09 / The December 2019 complaint

Suicidal distress.
Pressure to sell my home.

I say the newer evidence shows the Bank knew I did not owe arrears.

My complaint is that, while I was recovering from my head injury, the Bank pushed me to the point of being suicidal while pressing me towards an Assisted Voluntary Sale. I believed I owed the arrears and blamed myself. The Bank’s later reconstruction showed no arrears at that time.

The Bank’s own complaint record says I felt suicidal after the 18 December call. Its Christmas Eve letter then set a deadline for accepting its sale scheme, otherwise it would write stating an intention to take legal action. I ask the Ombudsman to reconsider the treatment, the safeguarding response and the financial premise together.

The person behind the account

Before the injury, and during recovery

Jonathan Jarrett's photograph sheet: 6 February 2018 and 7 September 2019, with his account of repeated falls after his head injury — My selected photograph sheet, dated 6 February 2018 and 7 September 2019. The September picture provides the recovery context for the December records.

The Bank recorded the difficulty I was having

The note of my 7 September call, written up on 10 September, records that I had fallen, cut my face and was having difficulty standing because I overbalanced. It also records a £300 payment.

“Mr can’t stand up because he over-balances and falls over which means he is currently bed bound.”

On 10 September the firm sent a letter asserting a £1,749.34 payment shortfall. I ask that its demands be read against both my recorded condition and the later corrected account.

Read the September call note and payment letter

Bank note of the 7 September call, written up 10 September, describing falls, injury and payment discussion

Body of the 10 September 2019 letter asserting a £1,749.34 shortfall and asking for contact or payment

Selected September records, pp.1 and 3; current run-4 Period 2B pp.253 and 258. The photograph sheet retains its earlier p.265 reference to the same call record. These are staff-written notes, not a verbatim recording or independent clinical assessment.

The contemporaneous record

What happened in December

18 December 2019 · complaint recorded

“Mr says he now feels suicidal after the call”

I called to complain about the pressure I had experienced that morning. The record describes my wish to contact the FCA, my objection to the interest rate and my distress. It records suicidality twice. My requested outcome was that the firm stop chasing the alleged arrears and threatening eviction.

“Mr again threatened to commit suicide so again I tried to assure him that I will raise his complaint and tried to calm him down.”

Read the complaint summary

Bank complaint summary dated 18 December 2019, recording suicidal distress twice, complaint about pressure and interest rate, and wish to contact FCA

E-VUL-08, p.1 (printed p.17), cropped below identifying fields. The highlights are in the supplied exhibit. The handler’s descriptions are reproduced as the Bank’s record.

19 December 2019 · internal complaint route

Persuaded to let the firm investigate

I say I was seeking help from the regulator. The next day’s note records that the handler persuaded me to use the firm’s process:

“I managed to convince mr that his complaint can be escalated and investigated impartially on site, rather than him going to FCA.”

Read the 19 December note

19 December Bank contact note recording persuasion to have the complaint investigated internally rather than going to the FCA

E-VUL-17, p.1; also FOS overall p.99. The FCA and FOS are different bodies. This is the route the firm recorded me following.

19 December 2019 · CSAT referral

Vulnerability recorded in a litigation referral

The CSAT form is labelled “Referral Category: Litigation” and “Care Reason: Mental Health - Impairment”. It records concussion and daily memory loss. Later in the same form it records my new suicidal distress after the 18 December call, then proposes issuing the pre-action notice.

CSAT litigation-referral header and account of head injury and daily memory loss

Read the current-distress and proposed-action extracts

Later section of CSAT referral recording suicidal distress after the 18 December call

CSAT recommendation to issue MPAP and its stated rationale concerning sustainability and alternatives

CSAT Universal Referral Form, 19 December 2019, pp.1, 7–8; Co-op DSAR 2(1), physical pp.407, 413–414. This is the firm’s internal collections and vulnerability record, not an independent medical assessment. Its later part records the fresh distress.

23 December 2019 · decision authorised

Pre-action notice unless I accepted the sale route

The decision authorised a pre-action notice at the close of business on 4 January if I did not wish to use AVS—or if I was unavailable for the booked call. It considered the mortgage unsustainable. It also told staff to be mindful of health comments and escalate them to the appropriate authorities where necessary. I ask what safeguarding action was actually taken.

Bank decision authorising MPAP on 4 January unless AVS accepted or if customer unavailable for the call

Read the continuation, including its safeguarding instruction

Continuation of 23 December Bank decision discussing costs, legal proceedings, health concerns and escalation to appropriate authorities

CSAT Universal Decision Form, 23 December 2019, control RUS7812; run-4 Period 2B pp.396–398. The operative extracts are from pp.397–398. MPAP is the pre-action notice referred to in the Bank’s records.

24 December 2019 · the Christmas Eve letter

Accept Assisted Voluntary Sale—or an intention to take legal action

The letter said the firm would write on 4 January 2020 stating an intention to take legal action unless I was looking to accept a place on its Assisted Voluntary Sale scheme by then. It gave alleged arrears of £5,098.02.

Christmas Eve letter setting a 4 January deadline for accepting Assisted Voluntary Sale, otherwise a notice of intention to take legal action

E-VUL-15, p.1; also FOS overall p.87. Select the extract to read the full letter with my address and account reference masked. It is a stated intention to take legal action, not an order for immediate possession.

16 January 2020 · complaint rejected

My distress complaint ended with £0 redress

The internal investigation called the conversation cordial and robust, recognised that it had upset me, and recorded that pre-action correspondence had been issued while the complaint was open. It rejected the complaint. The sign-off records £0 redress, £0 ex gratia and £0 refund. The firm said it had attempted further outcome calls; the record does not establish that an outcome conversation took place.

Read the recorded decision and redress

Internal complaint record rejecting the complaint and stating the customer's circumstances were clearly noted

Internal complaint record showing zero redress, ex gratia and refund

E-VUL-08, pp.2–3 (printed pp.18–19); E-VUL-09 is the separate 16 January final response and internal sign-off. This describes the December complaint outcome.

The financial premise

“We wouldn’t litigate if there were no arrears”

That is what the firm’s Christmas Eve call note says. Its own later reconstruction shows £0 arrears on that date, even under the limited correction used for the Ombudsman’s award.

Arrears recorded on 24 December 2019£5,098.02

Arrears in the Bank’s later reconstruction£0.00

Existing 24 December 2019 comparison showing alleged £5,098.02 arrears against zero reconstructed arrears, with six separately labelled mortgage balance paths — Select the graph for the full-size comparison. Prepared 28 September 2026; reused without changing the calculations.

The missing financial answer changes the question

At the time I believed the demands were valid. I ask the Service to assess the pressure to sell against the corrected history, rather than assume that every asserted arrears figure was money properly due.

The call note qualifies its statement by saying the handler did not expect me to be able to clear the arrears. That concerns what the handler thought I could pay; the later reconstruction concerns whether those arrears existed on the corrected account.

24 December staff call note stating the firm would not litigate if there were no arrears, with its qualification about not expecting clearance

Call note: current run-4 Period 2B p.406 / FOS overall p.90. The graph retains the earlier run-3 p.428 reference to the same passage. Bank figures: E-CON-14 p.44, native workbook row 2199; disclosed 9 June 2025.

The graph compares mortgage balances, not a tally of costs, cash held or compensation. Lines 1 and 6 are the firm’s figures; lines 2–5 are the existing working calculations under the stated methods. My full contractual case remains separate from the Bank’s limited redress method.

Read what the Ombudsman asked for and what the Bank supplied →

The earlier 2019 record

The pressure did not begin in December

2 April 2019 · instructions to solicitors

The earlier instruction to Walker Morris

The signed instruction asked the solicitors to seek a 28-day order and recorded my previous hospital treatment for depression. This was before the April road accidents. It is background to the later complaint, not a December solicitor instruction.

Read the instruction extract

2 April 2019 instruction to Walker Morris to seek a 28-day order, recording previous hospital treatment for depression

E-LIT-27, p.1. Read the April 2019 page →

7 May 2019 · recorded concussion

The hearing was still to continue

The Bank’s note says I appeared “a little incoherent at times”, probably because of concussion. In the same call it explained the hearing, the proposed 28-day order and the costs. Its next step was for the hearing to continue in the meantime. It also recorded benefits signposting. I ask that the firm’s knowledge and its decisions be assessed together.

Read the selected Gold call record

Bank's 7 May 2019 staff note recording incoherence and concussion while explaining a 28-day order and stating the hearing would continue

Jon’s selected Gold call records folder, Call transcript 7 May 2019.pdf, p.1. Despite that filename, it is a staff-written note. The same event appears at run-4 Period 2B p.189.

23 October 2019 · payment discussion

Money for food, and advice to pay the mortgage

The call note records that money from selling possessions had been used for food, followed by advice about making a payment to my account. Its continuation records advice about possible legal action and charges. The note also records signposting and discussion of support; I ask whether the approach was fair in the circumstances and on the corrected account.

23 October staff note recording money from sales used for food followed by advice about making a mortgage payment

Run-4 Period 2B pp.286–288; the image is an excerpt from p.287, ending before unrelated third-party information. The legal-action and charges passage is on p.288.

My request to the Ombudsman

Assess the whole episode on the corrected account

The Final Decision did discuss the late-2019 pressure and Assisted Voluntary Sale at page 16. At page 20 it recorded my account that the firm persuaded me to use its internal process and that I was not fit to refer the complaint. My point is that the suicidal distress, the handling of that complaint and the financial premise need to be addressed together.

The complete complaint investigation and sign-off, the call records and the reconstructed financial history need to be read together. I ask the Service to assess what that combined evidence shows about the financial premise and handling of my complaint.

What safeguarding action followed the recorded suicidal distress, and the instruction to escalate health concerns where necessary?
Was it fair to maintain the AVS-or-litigation course while investigating my complaint about that pressure?
How does the later nil-arrears reconstruction affect the premise of the December demands and the Bank’s rejection of my complaint?
How did the Service assess my ability to understand and sustain a referral while recovering from a serious head injury?

I ask the Service to address my concerns under its published safeguarding policy, and to explain its assessment of the Article 8 issues concerning private life and home and relevant public-body duties I have raised. These are requests for a reasoned assessment, not a claim that an Article 8 breach has already been decided.

This page uses selected photographs and cropped documentary extracts. Personal identifiers and unrelated private medical or third-party details are omitted. The full confidential Grounds 8 and 9, raw medical records and source PDFs are not website downloads. The original sources and calculations remain unchanged.

Why I contend the Bank knew: the rates, income and account records →

← Back to issue 9 Continue to the 2021 claim →

Suicidal distress.Pressure to sell my home.