News

2

4

5

11

1987

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 27^th 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.

1991.

It took until 25^th 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 16^th 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 11^th 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.

30

1992, The trial was set to be heard 27^th March 1992 at Liverpool.

NO ACTION

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

And still;

NO ACTION.

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 8^th & 9^th 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 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”.

31

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

32

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.

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 11^th 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.

33

The summons that was served on 11^th October 1995 from Bradford & Bingley was for Alan to appear at Southport County Court on the 21^st November 1995. The case was Adjourned Sine die “for all parties to reassess the situation”!

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.

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.

34

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;

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.

35

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;

The above evidence in more detail as follows;

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

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.

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 “29^th July 1980” the document in question, is in fact dated 31^st 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.

38 

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 21^st February 1997 to be heard at Southport County Court.

On February 21^st, 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.

39

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

40

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 16^th 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

41

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!

24^th 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

42

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.

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. 

43

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.

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 27^th November 1997, this was set aside at Chester County Court, to allow

44

time to either sell or re-finance the property and pending the review of the European Commission. It was suspended until the 29^th 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“.

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 9^th 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 29^th 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

45

 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 21^st January in time to lodge it at the Appeal at Court of Appeal by Thursday the 22^nd January. We had booked our travel to London. On the 21^st 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 23^rd “…he said “no panic, I am due to go to London myself on Wednesday the 28^th 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 26^th and that will allow me to instruct a Barrister in London whilst I am there”. On the 27^th 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 28^th, whilst my nephew went to Chester Court to make an Application to Set Aside the Eviction Order (It could not be heard until the 29^th 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 5^th 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

46

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 16^th 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 16^th 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 19^th March a further Eviction Notice was served on me with Eviction to take place 22^nd April. On the 25^th 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 31^st 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 1^st 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

47

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 27^th 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

48

 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

49

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 29^th 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 8^th 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… “

50

 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 9^th June. On the 8^th 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.

51

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

52

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

53

 year mortgage statements. The interest figure applied on 1^st 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 31^st 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 2^nd 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 20^th 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

54

furniture left begging for a home, which also raised some money. District Judge Turner was the residing Judge at the Preliminary Hearing on the 20^th 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 7^th 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 3^rd 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 9^th 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.

As will be seen, the sale of the property warrants an investigation in

55

 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 13^th 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

56

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.

57

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.

By the time we returned to Court on the 3^rd 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

58

 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 3^rd 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

59

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 25^th January 1999. The Case, was to go back before District Judge Turner.

January 25^th 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 14^th. My brother Bob, continued to work on our current findings regarding Bradford & Bingley’s fraudulent misrepresentation.

July 14^th The Hearing was again before District Judge Turner. Judge Turner raised many questions in relation to the 24^th 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 8^th 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 15^th 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

61

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 1^st August 1984 to 31^st 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 1^st August 1983, and 1^st 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 7^th 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 13^th 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 19^th 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.

15^th 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

62

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 25^th to allow the Judge time to evaluate his “incomplete one sided evidence“!

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 4^th 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

63

 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;

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 25^th 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

65

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 24^th 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 11^th 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.　

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“.

66

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 13^th 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 10^th 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 5^th April 1980 showed cash shortages on client account of £1,313.64 at 30^th September 1979 and of £4,324.86 at 5^th April 1980...” “The respondent admitted to Mr. Gallacher that the statement which he had made in the letter to the Law Society of 25^th 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

67

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.

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

69

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 18^th 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

70

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

71

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

72