Each point identifies what appears in the disclosed material, where to find it and the impression it could give if the surrounding record is missed. My allegation is that the presentation is selective.
01An agreement I say I never made
The Bank’s 1 July instruction in Topaz Batch 9 says it had “agreed” a 0% rate with me; its 17 July letter says I had agreed a plan. A separate 4 July email from a Capita servicing employee, found in the Co-op disclosure, says I had “consented”. The 11 June call summary records no agreed action.
My 26 June reply challenged the Bank’s conduct and asked why it had not offered me a zero rate in April 2019. I was not giving it permission to apply the rate, agreeing to a repayment plan, accepting arrears or affirming the contract. I had withheld my own payments since mid-2024 because I did not intend to affirm the contract. I made no payments after that email; the only payment the Bank received was the single £610 SMI payment, which I addressed in my written notices. I made no agreement to a payment plan. The firms should identify the agreement they say I made. The Bank later told Topaz that it had “unilaterally applied” the rate, and that I “had not asked them to apply one”.
View the Bank’s 1 July instruction · View the separately sourced Capita email · Read my exchange in date order
Record: Topaz B9 p.72 and pp.74–76; B11 p.1; Co-op E-CON-03, 4 July; servicing diary pp.103–105; E-SOL-09 p.3.
Why it matters: An internal assertion and a rate change could be read as my agreement, while my protesting reply and TLT’s later acknowledgment are missed.
02Someone else’s Ombudsman decision
My investigator’s view is followed in the Topaz production by a decision about another couple. Their decision continued a 1.25-percentage-point reduction; my Final Decision did not. The redress awarded in my decision stopped at November 2022; that is not the limit of the correction I seek. My actual Decision was not located in the file supplied to me, and TLT did not specifically confirm whether Topaz holds it.
Record: Topaz B8 pp.87–90; my Final Decision pp.21, 23–24; TLT, 16 July 2026, ¶11(b).
Why it matters: A reader could mistake another couple’s continuing reduction for the outcome of my complaint.
03My objections separated from the Bank’s account
The Bank’s agreement assertion and confirmation are in Batch 9. Some of my May–August objections survive in later Batches 10–13, and the complete 26 June reply is in Batch 11. They are not carried through the diary’s sequence from the 25 June offer to 4 July implementation. Topaz’s DSAR cover says no MAS5 call recordings or transcripts were transferred; that does not mean there are no staff-written notes.
Record: Topaz B9 p.72 and pp.74–76; B10–13 customer correspondence; B11 p.1; diary pp.104–105; E-DSAR-02 p.2.
Why it matters: Read in file order, the Bank’s account can look unopposed even though my written objections are elsewhere.
04The payment without its context
A real £610 Department for Work and Pensions payment received on 8 July 2025 is recorded in Batch 9. My 28 July notice, saying that any such payment was under duress and did not acknowledge the debt, is placed in Batch 12. The Bank’s Legal Department said it had placed that notice on my file.
Record: Topaz B9 p.120; B12 pp.30–33; Bank Legal reply, 31 July 2025.
Why it matters: The receipt alone could be mistaken for voluntary acceptance of the arrears or an agreed plan.
05My notices to Topaz missing from the production
Batch 9 contains the 11 August termination notice copy addressed to Western Mortgage Services, the servicer. The separately addressed Bank/MAS5 and Topaz notices were not located in the produced material. Nor were the four Special Delivery letters I sent directly to Topaz, for which I hold signed delivery records. TLT did not give an item-specific account of those notices.
Record: Topaz B9 pp.80–81; E-CON-16; delivery records; Ground 11 ¶50; TLT, 16 July 2026, ¶11(b).
Why it matters: A reader might wrongly think Topaz was not put on notice that I disputed the account and transfer.
06Dates that need explaining
The solicitors’ pre-action letter addressed to me is dated 3 April 2019. A 9 April servicing-diary entry records a solicitor email saying the warning letter was issued “today”, alongside an entry about proceedings. A letter date, an email date and a diary-entry date are different things. I have asked for the original emails, dispatch record and native audit trail.
Read my April 2019 account
Record: E-LIT-28 p.1; servicing diary p.32; Ground 11 ¶53.
Why it matters: Without those records, the sequence before my April 2019 illness and injuries can be read wrongly.
07An undated employment note
One standalone contact-note sheet says I “was a paramedic but had an injury and gave up” and that I was due £50,000 from the ambulance service. I dispute the £50,000 figure and the note’s characterisation of my injuries and employment. The sheet is undated in the Topaz batch, while the diary and FOS file place the note on 10 October 2012. I returned to paramedic work afterwards; later records refer to that work.
Record: Topaz B12 p.58; diary p.5; FOS file pp.766, 809; Ground 11 ¶51.
Why it matters: Without its 2012 date and later work history, the 2012 assertion can be mistaken for my position in 2019.
08Redress presented as my payment or a settlement
The Bank’s £34,105 redress credit of 21 October 2024 appears in different records as “Standing order received”, “MAS SVR SETTLEMENT” and “BANK PAYMENT”. I did not make that payment or agree a settlement of my complaint.
Record: Topaz B8 p.169; SSR0108 transaction spreadsheet, row 588; Front, section 3(8).
Why it matters: A reader could mistake a Bank credit for money I paid or for my agreement to settle.
09Eighty wholly blacked-out pages
Eighty pages in the disclosed batches are wholly redacted, in sixteen runs. Their locations are recorded below; their contents and original dates are unknown. Some runs cover enforcement periods, and some cover periods of poor mental health that I say the Co-operative Bank’s enforcement caused. The Ombudsman needs to review the redacted pages Topaz holds, because the Service has not seen my full file, even though it was requested twice during my investigation.
Show the sixteen recorded runs
- Batch 2: pp.88–99.
- Batch 3: pp.49–57, 87, 90, 107 and 113.
- Batch 5: pp.63–68, 78–84, 86–90, 132–136 and 151.
- Batch 6: pp.31–41 and 132–135.
- Batch 7: pp.88–95, 119–121 and 185–189.
Record: E-DSAR-03; Topaz Batches 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7; completed page-level redaction audit.
Why it matters: Neither I nor someone later relying on the disclosed file can assess what those wholly hidden pages would show.