Assertion versus evidence

The Bank deals in assertion

These are the assertions I challenge:

• “As you aware, the mortgage book was transferred to MAS in 2007, at which point the restrictive covenant was agreed.”

  The Bank wrote this to the Ombudsman on 31 July 2024 (E-FOS-13). False for my mortgage.

• “You will be aware that we have previously offered the opportunity to be considered for a new product from The Co-operative Bank’s current range of mortgages.”

  That statement appears in a letter in the file given to Topaz. But the Bank’s internal record says: “No mailing due to significant arrears on account”. The letter says I had been offered the opportunity; the internal record says the mailing was not sent to me.

• “Repossession is always the last resort. The decision to take legal action is never taken lightly, especially when dealing with vulnerable customers”.

  The Bank said this in its statement of case to the Ombudsman (FOS case file, p.59). I say that is false: the Bank later told the Ombudsman, on 30 August 2024: “Mr J was 3 months in arrears, which meets our trigger for litigation action”.

• “By October 2018 Mr Jarrett was unemployed”.

  The Bank said this in its statement of case to the Ombudsman (FOS case file, p.58). That is false. From 2018 I was employed by the agency I had worked through since 2013, paid through PAYE, and the agency paid into my pension. From February to October 2018 it placed me as an Emergency Care Practitioner at Addenbrooke’s. That placement ended, but my employment with the agency did not. I went on to fill shifts for another NHS provider in Lincolnshire, where a payslip shows I was working in January 2019, and I kept working until 10 April 2019. Even in 2017, when I was self-employed, the Bank’s own note recorded: “Mr is a self-employed Paramedic who is only paid when he works.”

• “Thank you for sharing with my colleague [name removed] your current financial position and your personal circumstances so we can consider how best to support you at this time”.

  I shared my financial position because I was promised a meeting, in an email sent on behalf of a senior executive of the Bank.

• “We have been in contact with Mr. Jarrett and agreed that we will implement a zero interest rate on his mortgage”.

  I made no agreement. I gave the Bank my financial details only because it said it needed them before it would meet me. On 2 July 2025 I wrote to the person at the Bank who had promised me that meeting, copied to its MAS5 mortgage mailbox: “You have tricked me into handing over my financial information by being untruthful and saying that you would meet me to discuss my mortgage.” Two days later, a servicing email recorded that I had “consented”. On 13 August I told the Bank again that I had neither affirmed the contract nor accepted forbearance. The Bank later told Topaz that it had “unilaterally applied” the rate, and that I “had not asked them to apply one”. So when was this “agreement” made, by whom, and how? (My emails from that period are quoted on the my-experience page.)

• Withheld

  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.

• “No specific information” — court documents, 20 December 2021.

  The Bank’s court notice said it had no specific information concerning my personal means or circumstances. My letter of 24 September 2021 had explained my immunodeficiency, shielding, inability to work and benefits position. That directly contradicts its account of the information it held.

• “This is not something you have raised concerns about previously.”

  Eversheds said this about credit reporting on 28 April 2026, acting for MAS5 and the Bank. But I had requested CRA corrections in August 2025, challenged the reporting in October 2025, and received an answer about Experian reporting in February 2026. They described the arrangement complaint as new, despite those earlier challenges to my credit reporting and the supposed consent behind it.

• “GMAC would not have known or foreseen the sale of the mortgage book…”

  This is a separate assertion from the false 2007 date. The documented purchase programme included MAS4 transactions from 2005 and repeated MAS5 purchases during 2006–2007. My mortgage entered an established purchasing relationship. The claim that onward sale could not have been foreseen conflicts with that record.

• The “No” answer about evidence of an SMI claim.

  The possession checklist signed on 29 September 2021 answered “No” to evidence of an SMI or appropriate Universal Credit claim. My September letter enclosed the application paperwork, and on 7 October 2021 the Bank confirmed it had completed and sent my MI12 to DWP. What had the Bank received when it signed that answer, and did it correct the answer before the paperwork was relied upon in court?

Six written accounts of one rate. They cannot all be true.

1. 11 June 2025, the servicer’s diary note of the call: “SOLUTIONS OFFERED / AGREED ACTIONS N/A”.
2. 25 June 2025, the Bank: “Please let us know if you would like us to implement the reduced interest rate…”
3. 4 July 2025, an internal Capita email: “Mr has also consented to this.”
4. 9 July 2025, the Bank’s letter: “We have therefore now implemented a zero interest rate on your mortgage…”
5. 28 April 2026, Eversheds Sutherland for MAS5 and the Bank: “MAS 5’s agreement to apply a 0% interest concession”.
6. 20 May 2026, TLT for Topaz (Aspiro): the rate “did not require your agreement to take effect”.

I hold the Bank’s own recording of the 11 June call. It contains no mention of 0%, of a reduced rate or of a concession.

The Service needs to look at the evidence, not the assertions.

The Bank’s/Topaz’s diary refers to the staff who meet to discuss me as the “High risk vulnerable case panel”.