I received a telephone call from Mr. Sinclair. He had many excuses for what had occurred, all feasible. He had been called to London. He had instructed Mr. Bonner to re-delegate his work and he had found it when he was clearing out his office, no one had appeared to have worked on it…He was so sorry” etc, etc. He asked about where we were up to regarding our case and I gave him whatever information. I was unaware of his whereabouts and did not expect to hear from him again.
By the 16th March, the Court of Appeal Bundles were lodged, Bradford & Bingley were telephoned the information. The following morning, Mr. Sinclair telephoned again out of the blue, to see how we were doing with the Court of Appeal did I need any help! With his guile and my susceptibility, I was happy to take him back on board. He now informed me that he was operating as an Independent Consultant, in a Blackpool based firm of solicitors. Again there were assurances, he said he would apply for Legal Aid on my behalf, blaming staff at Keith Parks for what had happened over the previous Application , he requested a full copy of the Court of Appeal bundles so he could prepare the case for me.
Throughout the coming weeks Colin Sinclair requested copies of various letters and documents and the Court of Appeal file to do a full copy, these we took to the solicitors where he was employed in Blackpool. On the 19th March a further Eviction Notice was served on me with Eviction to take place 22nd April. On the 25th March, Colin Sinclair informed me that the Court of Appeal was set for mid July and all the papers were in order. They were not. I have written in my diary 31st March 1998 “ letter from Mr. Sinclair with copy letter sent to Court of Appeal confirming no Action will take place until mid July. If Warrant of execution put forward it will be set aside“. I can find no trace of these two letters!
On the 1st April, I note in my diary “Colin Sinclair telephoned tonight at 9 30 pm he has just returned from Leeds“. Insignificant at the time; more
significant in retrospect, considering the location of Bradford & Bingley Head Office. Also considering in retrospect, the dubious and deliberate position Colin Sinclair manipulated for himself in the Bradford & Bingley Possession Proceedings against me. It was amazingly to transpire, that throughout the time Colin Sinclair involved himself in my case, he was under strict instructions from the Law Society that he was suspended from having any interaction with clients (his employers fully aware of the situation) pending the ultimate Strike Out of his name from the Roll of Solicitors Register. In which case his alleged office at Keith Parks was a pretence. At his Tribunal Hearing it is alleged that in compliance with that Restriction, he had never dealt with clients whilst employed. His only work was on a self employed basis whic entailed only limited paperwork such as costs drafting. He worked on his own, in an attic room and at no time did he interact with clients!
According also to hisTribunal Hearing, the same applied whilst he worked at Lindsay Roland Solicitors following his dismissal from Keith Parks. And yet it was the Pleadings he prepared for us, which when presented to Judge Turner at court in July 1998, under the umbrella of Lindsay Roland, prompted the Judge to ask where he was. Our solicitor informed the Judge (although surprise, surprise, they had not informed us) that he has been “Struck Off as a Solicitor, it was a financial issue and nothing to do with Mrs. Dickson’s case” (this was taken by me at face value at the time, I was overly concerned with keeping the roof over my head) . The Judge commented to me, “Mrs. Dickson, you are very unlucky in your choice of solicitors aren’t you“.
It was not until later, that I obtained a copy of Colin Sinclair’s Tribunal Hearing from the Law Society. As with Mr. Capper’s it was untruthful. The accounts given by the solicitors who employed him and who knew matters to be different are deliberately false. The big question this raises, is why would Keith Parks Solicitors pass off to me a Suspended Solicitor, about to be Struck off the Roll of Solicitors as their “Top Court of Appeal Solicitor“! He was instructing me, Why would he do this? Why would he want and request many papers from me when he knew he was unable to legitimitely act for me? Who was instructing him?
On the 27th April I was acting in person at the Court of Appeal Hearing, accompanied by Colin Sinclair in an advisory capacity! Before we went into Court a member of the Bradford & Bingley team pushed a document into my hand requesting that I read it. I remain unaware as to the significance of this document, being honest, now I do not know what it was, other than a photo copy of some text. I presume it was some precedent they wished to rely on, it was lost on me. The support team for The Bradford & Bingley was headed by a top London Barrister, Mr. Marc Beaumont (no more Mr. Timothy Grace!). Marc Beaumont’s support team, consisted of at least 15 people, carrying many files and
folders, all of which, in the event, were surplus to requirement.
His Honour Judge Auld and his Honour Judge Buxton were the residing Judges. Our Appeal consisted of an Application to Adduce Further Evidence and an Appeal against the Decision of His Honour Judge Marshal Evans, on the grounds that he failed to examine the evidence. We once again requested a trial, which would allow full examination of the evidence. Our own further evidence amongst other things consisted of the aforementioned Forensic handwriting Report, the information I had obtained from Mr. Llandsbury Laurie, The transcript of the telephone conversation between Bradford & Bingley’s accounts dept. Stating categorically, that my name had never been entered into either the Bradford & Bingley or the Merseyside Building Society records as a mortgagee until late 1985, and a copy of Mr. Cappers accounts with an analysis revealing their fraudulent nature.
We lost our Appeal on all counts. We were not allowed to Appeal out of time and we were not allowed to adduce our further evidence. The Judges looked at the evidence but failed to give it any credibility. Bradford & Bingley were not posed any questions relating to our evidence. When asked why this case had “limped along for twelve years”? Marc Beaumont said, he did not know, as he had only “just taken conduct of the matter“. It was his stock answer to all of the inconsequential questions posed to him, his repeated non committal answer sufficed as a response in any event. Marc Beaumont shone
however, where he chose to concentrate his argument, which centred on counteracting the credibility of Michael Ansell’s Forensic Report. For this purpose, he used a 39 page dossier related to Mr. Michael Ansell and previous cases to great effect and for a considerable length of time.
For the record, I personally know that Mr. Michael Ansell’s analysis on my documents are correct. His credentials, are in my opinion exemplary, and read as follows;
I hold the degrees of BA and MA at the University of Oxford and joined the Drugs and Toxicology Section of the Metropolitan Police Forensic
Laboratory 1967. In 1969 I moved to the Document Section of that Laboratory where I became Principal Scientific Officer and worked until 1983 when I entered private practice.
During my twenty eight years experience in document examination I have examined tens of thousands of documents on behalf of Police, Government Departments, Banks, Building Societies, Insurance and other Companies as well as for private individuals, in this country and abroad and have given evidence in Reports, Statements, Affidavits and in person in Court on hundreds of occasions.
Following the Hearing, in conversation with Colin Sinclair over a cup of coffee, I expressed my regrets, for the fact that due to his assisting us on a no win no fee basis, he was out of pocket. He said in response “don’t worry about me I have been well paid by Weightmans”. I could only foolishly exclaim in stunned amazement “what for” to which he replied “for sabotaging your papers”. He then laughed, turning his comments into an intended joke! Not then aware of his true status, I let it go.
Why should Bradford & Bingley have deemed it necessary to commission a top London Barrister with a team of approx. fifteen people, to go against someone acting only in person and whose Appeal was requesting no more than a fair trial in order to test the Society’s dubious evidence by way of examination?
On the 29th May I telephoned Colin Sinclair at Lindsay Rolands, solicitors, his secretary (as I understood her to be) Sheila, informed me, that he was not available because Mr. Dave Rose has telephoned him and he had to leave the office as something had needed sorting out; I had been unaware that Dave Rose and Colin Sinclair were acquainted. At the time I was constantly warding off Eviction Notices to enable time for selling the property and Colin Sinclair was constantly telling me that he was sorting matters out. When he was challenged about the Dave Rose incident, his excuse was simply, his secretary had made a mistake regarding the name!
On the 8th of June 1998 at 7pm, the night before my Eviction, Mr. Sinclair faxed me a letter, amongst other things, he writesas follows;
"There is no need for you to attend Court. In fact I think you are better off remaining in your home… What I suggest is that you simply hand the keys over to the Bailiff and leave all your belongings in the property… “
To the best of my recollection this was the last I heard from him.
Before the eviction order had been made, we had for a short while, engaged in negotiations with Bradford & Bingley regarding taking over re-payments with a set amount to come off the so called arrears; this is not to say I was going to stop with my legal action, only that I considered it was imperative that I secured the property whilst I continued my fight for justice. We dealt with Sarah Baldwin from Bradford & Bingley’s special accounts Dept. Negotiations, came to a full stop when, out of the blue, I was requested to pay an up front sum of £10,000 which I did not have and could not raise.
At the time, we had been introduced to a Mr. Gregory Garret who arranged mortgages. Gregory Garret came to see us at our home, he informed us that he had been a full time employee of Bradford & Bingley at their Bootle Office and although he was no longer based there, he still arranged mortgages for them. He said that “his boss” owned the racing stables which were to the side of our property claiming he had been unaware as to where we lived prior to his visit, so he said and it was “a strange coincidence” !
It was financially viable for me to remain in the property, as I had run it successfully for a number of years as a guest house. The loss of my home meant also the loss of my business.
Following our failure at Court of Appeal, we had no choice but to concentrate on trying to get the best from the property and began a series of court appearances to try and stay the warrant of Eviction so as to sell our property at the best price on the open market. My final Eviction date, was set for the 9th June. On the 8th June we attended at
Chester County Court with our Application to stay the warrant. We had sought advice and provided appropriate supportive Precedents to the Court which in essence would allow the dweller the right to sell their own property on the open market and so obtain the best deal. There was sufficient equity in the property to satisfy the Society and there appeared to be no reason why this would not be allowed. The Judge considered our Precedents and confirmed the situation with our Estate Agents. He found in our favour. However, he then said, that he had had word from the Plaintiff that “…should he find in our favour would he Adjourn until the following day as the Plaintiff had not received the Defence in time” ! The Hearing was set for 10.am the following day, which was Eviction Day. I was to be Evicted at 12 noon. Bradford & Bingley designed their Precedents overnight to counteract our own which had won for us the previous day. Smart strategy; our Application was overturned.
We made a further Application, to go before the Circuit Judge, there and then whilst still at the Court, we then put our case before His Honour Judge G.O. Edwards Q.C. We presented to the Judge, before and after photographs of the property . I wish to emphasise here that the appreciation in value of the property had little to do with the rise in market prices. The photographs show clearly that the property we had bought in 1978, is incomparable with the property that was taken from us. It had been our own dedication, hard work and hard earned money over many years that created the appreciation in value. His Honour Judge G.O. Edwards Q. C. found in favour of the Bradford & Bingley. It was over for me. His Honour, still found it necessary to say to me (as quoted page1) “Mrs. Dickson if we allowed the like of people like you to win against the financial institutions, the whole fabric of society would collapse“!!
So that was it, Alan had hit the nail on the head way back in 1982 and His Honour Judge Edwards had just confirmed it, they were not going to allow us to win, regardless of our evidence. As I made to leave the Courtroom, everything over. The Judge called me back and casually gave me a couple of pieces of paper, which he said had been faxed to the Court, to be given to me. I was unable to look at these (such a state I was in) until I was almost home, the pieces of paper given me turned out to be notes of advice that had been faxed for my attention to the Court at 9. 22 am. The Judge did not give them to me until almost 12 o’clock, they contained legal advice and precedents, for me to use in support of my case. Whether good, bad or indifferent, surely, I was legally entitled to have been given the benefit of that advice. It should not have been deliberately withheld, or used as a means of adding insult to injury (especially by a Judge) . Regarding the Judge’s concept of the fabric of society, where in this, does honour, truth and even basic human decency lay, never mind justice; are they values just to be instilled in, and applicable to, the working classes? In my experience, these concepts, which we have been taught to consider as qualities, appear to be sadly lacking in the corridors of power.
In my opinion, there was no justification for what happened on that day, all His Honour Judge Edwards had the power to make me lose, was the right to sell my property for the best price possible. I had already lost everything else! There was sufficient equity in the property to pay the alleged debt and I could not have run off with the house. It had taken Bradford & Bingley almost fourteen years to arrive with my property finally in their back pocket. Why one wonders, would a few weeks make such a big difference to them? What did the Judge mean to imply, when he used the words “the likes of people like you”. There is nothing about me that warrants such a comment. I am not a criminal, I am not guilty of any dastardly deed, I am just an ordinary person, who has been
forced to defend the integrity of both my own and my husband’s character against false accusations and a flagrant abuse of power.
I was going back to my home for the last time from Chester, a truly soul destroying journey, to be greeted with the bailiffs changing the locks on my door and my family loading my personal property into a vans and cars.Bradford & Bingley had instructed our Estate Agents to remove their For Sale sign from the garden and their agent at court had telephoned the bailiffs to instruct that they go ahead and change the locks.
There was furniture all over my garden, my clothes were being randomly bundled together by family. Hands on, we had created this most desirable property from a derelict building. Originally it’s flooring had been flags laid on top of soil, wattle and daub on the walls, (something we had only heard of ) which had to be hacked off whilst rain poured through the open roof, there was no drainage system, waste from one toilet and one sink with a cold tap which soaked off across the garden. Now, through no fault of our own, our lifetime achievement had been illegally Repossessed by the Bradford & Bingley. From lack of breath I was unable even to speak, my distress was so overpowering. I was so badly traumatised by that experience, that still to date, I suffer recurring dreams of moving house and furniture. I suppose I had not fully taken on board, that I could totally lose. I had continued to believe that given the evidence I continued to put forward, eventually Justice would prevail.
Some time prior to the Court of Appeal Hearing, my brother Robert Clegg (Bob) had realised that the computer printout, put forward as a piece of Bradford & Bingley supportive evidence and allegedly provided to them by the Merseyside Building Society, was riddled with discrepancies, indicating it was a fraudulent document. On examination it was revealed that the document could only have been compiled retrospectively by the Bradford & Bingley. I believe this was the first time that we became suspicious of the Bradford & Bingley conducting their own fraud. Prior to this, our concentration had been focused on what we had falsely believed was their inherited flawed material. We had failed to realise they had been fabricating their own fraudulent evidence. This is not to say we believed them innocent in their misrepresentation of their flawed evidence to the Courts, we had become aware that they were aware.
On a part time basis, Bob’s work entailed bookkeeping for small business, he is fully conversant with figures. Once he began to examine the figures relating to the Bradford & Bingley accounts used as evidence in the Possession Proceedings, the implications became obvious. His findings disclose a retrospective account purporting to be inherited when in fact it has been created by Bradford & Bingley. There are three end of
year mortgage statements. The interest figure applied on 1st August 1982 and each consecutive year could not have been generated by a computer using Merseyside Building Society interest rates that were applicable at the relevant times. Examination of all the figures seemed to indicate that Merseyside Building Society ceased recording this account in 1982 from this date on, up until 31st March 1985 has been retrospectively constructed in December 1985. This being, some eight months after the Transfer of Engagements, in order to establish an ongoing account to be misrepresented through the Courts. It was not until 01/2000,as part of a supplemental list of documents that we were to discover that the source documents for the retrospective accounts had been hand drafted. We assumed they were enclosed in error or perhaps because Bradford & Bingley, considered they did not have to keep them secret any longer as their concealment had served the purpose etc.
Following the loss of our Appeal, my brother Bob prepared an Application against the Bradford & Bingley for "Fraudulent Misrepresentation of their Account" the Particulars of Claim drawn up by Colin Sinclair. fraudulent This Application was submitted to Preston County Court on the 2nd June 1998 (not yet evicted) I had Amended these Pleadings prior to Court Action as some details I had noticed were incorrect. In retrospect, how genuine this document was in support of our Application can only be speculation, given the revelations that have transpired relating to Colin Sinclair, most of it however was Bob’s work and on the face of it, it appears supportive of our claim. One of the Amendments made by myself was that the Court put in place an Injunction against the sale of the property pending a satisfactory explanation of Bradford & Bingley’s account, a reasonable request one would imagine; not so, in my case.
Our Action against Bradford & Bingley was due to be heard on the 20th July 1998 at Preston County Court. Due to the upheaval of eviction we had not as yet instructed solicitors and I requested from Bradford & Bingley that they Consent to an Adjournment on these grounds, they refused. We then instructed Solicitors Palmer Hodgson & Hayes, in Thornton, Cleveleys, Lancashire, a firm of Solicitors situated in in a little village outside of Blackpool and not far from Preston County Court. We felt, there was the added benefit in that they were situated out of town. The Action now against the Bradford & Bingley would for the first time, call on them to explain their figures; ( it seemed to us the only way). No one who acted on our behalf seemed about to seek an analysis of the Bradford & Bingley account.
To enable the funding of the litigation, family once again, had to come to my assistance. There were also some nice little antique pieces of my
furniture left begging for a home, which also raised some money. District Judge Turner was the residing Judge at the Preliminary Hearing on the 20th July. Bradford & Bingley’s Application against me was again requesting my case to be Struck Out. This was refused and the case was Adjourned for a Directions Hearing until the 7th August 1998. Judge Turner said this would allow me time to obtain Counsel Advice, he also made an Order that the case go back to be heard by himself. It was at this Hearing also that Judge Turner made reference to Colin Sinclair and I first made the discovery that he had been Struck Off the Roll of Solicitors.
On the 3rd of August through our solicitors, Palmer Hodgson & Hayes, Bradford & Bingley had requested Consent to an Adjournment “whilst they studied the figures”. A breakthrough! At least that was what we thought, and on the advice of our solicitors, of course, we happily Consented.
How foolish of me, what a slow learner! The figures were never mentioned again, the request for Consent to Adjournment proved to be another piece of Bradford & Bingley trickery; the real reason for the request was much more true to form. In less than four weeks they had sold my property. According to Bradford & Bingley the date of sale was the 9th of October 1998. Palmer Hodgson & Hayes received a Recorded Delivery letter from Bradford & Bingley also dated the 9/10/98 which states “The Society, as you are no doubt aware, has exercised its Power of Sale…”(my emphasis) indicating that my solicitors had been aware of the sale prior to its taking place. I find this discomforting, as it had been my solicitors who had suggested I Consent to the Adjournment, under the guise of “The Society” “are going to study the figures”. My solicitors, knowing the thrust of my Action should have ensured that my Amended Application requesting an Injunction against the sale of the property, pending the proving of the figures, was secure prior to them ill advising me. Further, no one ever queried the pretension of “study the figures” trickery.
It was not immediately apparent to me that Bradford & Bingley had requested Consent to an Adjournment simply to pre-empt the Injunction by selling the property. As we had already had a Court Hearing, I was under the illusion that the property was safe already under the Court jurisdiction. Unfortunately, such ignorance is not applicable to our instructed solicitors.
The Sale of the Property
As will be seen, the sale of the property warrants an investigation in
itself. The sale of the property is as follows; General Accident, Skelmersdale, Lancashire, were the Estate Agents conducting the sale on behalf of Bradford & Bingley, they removed "For Sale" signs already in place by Collerons Estate Agents on my behalf and did not erect any in their place. The windows were boarded up to restrict viewing. General Accident were a subsidiary Company of the Bradford & Bingley. Bradford & Bingley allegedly obtained 3 “independent valuations” all of which were provided to them from their own subsidiary companies,
The value estimates of the property which were provided, are as follows;
1. The Black Horse, Coronation Road, Crosby, Liverpool. £120,000
2. Reeds Reins, Houghton Street, Southport, £120.000.
3. Jones Chapman, Liverpool Road , Crosby, Liverpool £115.000
Notably, the local Estate Agents Collertons, a few weeks earlier had valued the property between £210,000 to £220,000!
All potential buyers were actively deterred from buying the property by General Accident. I am in possession of supportive letters from three such buyers. They were told that Bradford & Bingley would only accept a cash sale. That all potential buyers, had to provide a letter from their bank manager to prove that cash funds were available and the sale had to be immediate. They were advised, that someone had already put in a bid. They were informed that any attempt to outbid would be fruitless, as the person was a financier who would outbid them regardless of their offer. They were informed that there was a problem with the land. The house and the land may have to be sold separate and the indecision meant an assessment of price could not be made. The land in question was approx. 1 acre which had been sown with meadow flowers and grasses, I fail to see what problem there could have been. One of the prospective buyers was a Mr Carder, who did in fact bid and provide a letter from his Bank Manager.
Mr. Carder, dealt in property on a regular basis and he had bought many properties through General Accident. He said he was perplexed at the difference in this particular sale and any other he had ever been involved in. On 13th August Mr. Carder placed his final bid of £165,000 he was telephoned by General Accident to be told that someone had outbid him. Mr. Carder asked as to “what amount they thought would secure a purchase” and was informed “no matter what you offer you will be wasting your time”. Mr. Carder was surprised when he discovered that the property was then sold for only £1,000 more without any further contact.
The sale to Mr. Richard Chambers, took place about a week or so before we were officially informed. However unofficially, we were informed immediately through the aforementioned Mr. Gregory Garret, who spoke with my niece and her husband, stating that “my boss” has now bought your aunties house”. Mr. Garret, you will recall had some time earlier
been a visitor at my home regarding the arrangement of a re-mortgage on the property. By his own account Mr. Garret arranged mortgages with the Bradford & Bingley and had been a full time employee at their Bootle Branch. At that time he had also referred to “his boss” as the owner of the Breeding Stables situated at the rear of my property. In view of what occurred in relation to the sale and his prior knowledge of the sale, I consider it more than coincidence that following his involvement with us and his taking stock of the property, Bradford & Bingley curtailed their negotiations with us regarding their offer of a re-mortgage, by requesting the £10,000 up front payment.
Mr. Garret, according to his business card at the time of the sale, was the Senior Financial Planning Consultant at James Brearley & Son, an establishment, coincidently situated in Houghton Street, Southport, as is the above referred to subsidiary company of Bradford & Bingley, Estate Agent, Reed & Reins, who valued the property. Mr. Richard Chambers, the person who bought the property did not pay cash as other potential buyers had been informed was a stipulation of the sale as “the Bradford & Bingley wanted a quick cash sale“. The Land Registry Public Records, disclose the fact, that Mr. Chambers obtained a Bradford & Bingley Mortgage. I do not know in what capacity Mr. Chambers was or is Mr. Gregory Garret’s “boss” but the evidence indicates a close connection. In fact, everything about the sale appears to have been illegally manipulated by Bradford & Bingley and their employees, the implications of the sale of my home are, that it is undoubtedly, an in-house sale.
With Court costs, fines and arrears, it was finally estimated that following the sale, I owed Bradford & Bingley approx. £154,000.; a lot to pay for a £4,500 dispute, just because no one wants to tell the truth . The surplus however of approx £16,000 with interest and owed by me as a Legal Charge against the property to a Mr. Carder, can be added to this little pot, as Bradford & Bingley decided to retain it for their own usage. It has been used to continue covering their Court Action costs related to their fraudulent accounting with no expense spared. Bradford & Bingley have used only top London Barristers travelling across the country etc. I was informed that Bradford & Bingley held the remaining monies of mine in a “special account” controlled by one man, it was alleged by them that the money was being held to redeem another Legal Charge against the property which they had been informed by myself was not applicable. Nevertheless, they continued to withold the money claiming that they were trying to trace the person in order to verify my account of the situation. Bradford & Bingley were unable to trace this person.
The surplus should have been paid off the other Legal Charge in favour of Mr. Carder. Only this year after seeking legal assistance did Mr. Carder receive about £8,000, the remainder of the surplus according to the Bradford and Bingley, the court allowed them to use for their ongoing court costs. Mr. Carder has been informed by his legal representative that his best option is to claim his money back off myself. I can hardly credit that the court would allow someone to use another persons money for their court costs.
Court Action November 1998
By the time we returned to Court on the 3rd November 1998, my brother Bob had conducted further work on the Bradford & Bingley accounts. The discrepancies revealed conclusively that the account was not as it should be. Bradford & Bingley’s misrepresentation and concealment was all that was preventing the truth being revealed. Bob compiled an analysis of the account, which was included as part of our evidence. Our acting solicitors were requested to obtain a supportive forensic analysis, they advised against it until, as they said, ”Bradford & Bingley’s Strike Out case against me was determined” We were also pushing for Discovery of the alleged original documentation held by Weightmans, which none of our solicitors wished to pursue. It is alleged that Weightmans had refused Discovery to Palmer Hodgson & Hayes, claiming also “it was not appropriate until the Strike Out case was determined“. Surely, it should have been ourselves in possession of some expert supportive evidence, in order to prevent a Strike Out.
The cost of funding, our new action during this period was substantial. Our first Barrister Mr. Andrew Grantham had provided a negative Opinion which deprived me of Legal Aid. Mr. Grantham did not wish to be involved with our case in any event, and said so. Our solicitors then instructed on our behalf another Barrister ( Mr. Tim Smith) Mr. Smith was unenthusiastic at best. Whilst we were with Palmer Hodgson & Hayes neither they or their appointed Barrister did anything of consequence to further our case. Meetings were cancelled with Counsel time and again, pre-trial meetings with our solicitors were also cancelled. Mr. Smith claimed not to understand the figures or what we were talking about!
I believe it raises serious questions, as to why none of the many solicitors instructed by us have attempted to discredit any of the evidence put forward by the Bradford & Bingley, their actions as a whole have been inexplicable. I believe, it would have been a simple matter to have officially discredited all of the material put forward from the old Court Actions, they are indisputably fraudulent. For some time, there has been questions raised regarding the Bradford & Bingley accounts and our
acting Solicitors have always had control of the situation. However, raising the questions is all they ever do, they have never taken anything further. If “we” as laymen, can show that Bradford & Bingley figures have been manufactured in order to deceive , surely after this length of time, our acting Solicitors should have obtained a forensic analysis, which would have officially discounted the fraudulent evidence used to claim that Bradford & Bingley took over a mortgage in my name from the Merseyside Building Society. The evidence screams it from the paper. One has to say, what is going on here? Solicitors are not stupid people.
A most understanding solicitor,(who never acted for me but explained his reasons why ) informed me, that I would find it almost impossible to get solicitors to act in my best interest because my case was going up against Weightmans, and “Weightmans were the solicitor's knight in shining armour, it was only Weightmans they could to turn to whenever they got into trouble”. Also “my case was against the Bradford & Bingley whom solicitors relied on for a large part of their income”. Fighting for Justice it seems, is way down the list of their priorities. One wonders, where are the people's knights in shining armour?
At the Court Hearing on 3rd November 1998 Bradford & Bingley chose again to engage their full team for their Defence. This included their top London Barrister Marc Beaumont, who was now commuting across the country. This display of power, I suspect, at least serves the purpose of intimidation. The Judge residing was District Judge Turner; he certainly was not intimidated. In our evidence we had managed to raise many queries regarding the Bradford & Bingley accounts. In Marc Beaumont’s opening speech (referring to their Bradford & Bingley trickery over the sale of the property) he was malicious enough, to refer to my request for an Injunction against the sale, he stated as follows; “as for an Injunction against the sale of the property your Honour. Well, this is just a nonsense, the property has already been sold.” It is worth noting here, that once again my Affidavits had gone astray from Preston County Court. Bradford & Bingley obliged, by passing over a copy of their own; but of course this was minus the exhibits of additional evidence and truthfully who know what that document contained. Marc Beaumont embarked on a long drawn out argument as to why my case should be Struck Out.
Judge Turner, pointed out to them that there were serious flaws in their argument, he said he could see what had been going on here, he “had been a conveyance solicitor for many years and was fully aware of what was what“. He questioned the valuations made on the property and the sale price. The Judge told Marc Beaumont, that there was serious
consideration by him to make the matter subject to a Public Inquiry and stated “are you not concerned this could go public“. Marc Beaumont was advised to report back to his clients that the Judge was very concerned about the entire case and did not believe that previous Judges who had ruled, really understood the true implication underlying the case and he did not know how the Crown Judges had determined their decision. The Hearing was cut short because Marc Beaumont claimed, he had his London train to catch! The Hearing was Adjourned until 25th January 1999. The Case, was to go back before District Judge Turner.
January 25th Marc Beaumont again commuted across the country with his full support team. However, on this occasion, Bradford & Bingley presented their case in a different light, their strategy had changed.
It was now argued that “the Possession case had not been exhausted as both Judge Humphrey Roberts and Judge Bernstein (who, as you will recall, I did not even see and was not made aware of what she said excepting she “knew people involved“) had made references to Hearings for damages“. The arguments raised, were long, legal, drawn out and over my head. Judge Turner once again commented to Marc Beaumont “perhaps you should consider the possibility of publicity” We Adjourned until July 14th. My brother Bob, continued to work on our current findings regarding Bradford & Bingley’s fraudulent misrepresentation.
July 14th The Hearing was again before District Judge Turner. Judge Turner raised many questions in relation to the 24th September 1997 case. He questioned the propriety of such a Hearing, Marc Beaumont stated “ I admit it was a bit of a Hybrid in that the Possession Order was an Interlocutory Hearing and the Society’s Hearing was an Appeal Hearing and they were heard simultaneously” He also acknowledged for the first time under pressure from Judge Turner that “ I admit there are indisputable discrepancies within the Society’s accounts“. At this Hearing it was also admitted by Marc Beaumont that ”no account was transferred from the Merseyside Building Society at the time of the Transfer”. Marc Beaumont still sought Strike Out against me, on the grounds that, “although it was admitted there were discrepancies within the Society‘s accounts, these important issues could have and should have been raised earlier”! Which of course they would have been, had there been no concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation and also if we would have had the luxury of any decent kind of legal representation. Surely, Due Diligence and the Out of Time ruling, are rendered irrelevant when counterbalanced by Concealment and Fraudulent Misrepresentation of the facts, these are insurmountable obstacles.
Judge Turner, deferred his Judgement for 6 weeks. The Bradford & Bingley Action was Dismissed except where matters overlapped with the Court of Appeal Ruling. The Defendants were to pay the Costs. I was allowed Leave to Amend my Particulars of Claim. (better late than never, not applicable here, my Injunction against the sale of the property had gone to the wall.) Judge Turner said he was unable to complete his Judgement, but his included Notes determined that neither Re-judicata nor Estoppel could prevent me from seeking monies properly due to me. He stated also that I was entitled to an independent investigation of the accounts and he Ordered that both Parties provide Skeleton Arguments to Chancery Judge Maddox by the 8th December 1999. This Judgement finally allowed me the benefit of Legal Aid.
Regardless of what was to occur later, I have to say that Judge Turner was like a breath of fresh air to me, in the midst of all that corruption. Not because he found in my favour and provided at last, a space for my voice to be heard , but because he truly made an honest assessment of the issues and for the first and only time compelled Bradford & Bingley to own up to some of their fraudulent misrepresentation against me. Judge Turner, was honest enough to state openly to Marc Beaumont that he was not “… fooled for one moment by your presentation of the facts…I can see what has gone on here”. I was, and still remain, exceptionally grateful to him, he renewed my faith in human nature when I was at a very low ebb.
As Judge Maddox was a Chancery Judge, obviously our next Hearing was to centre on the accounts. We requested from Palmer Hodgson & Hayes, that we now at last commission a Forensic Report to be carried out on the Bradford & Bingley figures which would have taken into account, the findings already uncovered by my brother. I was informed that my Legal Aid did not cover this, I was told that my brother had already been informed that in order for them to commission a forensic report, they would require £3,000 up front; I was to discover later that no such information had been given to my brother. ( I complained to the Legal Aid Board regarding the fact that Legal Aid had not afforded me a forensic report and they informed methat " in this case your solicitors can obtain a forensic report, without the Board's prior authority") By this time it was the two Senior Partners, Mr. Hall and Mr. Palmer who were dealing with our case at Palmer Hodgson & Hayes. Bradford & Bingley were to Appeal the Decision of District Judge Turner and the Hearing was set for the 15th December 1999. To my dismay the case was to be transferred back to Liverpool. Our solicitors had still not managed to organise Discovery of the documents at Weightmans!
In November, we had attempted to commission our own Forensic Report at Grant Thorntons, but were informed that they would need to be instructed by our solicitor. Meetings with Counsel were cancelled and meetings with our solicitors were cancelled. As had previously been the
case it became apparent that, Legally Aided or not, our case was not being prepared in the way that we considered it should. We were getting no assistance whatsoever from our acting solicitors. We had within our evidence the aforementioned computer Printout compiled with figures allegedly dated 1st August 1984 to 31st March 1985 (the time of the Transfer) which could be shown as fraudulent. In November, we requested from Bradford & Bingley through our solicitors that they provide us with the two preceding documents i.e. dated 1st August 1983, and 1st August 1982. They could not, as suspected, because no such original documents exist. Doing the best we could in the circumstances I decided to include an additional Affidavit, no longer the trusting person I had once been. The Affidavits were Sworn at a local firm of solicitors, three of which I then lodged with Liverpool Crown Court on the 7th December. The Affidavits with exhibits, were in support of our own analysis of Bradford & Bingley accounts. I was explicit with the clerk at the Court as to who they were for and provided Bradford & Bingley a recorded delivery of their own copy.
I was to receive the Affidavits to the Court back through the post on the 19/12/99( all my work once again for nothing, the deed had been done ) they had been posted from the Liverpool Crown Court to the solicitors where I had Sworn them with a note from the Court stating, that “there was no such case as this registered on their computer“! The solicitors had posted them back to the Court on the 9/12/99, as they obviously knew nothing about me. It escapes me as to why the court still failed to direct them appropriately, as the Court stamp on the solicitors returned letter, with enclosures to the Court is dated the 13th December 1999. Instead they stayed missing within the Court until after the Hearing which took place on the 15th December 1999 the Court subsequently returned them to me, the date of their letter is the 19th December 1999. This was smudged over following my official complaint to the court by way of a written apology. 17/02/00. It is apparent to me that all the mislaying of my Affidavits is beyond coincidence. It effectively suppresses our supportive evidence and prevents the Judge from reading the content of the Affidavit before the Hearing.
15th December 1999
Our case was seriously impaired from the outset, as no one had taken our instruction as requested. Despite requesting a Forensic Report on Bradford & Bingley accounts, for which we were prepared to pay, it had not been acted upon. The same representatives as before attended on behalf of Bradford & Bingley. His Honour Judge Maddox opened by stating to Mr. Smith, our Barrister “I have examined the evidence put before me by the Society but I do not know what your case is about, as I do not have any file relating to your evidence” Mr. Smith replied that he did not really know what the case was about! The Judge was
informed that I had lodged an Affidavit for his use with the Court and he stated he had not seen it. Mr. Smith apologised and told the Judge that unfortunately he did not have one either as he had forgotten to bring his file! The Judge was afforded a copy from my brother, minus any exhibits. The case was Adjourned until January 25th to allow the Judge time to evaluate his “incomplete one sided evidence“!
Court January 25th 1999
Judge Maddox, Struck Out all of my case excepting for an account to be brought up to date by the Bradford & Bingley, resting on their already false account statement. The Judge determined that Bradford & Bingley should take their account from the viewpoint of a legitimate Legal Charge in 1980 for £12,000 up to and including the sale of the property. Independent accountants were to examine the accounts and the Judge set strict Parameters whereby I was not allowed to rely on any of the following:
* The Merseyside Building Society cessation of the account, although it was acknowledged, in that I was not to be charged fines for the said period!
* That the £7,500 Legal Charge, was an illegal transaction!
* That the £12,000 Legal Charge, was in any way untoward!
The Judge allowed the Bradford & Bingley to claim their Costs from the sale of the property, irrespective of any outcome from the proposed examination of the accounts or the fact that The Bradford & Bingley’s Contractual Rights in relation to the property, had ceased following the sale in October 1998.
Judge Maddox, continued to rely on the fraudulent evidence. He stated in relation to my signature on the forged Affidavit. “I do not know how she can disclaim it, after all it is Sworn before a Commissioner of Oaths!!. Who is Mr. Tetlow anyway, does anyone know“? No one did. The Judge then went on to say “It matters not, her solicitor at the time, Mr. Peter Weir Malpas, also says the same as her. They did have the benefit of the money according to the Affidavit produced as evidence. This Affidavit is also alledgedly Sworn before Mr. J. L. Tetlow”. The signature of Peter Weir Malpas on this Affivavit also is not genuine, as I have since pointed out to the Court of Appeal, with evidence of his true signature; of which I have numerous examples in my possession, from correspondence over many years.
I did not know who Mr. Tetlow was at that point in time. I determined to find out and go to see him. I made enquiries with the Law Society Public Records. It transpired that Mr. Tetlow, was a partner at P.J. Hacket & Tetlow of Rumford Place Liverpool. A central part of Liverpool. There had been a name change in the firm, but Mr. Tetlow remained with that firm until his death on the 4th June 1994! Mr. J.L. Tetlow allegedly witnessed the signature of Mr. Essery Ellis (Senior Partner) at Weightmans, my signature, my husband’s signature, and our then solicitor’s signature. These documents all Affidavits are purportedly from the old Court
Actions. I cannot comment on the authenticity of the signature of Mr. Essery Ellis on Weightmans Affidavit. However, if the signature of Mr. Essery Ellis is authentic, then one does not have to be a forensic handwriting expert to see that the Commissioner of Oaths signature on the same document cannot be authentic, as both signatures (even to the lay person) appear to be in the same hand.
All three signatures relating to ourselves are forged. The big issue here, is why have these Affidavits been utilised by Bradford & Bingley only following the death of Mr. Tetlow, when they are noticeably forged signatures? And why, if even a layperson, can see with the naked eye that these signatures are fraudulent, in fact do not even attempt to look like signatures, how have they managed to be upheld and used in the courts, by so many people for so long? It is our lives they are playing with, whatever happened to scruples?
The content of the Affidavit of Mr. Essery Ellis, allegedly Sworn in September 1982 is in support of Mr. Cappers accounts being true! It was allegedly used against Alan, to prevent his continuing Court Action in 1982, I don‘t think so. It calls for Alan’s Action to be Struck Out, stating amongst other things, that, Mr. Capper’s accounts “have already been Sworn as true”!. Mr. Essery Ellis is vague in his wording, his affirmation of the truth of the accounts does not reveal that the person who allegedly Swore them as true, was Mr. Capper himself, before he was publicly exposed. Mr. Essery Ellis would have been fully aware at the time of swearing this Affidavit in September 1982 that Mr. Capper was a convicted fraudster, forger and prolific embezzler, who had already been sent to prison! In my opinion; at best, this Affidavit affirming Mr. Cappers accounts as true, is deliberately misleading to the Courts and at worst Perjury and fraudulent.
As previously indicated 1994 was a key year regarding the litigation, it was the year that Bradford & Bingley altered their strategy as follows, I do not believe it looks like coincidence, events as follows;
4th June 1994. Mr. J.L. Tetlow did.
24th June 1994. Bradford & Bingley write to Weightmans !“whether Bartley Cocks & Bird should now be joined as additional Defendants” (my emphasis).
22nd September1994. Bradford & Bingley write to Neil Wright &Co. requesting the unlawful Consent Form for Adjournment be signed, which it duly was.
September/October, the court file allegedly went missing.
1994 party or parties unknown, instructed Southport County Court Office to shred everything in the Court file prior to 1991.
1994 was almost 10 years into Bradford & Bingley’s Possession Proceedings, with what can only be classed as NO ACTION. They had been unable to make progress, because they were not in possession of any supportive evidence. Alan had been in control, his health had dramatically deteriorated and I believe his opponents were aware of this fact.
During the course of writing this letter I have noticed yet another dubious document dated 1981. It purports to be signed by our then solicitor Mr. Peter Malpas. The content of the document is untrue in claiming that Mr. Malpas was no longer going to represent Alan. Mr. Malpas did represent him up until 1982,when he finally broke down on the court steps, telling Allan how sorry he was, that what had occurred within the court room had been out of his hands.
What can this document be ? The signature of Mr. Malpas is in block writing in what appears to be, the same hand as the Commissioner of Oaths, with no attempt at authenticity. It suspiciously looks like some form of draft! The annotations in the top right hand corner marked it out from similar documents in my possession i.e. “26 Aug 1981 Court seal”?It looks suspiciously to me as if it is a draft document prepared for a forger to complete, a forger who would have access to a Court seal, I cannot think of any other reason for its being.
Following our Court Hearing of 25th December I complained to the Legal Aid Board, that the benefit of being Legally Aided had not afforded me a Forensic Report. They informed me that our acting solicitors, Palmer Hodgson & Hayes had been free to discharge my Legal Aid on whatever they seen fit and did I wish to make a legal complaint against them!
A case conference had been scheduled for May 1999, by which time the Bradford & Bingley were to have brought their figures up to date. We were then to be allowed to have them authenticated within the limits of the Parameters and respond with a legally drawn up Affidavit. Marc Beaumont (Barrister) had asked the Judge to make an Order preventing me from compiling my own Affidavits. The Judge said he could not do this, however, he instructed that any Affidavits should be legally drawn up.
Being aware, that to embark on this final stage, which I regarded as doomed to failure in any event, and in addition regardless of the decision, I would have no right of Appeal; the outcome was to be binding. The Bradford & Bingley were to be allowed to rely on the flawed abstracts from the Possession Case without having to take into account
contradictory evidence! Where amidst such restrictive evaluation was the margin for our Justice. Justice had been eliminated in my opinion when His Honour Judge Maddox set his strict parameters.
As Judge Maddox, had refused me Leave to Appeal, I decided to lodge an Application to the Court of Appeal for leave to Appeal the Order. Much to my brother’s dismay who had worked relentlessly on the accounts uncovering so many discrepancies and the reasoning behind the figures. He was convinced that once the Bradford & Bingley accounts had been disclosed to the Court, the truth would be apparent and they would be finally exposed. In his words “everyone will see the light”. I believed otherwise, as far as I was concerned everyone had already seen the light but were intent on switching it off. Instead, we Commissioned a Preliminary Forensic Report 17/5/00 and included it with our Court of Appeal evidence, the cost to ourselves for this piece of evidence was approx. £1000.
I received letter dated 10/07/00 from Bradford & Bingley with an offer of £15,000 to drop matters “or else” they said they would prove me wrong with their Forensic Report. I declined their offer, but have yet to see their Forensic Report. I officially withdrew from following the Order of His Honour Judge Maddox on the 24th July 1999. I received a further letter dated the 7/08/00 from Bradford & Bingley solicitors asking me to “advise what you would require to settle your claim against our clients”. They required a reply by the 11th August 2000. I wrote back informing them that I would only be prepared to settle with them for the return of my property and compensation for what they had done to us. There was no reply. There is a precedent set which would indeed allow for me to receive such justice in Corbett-v- Halifax 17/10/01.
16th June The Court of Appeal
My Appeal was heard by Sir Ronald Waterhouse a House of Lords Judge. I was a litigant in person and it was an ex-parte Hearing. The Judge did not allow my Appeal. However he considered our evidence and pointed out, that to continue with my action challenging the accounts would only allow me to win on a limited basis. The Judge directed, that it was open to us to re-open the Possession Proceedings on the grounds of fresh evidence, namely the retrospective accounts of Bradley & Bingley supported with our Preliminary Forensic Report. We would have to do this at either the Supreme Court or higher. His Lordship Sir Ronald Waterhouse commented on the Bradford & Bingley Retrospective Account stating that if they “had not been in possession of a true account at the time, then they had no Legal right to have initiated Possession Proceedings in the first place“.
More recently, after reading up on various case histories some similar to our own, my brother believed that we could make a case for damages.
He dealt with all the paperwork concentrating on discrepancies which indicated fraud within the Bradford & Bingley accounts, his faith in obtaining justice is centred mainly on the Bradford & Bingley’s figures and what they have done with them, he believes that considering previous events serve only to confuse the main issue. He is correct in one way as that is certainly the strategy used by our opposition to deflect from the truth of what they have done, at every opportunity. But on the other hand, I feel these misrepresentations to the Court must be addressed, then they would not be able to keep using them. We attended one Preliminary Hearing related to our Damages Application and the Judge advised as his Lordship Sir Ronald Waterhouse. The Possession Case, could only be undone at the Supreme Court.
I believe that Mr Capper’s finances were in such a mess that it spiralled out of control until he would do anything he could to cover it up. His Findings & Order reveal his misappropriation of clients funds and forgery which dates back to 1978.
Extracts from Finding & Order as follows;
On 13th November Mr. Capper made a false bill on costs in order to utilise for his own use £1,200 being “the capital repayment to the Trustees of a City of Liverpool Bond maturing on 10th November 1978...neither the capital receipt nor the charge for costs each in the amount of £1,200 had been disclosed in the relevant Trust accounts”
“The respondent’s Accountant’s Report for the year ended 5th April 1980 showed cash shortages on client account of £1,313.64 at 30th September 1979 and of £4,324.86 at 5th April 1980...” “The respondent admitted to Mr. Gallacher that the statement which he had made in the letter to the Law Society of 25th September 1980 to the effect that “there was ample on office account to pay these rates” was incorrect…”.
A Letter allegedly sent to Bartley Cocks & Bird, from Leo Kennedy & Glover dated February 1980 reveals that the outstanding amount owing at that date was in the sum of £20,700. By this time, irrespective of our numerous sums paid to Bartley Cocks & Bird in reduction of the said. £20,700, there had been the sum of £7,500 from the sale of my property paid to Mr. Capper, added to this was the alleged advance from the Merseyside Building Society, in September 1979 also in the sum of £7,500 as well as numerous other payments. In the Bartley Cocks & Bird client account of ours, Sworn as true in Mr. Capper’s Affidavit and endorsed by Weightmans Senior Partner, both of the £7,500 payments referred to, are recorded as being paid to Leo Kennedy & Glover! For Judge Humphrey Roberts in 1997 to have given Possession of my home
to the Bradford & Bingley with the sweep of a highlight pen in Mr. Capper’s accounts stating “monies in and monies out” was an unbelievable travesty of justice. Of course, there is no way of me knowing the extent and the truth of what has been done to us, but my idea of the initial set up against us and its manipulation according to the turns of events is as follows;
With the forensic investigation in February1981 of Bartley Cocks & Bird account pending, I believe that it was determined between all parties to remove the evidence of the mortgage improprieties from the record to ensure it was eliminated from the Law Society’s equation in their investigation and hence the sham Court Action a against me.
1. By using us as scapegoats, allowed for a considerable amount of monies stolen by Mr. Capper, from ourselves and other clients, to be accounted for at least on paper.
2. It allowed justification for Bartley Cocks & Bird, to openly borrow a substantial sum of money from their office account under false pretences.
3. To secretly maintain the alleged £12,000 mortgage with payments in order to present it as a usual mortgage, should the need arise to present it to some discerning body as legitimate. This would ensure the illegalities would not come under scrutiny.
4. The Court Action part of the cover up, stayed in place until the Fraud Squad became involved, following which it had to be Withdrawn by Weightmans.
5. Withdrawal of the Court Action correlates with the cessation of the misleading re-payments.
When one considers this incident logically in its own space and time, with the benefit of now knowing, what was concealed at that time, it becomes (at least to myself) transparent and damning. By the time the Court Action taken against me had been initiated, Weightmans had been investigating our claims of fraud against Bartley Cocks and Bird for more than a year.
The evidence reveals they were aware of many improprieties at Bartley Cocks & Bird and protected them; Alan was getting nowhere regarding recompense. As part of that ongoing investigation in relation to the mortgage;
Weightmans were aware that we had not received our expected advance of £4,500 from either, Bartley Cocks & Bird or the Merseyside Building Society
Weightmans were aware that we had reported Bartley Cocks & Bird to the Law Society.
Weightmans were aware that there had been impropriety in relation to all three of the alleged mortgage transactions, two of which were between Bartley Cocks & Bird and the Merseyside Building Society and one with Leo Kennedy & Glover on behalf of the vendor.
Weightmans were aware that we had refused acknowledgment of the mortgage in the sum of £12,000 and we had refused to pay.
Weightmans were aware that the Law Society forensic accounts investigation was pending at Bartley Cocks & Bird, when the sham court case was put in place.
Merseyside Building Society were aware that we were not going to make any payments until the re-instatement of our alleged £7,500 mortgage (we believed at the time we had had the benefit of ) and had settled an arrangement with us.
Mr. Llandsbury Laurie had assured us the Merseyside Building Society, would make their own legal complaint to the Law Society and its Governing Bodies and because they knew there “were rumours of fraud being committed at Bartley Cocks & Bird“ they would take the matter out of our hands.
Given all of the above, how could any one of the involved parties have given evidence in a legitimate Court case against us (at the time). Any cross examination of any party would have disclosed what they were up
to. Had any documentation in relation to the mortgage account and the Merseyside Building Society been brought into question the fraudulently recorded mortgage repayments would have come to light. Which leaves only one conclusion to be drawn. The Court Action could only have been a front that was destined to be withdrawn at some convenient time. It was a stop gap whilst the culprits manufactured a false set of circumstances.
The collusion is substantiated because amongst other things, the forged cheques did go through Merseyside Building Society account they are bank stamped. The forged cheques could only have been obtained from Bartley Cocks & Bird offices. Both the Merseyside Building Society and Weightmans knew that the mortgage arrangement had been taken out of our hands.
If, as I am led to understand was case, the Law Society and the investigative solicitors at the time, were one and the same body. Where then would this leave the Investigative Forensic Accountants, whose Tribunal Presentation in relation to Mr. Capper, was scathing towards ourselves (the victims transformed into the culprits). Were they simply an extension of Weightmans or an independent party? If they were independent, they were either not told about our complaints or lied to. If on the other hand, they were an extension of Weightmans, then it appears they worked alongside Weightmans to deliberately shift the emphasis in an effort to cover the mortgage illegalities.
A thorough legitimate forensic investigation at Bartley Cocks & Bird in
February 1981, should have revealed all. In which case we would have received the Justice we had been entitled to from the time when Weightmans had written to us on the 18th April 1979 stating “We have been instructed on behalf of the Underwriters of Solicitors Master Policy regarding the claim you have intimated against Messrs. Bartley Cocks & Bird… To enable us to investigate the matter properly…“! Weightmans strategy clearly was only intended as protection and cover for the solicitors, to the detriment of the client.
The same logic must be applied to the Court Action Alan attempted to take against Bartley Cocks & Bird; it had to be prevented from taking place. Therefore, at the request of Weightmans, Alan’s documents along with Mr. Cappers accounts had been provided for examination. When Alan required these documents back in support of his Court Action, Malcolm Moss, mysteriously refused to return them. Weightmans, had Alan’s case Struck Out, on the grounds that he had failed to Produce his Documents! At a later date, this reticence by Malcolm Moss, to release Alan’s receipts and documents (his supportive evidence) still stood and an explanation was refused.
Why one may wonder, would Weightmans have set up a misleading Court case? It would not be to cover the back of Mr. Capper. The
good name of the Merseyside Building Society however, given it was the brain child of who knows who prestigious top Liverpool solicitors, would of course, be quite a different matter.
The fact still remains, that we “the Dickson’s“ are the unfortunate victims, who by false and fraudulent actions of all the guilty parties, have been made accountable by criminals for all of their own above detailed Corporate Crime. The numerous illegalities conducted on the mortgage was something that we were oblivious of. Bradford & Bingley decided to cash in on these crimes, even if that meant creating some of their own. It isn’t that we have failed to open the can of worms, we have opened it. The problem is that everyone is too scared to disturb them, so disgusting they look.
Notably, as the reader will have observed, it has never been the Bradford & Bingley who have felt it necessary to send these documents for forensic analysis, it has only ever been myself. It has caused me financial hardship but I have been compelled to do this when falsely accused and presented with such rubbish as proof of my guilt, as if these documents had been written in stone. My confidence in the outcome of a true examination of these documents will never falter because I have lived the truth and know them for what they are. Any legal body over all of
these years has had the opportunity to easily discredit Bradford and Bingley’s so called supportive evidence but for reasons best known to themselves have chose not to. I trust the reader will judge those I have included in this account of events for themselves.
In conclusion, I have no qualms about possible consequences regarding this letter. The culprits can do as they will, my insignificance to them has always been apparent. They are at liberty to accuse me of slander or libel, which, hopefully, they would be obliged to prove honestly; I am under no illusions, regarding what these people are capable of. All of our findings have revealed, that it has been the Bradford & Bingley actions which have determined this miscarriage of justice, they could have conducted a fair assessment in the first place, they knew the truth. They had a choice (which was more than we had) and they chose instead, to knowingly use the initial injustice against us, perpetrated by Bartley, Cocks & Bird and the Merseyside Building Society, simply as their stepping stone. When we refused to take this injustice lying down, they then built their own mountain on top of it.
Bradford & Bingley have used many thousand pound of our personal finances, in addition to the way below market price £166,000 from the sale of my property, to fund extravagant Court Action, paying for top London Barristers to commute between Liverpool & London, specifically, to keep tight the lid which conceals their guilt. Their strategy, is to ensure the arguments do not go beyond the Bartley Cocks & Bird issues, and even then, to selectively present what they know to be fraud, as genuine. They feel they don‘t have to answer for those pieces of flawed evidence they claim to have inherited and that has proved to be the case. It has served their purpose to a point, they could possibly still claim that they are not accountable for their inherited fraud. But why, when there can be no doubt they are aware of its nature? They are unable to shirk accountability for their own creations however. Their own fraud is just as criminal and damning and they are certainly accountable for that.
We have done everything within our power to uncover all the mysterious events perpetrated against us. If one were to suppose for one minute, that Bradford & Bingley’s accounts were true and could stand up to examination then it would be beyond comprehension, as to why in all these years they have been compelled to fight so ruthlessly in order to avoid disclosure of that pathetic amount of accounts, by refusing to explain figures.
There has yet to be a full trial were Bradford & Bingley are put to the test. More sadly, I have yet to be represented at Court, by someone who actually wishes me to win. Perhaps, matters will turn around when
my case goes before the European Court of Human Rights (now lodged ) I tried once before but was not eligible because Bradford & Bingley were not at the time considered as part of the Government. There are three new elements which alter my position,
Bradford & Bingley are now controlled by Government.
The European Court of Human Rights have widened their scope to include all bodies.
There is now evidence to show I have not been Justly treated by the Domestic Courts.
With all of the disastrous events that have been perpetrated against us, I should be totally demoralised by now. Surprisingly I’m not; it may be lucky for me that I just remain angry.
Compiled by Anne Dickson