07 / The 2021 possession claim
The Ombudsman found that MAS5 had started legal action in 2021 reasonably as a last resort. The Bank’s later reconstruction, using even the limited 1.25-percentage-point correction, recorded £0 arrears on 29 September 2021, when solicitors were instructed, and on 19 January 2022, when its servicer asserted £17,598 in arrears and proposed adding adjournment costs to my mortgage.
There was also a two-audience problem with this enforcement attempt. To the Ombudsman, the Bank said it was right; but under scrutiny from other audiences, with MPs not very happy about the way many people were treated, the Bank may have said something entirely different. Those alternative facts are new information for my reconsideration, when the Ombudsman sees them. I accept that the Ombudsman was not aware of the Bank's two-audience problem. But now we are all aware, each story told to each audience needs to be compared, and the decision needs to be reconsidered.
The court action itself was struck out. The story to the Ombudsman was that it had been adjourned, and other audiences were told the stories that the Bank wanted them to hear, which may have been the real story, or the same story told to the Ombudsman. My account is that in 2022 I paid the legal costs and court fees. The Bank's story may differ, depending on the audience. We should support the Bank's efforts to remember who was told which story before a reconsideration of the original complaint is made.
Sources: Ombudsman’s Final Decision, p.18; the Bank’s later Ex 7 “Notional Arrears” reconstruction (E-CON-14); the 19 January 2022 internal email in Co-op DSAR 3, physical p.144. The reconstruction is the Bank’s limited redress method, not my full contractual account.
Before and during the claim
The firm’s own letters and court documents raise questions about the Ombudsman’s “last resort” finding, independently of its later arrears reconstruction.
MAS5 said its solicitors would continue legal action, charged £22 for that action, and stated that any new arrangement to repay the arrears would have to be secured by a suspended Court Order. I ask what practical alternative to proceedings it had left open.
E-MAS-13, p.1; cropped operative paragraphs. The letter speaks of a new arrangement to repay alleged arrears.
I wrote to the firm about using Support for Mortgage Interest, my immunodeficiency, shielding and why I could not then work as a paramedic. I enclosed a form for the firm to send to DWP. This was my account to the lender before its signed possession checklist.
E-FOS-04, pp.1–2; selected text from p.1. The original letter and its enclosures remain outside this website.
The claimant’s signed N123 checklist marked “No” to evidence that I had made an SMI or relevant Universal Credit claim. It also marked “No” to whether an unresolved FOS complaint could justify postponing the claim. On 7 October, MAS5 wrote that it had completed my MI12 form and sent it to DWP. These records call for an explanation of what the firm had received, when, and why the checklist was answered as it was. A “No” on the checklist is not a DWP decision refusing SMI.
E-LIT-21, pp.1 and 3 (form signed 29 September 2021); E-LIT-05, p.1 (7 October acknowledgment). The extracts omit account number, address and signatory details.
Despite my September letter, the claimant’s notice to the court said it had “no specific information” about the effect of the pandemic on my personal means and circumstances. The court needed an accurate account of what the firm had been told. Why was my account of shielding and inability to work not addressed in that notice?
E-LIT-22, p.1, read with E-FOS-04, pp.1–2. The image is cropped below the property address and case number.
The Ombudsman’s finding
“However, I’m also satisfied that when MAS5 started legal action in 2021, it did so reasonably as a last resort.”
Final Decision, p.18. The Decision also criticised some of the Bank’s collection conduct as aggressive and insensitive; the image retains that context.
Information the Bank gave the Financial Conduct Authority is relevant to my case. The FCA released it to me in response to my subject access request, but under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 I cannot publish it without consent; doing so would be a criminal offence. I have asked for permission.
What the later disclosure shows
In its 19 January reminder, the Financial Ombudsman Service said it had asked on 4 October 2021 for the proceedings to be put on hold while it considered my case. That request was not a court stay, but it called for an answer from the firm.
Co-op DSAR 3, physical p.145; cropped image of the reminder reproduced in the Bank’s file.
A Western Mortgage Services manager (the servicer) proposed telling FOS that proceedings had begun before its October email. He also proposed that the costs of adjourning the hearing be added to my mortgage. His internal email put the arrears at £17,598.
Co-op DSAR 3, physical pp.143–144; the operative passage is on p.144. This was an internal proposal, followed by the actual response below.
The response sent to FOS asked whether adjourning was in my interests. It invoked my vulnerability, the FCA’s concern about accumulating costs and interest, and an asserted £17,598 arrears. It then said the costs of adjournment would be added to my mortgage and duplicated if the hearing had to be restored.
Co-op DSAR 3, physical pp.14–15. These are cropped passages from the response, not the complete two-page email. The financial premise needs to be tested against the Bank’s later £0 reconstruction for 19 January.
The manager then acknowledged internally that “no-one (including me) noticed” the request in FOS’s 4 October email to put possession proceedings on hold. Later that day, a Co-operative Bank manager wrote that she was prepared to adjourn and asked Capita to obtain confirmation.
Co-op DSAR 3, physical pp.137–138. Read the full 26 January Bank email shown on the April 2019 page → The court’s actual order appears below.
Before the hearing I wrote to the judge, challenged the claimant’s answers about my SMI application and circumstances, and expressly asked to be heard or for the claim to be struck out. I believe my submission mattered. The court order does not give the judge’s reason.
Deputy District Judge Barnes’s order says: “The claim is struck out.” It records that neither the claimant nor I attended. This was the court’s disposition of the claim; the order does not say it was adjourned or decide the merits of my mortgage complaint.
My court submission: E-LIT-33, pp.2, 15 and 17; the selected 43-46.pdf, p.4, contains the closing passage shown above. Court order: County Court at Cambridge, General Form of Judgment or Order, 14 February 2022, p.1. Select the order extract to view the full page with account and case references masked. The separately addressed copy contains my home address and is not in the website package.
After the strike-out, MAS5 wrote that it had paid £839.80 to its solicitors and applied that amount to my mortgage account. It warned that this might not be the final total if further action followed. I ask how these costs were justified and whether they were later refunded with any interest charged on them.
MAS5 letter of 23 March 2022, Jon’s selected legal_fees_letter.png; cropped body only. The address, account number and reference are excluded.
A servicing note reproducing the solicitors’ email says they were instructed on 26 January to adjourn, “The claim was subsequently struck out”, and they had asked the court to reconsider and adjourn it instead. The note says the court advised that an application would be needed. That is not a record of an adjournment having been ordered.
E-INT-04, p.2, servicing note; p.1 contains the forwarded solicitor email. The visible source text is imperfectly transcribed in the file, so the court order above controls the actual outcome.
What I ask the Service to address
The manager’s admission explains why the October request was not acted on. The decision to start proceedings on 29 September must be tested against the corrected account, the alternatives available at the time, and what the firm had been told about my circumstances. The January correspondence, court order and subsequent charges must also be reconciled.
The images on this page are cropped, visible-only extracts from the identified letters, court records and DSAR 3. These new extracts omit my home address, mortgage account number and private contact details; their raw source PDFs have not been added to the website package. Source originals remain unchanged.