How I say the Bank withheld information from the Ombudsman
The missing enforcement record
The Service asked for the full account history - and then decided without it. For my complaint, I say the earlier enforcement history was part of the relevant background. Many underlying demands, threats and instructions were not reproduced in the file disclosed to me. How could the fairness of the Bank’s treatment be properly assessed without addressing that missing history?
The missing letters in numbers
For 2012–2015 alone, 63 distinct enforcement letters were not reproduced as originals in the disclosed FOS file. Five were represented only by related notes or references. Those 63 letters form part of the wider figures below.
I compared the Co-operative Bank, Topaz Finance and Financial Ombudsman Service disclosures, reconciled duplicate copies and incorporated subsequent document matches. Within the reviewed records:
2012–2022: 88 enforcement letters or threats lacked original copies in the disclosed FOS file, rising to 107 including recurring demands.
Across the full pre-decision record: 91 enforcement letters or threats lacked original copies, rising to 122 including recurring demands.
Five were represented only by related notes or references. These are counts from the reviewed document schedule, not a claim that every letter ever issued has been identified.
These figures exclude duplicate copies and do not count routine printed warnings—such as “Your home may be repossessed”—as separate enforcement letters or threats.
My case is that this was concealment of a material enforcement history. I say demands and enforcement for arrears that had been fabricated caused serious harm. A decision based on such an incomplete presentation cannot safely stand without the missing record being addressed.
The 2017 escalation and its consequences
In March 2014 I left my home to live in my buy-to-let flat in the centre of Cambridge because I couldn't cope with all the letters, repossession threats, daily text messages, relentless calls on my home phone number, field agents banging at my door. My home stood empty, my mental health deteriorated, and I paid both mortgages. In 2017, the Cooperative Bank stated that they were going to repossess the house, but only after they demanded that I be put on a "plan" for owing them £439.27 in arrears that the Bank’s own later reconstruction shows did not exist: 9 January 2017
The Bank’s call note · 9 January 2017
"Incoming call : Customer - TCF-Mr Care- N/A Past- Was off work sick in Decem ber with Celulitis. Mr is a self-employed Paramedic who is only paid when he works. Present-DCP: £500.00 Auth: 806135 He is now back at work but his shi fts and therefore his payment pattern is very erratic. Told him we need to do an I&E to put him into a formal repayment plan. He said this will be very di fficult to do due to his work and payment pattern. Mr intends to pay the rema ining £439.27 of his arrears on 20/01/17. Told him there is another payment d ue 22/01/17. He will have a better idea of his work and income by then. Inf h im of ADI/CR/Letters/phonecalls. Future- Mr to call 22/01/17 with payment of £439.27. Challenges-N/A Agreed Actions- As future Next Steps- As future."
What the Bank wrote
16 February 2017 E-MAS-18: Possession warning.
It says:
“Should we not be able to agree a repayment plan then consideration will need to be given to instructing our solicitors to commence action to obtain possession of your property.”
It immediately adds:
“The costs of such action can vary dependent on the overall action required but basic costs will average £1400.00.”
What the Ombudsman found
The Ombudsman’s final decision, page 14, says:
“I’m not persuaded MAS5 was threatening to repossess Mr J’s home.”
And:
“There is no evidence of MAS5 saying it was looking to take repossession or start legal action…”
The financial position at the February 2017 warning
The January call note demanded £439.27. By the 16 February 2017 possession warning, the stated arrears were £1,378.54. The Bank’s later reconstruction records £0 arrears on that February date.
Existing calculation prepared 28 September 2026. The six lines compare mortgage balances; the two boxes at the top compare arrears on 16 February 2017. Lines 1 and 6 are the firm’s figures; lines 2–5 are my working calculations using the same recorded receipts. The graph retains its calculation methods and source references.
The Bank did not provide the 16 February 2017 letter; I did. It was only in my part of the FOS file. The 2017 escalation has to be considered in the context of the 91 enforcement letters or threats, and 31 further recurring demands, that I say the Co-operative Bank concealed, and of the daily text messages and phone calls that do not appear in the records.
The consequences and the corrected account
Following all this pressure, I was admitted to hospital on 12 March 2017 with depression. On the Bank’s own reconstruction, the account had no arrears, or was in credit, every day from 12 March 2014 to 21 April 2023; before that, it never reached the three months’ arrears the Bank itself used as its trigger for litigation. Any debts I had need to be looked at in the context of the costs I was carrying: two mortgages, two council tax bills, two electricity bills, and any borrowing taken on to pay them.
We need to look at my cost of borrowing extra money over the contractual SVR to provide the Bank with excess profits (or the "high excess spread" as investor materials put it), and the regular threats of enforcement that were made for arrears I didn't owe and that the Ombudsman never saw.
There never were any arrears. The arrears that the Bank recorded on its paperwork were as a result of the breaches of contract and the failure to abide by the restrictive covenant’s cap. So the Bank never showed any forbearance because the arrears only existed as a result of the Bank’s business model. Similarly, all the enforcement took place because of arrears that were not owed.
The Bank was very keen to tell the Ombudsman about my medical history before I took the mortgage out. Of course it never knew that I would be reading the file one day. Other audiences were given different accounts of my health and work history. To the Ombudsman, I had been working recently, to others I had not. It's a two-audience problem again, and an assertion-over-evidence problem, which I have challenged the Bank's solicitors about, but received no response. I have put together for the Service, or other audiences, a brief history of my provable earnings and medical records, where the matters that confused the Bank are clarified.
The question for the Service now is, why was a vulnerable customer who had done well to build a good career despite some earlier setbacks in life pursued relentlessly for arrears that the Bank knew were not owed, until he lost his career?
The Administrative Court may need to consider the great harm that has been done to all Co-operative Bank customers in these mortgage books, not just me, and what lessons can be learned from the mistakes that have been made.
I ask the Service to address my concerns about financial abuse and vulnerability under its published safeguarding policy.
Financial Conduct Authority material
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.
I say the Bank withheld evidence of the enforcement and harassment I experienced before 2019, concealing its scale and its impact on my mental health. The comparison below shows what was located in the disclosed FOS file. The missing records are documentary gaps; my contention about deliberate withholding rests on the wider evidence, including what the Service asked the firm to supply.
The earlier enforcement recordThe comparison retains the distinction between indexed entries, original documents and related notes.Open image at full size ↗What the Ombudsman requestedThe Service’s request of 4 October 2021 included contact notes, correspondence and relevant court documentation.Open image at full size ↗
My position is that the Ombudsman was misled by an account of support and forbearance which did not confront the disputed arrears, the inaccurate employment history or the full enforcement record. Those matters must be assessed together.
