The thread through every page
The Bank has different versions of events for different audiences: the High Court, the FCA, the Ombudsman, its investors, its customers, the media, its charity partners… This is the Bank’s “two-audience” problem. Sometimes the Bank forgets which story has been told to which audience. Now Topaz, Eversheds and TLT are joining in, each with their own particular flavour of amnesia, so in these pages I endeavour to assist.
Each card sets one account beside another, with its source. The evidence pages carry the full documents. For the Bank’s statements set against the documents themselves, see Assertion versus evidence.
To the Ombudsman · 31 July 2024
“As you aware, the mortgage book was transferred to MAS in 2007, at which point the restrictive covenant was agreed.”
E-FOS-13, pp.1–2
To me · 25 July 2025
“Later in 2006 the mortgage was transferred to MAS5 … At the time of the transfer, there were certain terms that were agreed …”
E-DIS-01, p.1
To the Ombudsman · 31 July 2024
“GMAC would not have known or foreseen the sale of the mortgage book when the mortgage was taken out in 2006, and therefore it is inconceivable that a future agreement… would be referenced in the KFI.”
The Bank’s email to my investigator, 31 July 2024 (E-FOS-13)
To Parliament · 4 September 2013
“We bought GMAC loans on a portfolio-by-portfolio basis.”
“…if the loans proved not to be what we thought they were going to be, we put those loans back to GMAC.”
Neville Richardson, Treasury Committee, Project Verde, Vol II, Ev 25 (Q200)
The sale agreements
GMAC-RFC sold mortgages to MAS4 under agreements from 29 April 2005, and to MAS5 from 31 March 2006. GMAC’s own presentation describes entering the UK market by “creating to trade”.
Securitisation prospectus list of mortgage sale agreements; GMAC-RFC presentation
Inconceivable that GMAC foresaw a sale. Its first sale agreement with MAS5 is dated twelve days before my mortgage completed.
To me · 9 July 2025
“We re-iterate that MAS5 has not deliberately concealed any facts and we strongly deny that we have acted dishonestly or made misrepresentations.”
“…the restrictive covenant, which the FOS reviewed when arriving at their final decision…”
The Co-operative Bank’s letter to me, 9 July 2025
In the Ombudsman’s file · as disclosed to me
1,073 pages. No text of the covenant clause (Clause 14), and no Mortgage Sale Agreement.
FOS case file, subject access response
To investors · 31 July 2020
“The Seller has confirmed that, in respect of the Loans, there have been 21 upheld borrower complaints brought before the Ombudsman in the last five years.”
Avon Finance No. 1 prospectus, p.323
To investors · 25 August 2023
The interim legal title holders “intend to transfer legal title to the loans to another provider”. The intended new holder is Western Mortgage Services, a Capita company.
Avon Finance No. 3 prospectus, pp.12 and 206
Nothing concealed. The investors were told in August 2023.
To the Ombudsman · as the jurisdiction decision records
“MAS5 wrote to Mr J each time they changed the interest rate applied to his mortgage.”
Jurisdiction decision, 4 July 2024, p.3
To the High Court · 2022
“…due to changes in MAS5’s computer systems, the rate change letters issued before January 2010 are no longer available.”
MAS5’s skeleton argument in its judicial review of the Ombudsman, footnote 6
What a fellow borrower kept · September 2009
The standard variable rate is “not linked to the Bank of England base rate or the LIBOR rate”.
MAS5’s rate-change notice to another borrower, raising the rate to 4.50% from 1 October 2009, the same rise as mine
Nothing concealed. The letters are simply “no longer available”, except to the borrowers who kept them.
The Bank, to me · 14 August 2025
“Please note that we will hold future correspondence of this nature on file and it will not be responded to.”
The Bank’s Legal Department letter, 14 August 2025 (E-CON-18, p.66)
The Bank, to Topaz · the same day, according to Topaz
“When The Co-operative Bank plc emailed us on 14 August 2025, they categorised your challenge to the proposed transfer of your account to Aspiro Mortgages as a ‘complaint’.”
Topaz’s email to me, 18 February 2026, answer 1 (E-TOP-04, p.2)
A “complaint” when the Bank spoke to Topaz. Correspondence it would keep on file and not answer when it spoke to me. Both accounts concern 14 August 2025.
TLT, for Topaz · 20 May 2026
“Aspiro is a completely separate entity. Aspiro rejects any suggestion of coordinated or improper conduct with either The Co-operative Bank or MAS5 and has acted independently…”
TLT LLP letter, 20 May 2026, p.3
Topaz, to me · 2 December 2025
“Prior to the transfer of your account to Aspiro Mortgages, we exchanged limited information with MAS5 and The Co-operative Bank p.l.c. (The Co-op) about your account. These exchanges took place under common interest privilege…”
“…like MAS 5/ the Co-op, we engage Eversheds as our solicitors…”
Aspiro Mortgages (Topaz) letter, 2 December 2025, points 1 and 4
Completely separate, with a common interest and the same solicitors.
To the High Court · 14 April 2022
“The Claimant [MAS5] is extremely surprised that the Defendant [the Ombudsman] has raised this as an issue.”
“…the Defendant has previously upheld the fairness of the Claimant’s variation terms on multiple occasions…”
MAS5’s second witness statement in its judicial review of the Ombudsman, CO/4036/2021, paras 8 and 9. Its table of examples in MAS5’s favour (para 20) runs from 2009 to 2021.
From the Ombudsman’s investigator · another MAS5 borrower · 17 June 2020
“I have so far seen nothing to show that MAS5 actually carried on any “mortgage lending business” within sub condition (b).”
“…I’m not satisfied MAS5 has increased the SVR in line with the terms and conditions of [the borrowers’] mortgage. As a result, I think [they] have been treated unfairly.”
Investigator’s view, 17 June 2020, pp.5 and 7 (names removed)
What followed · as the APPG wrote to the Bank, 21 June 2022
The borrower was required to sign a confidentiality agreement, was paid £150,000 in compensation, and had her interest rate reduced.
All Party Parliamentary Group on Mortgage Prisoners, email to the Bank, 21 June 2022
The June 2020 view did not make the table.
To investors · Global ABS, Barcelona, June 2015
The non-core business would be actively managed to achieve value or “targeted for run down or exit”.
The Bank’s investor presentation
To me · 2021, while charging 5.25% over base rate
“We have done our utmost to support you and help you keep your home”
The Bank’s letter to me
To the Ombudsman · as my Final Decision records
“MAS5 has provided evidence of the risk profile of the mortgages it holds… I’m satisfied that information shows that there is a greater cost to the group when a MAS5 mortgage defaults…”
Final Decision, 16 September 2024, p.12
To me · 9 July 2025
“…it should also take into account the funding costs of the wider group of companies as this was the substance of how the mortgages were funded.”
The Co-operative Bank’s letter to me, 9 July 2025
In its own annual report · 2020
“The Group continues to hold the legal title of the mortgages beneficially owned by the Avon entities on a commercial basis.”
The Co-operative Bank, Annual Report and Accounts 2020, note 2.1.2, p.173
By 2020, on the Bank’s own accounts, the mortgages were beneficially owned by the Avon entities. The decision that relied on a cost to the group came four years later.
To the Ombudsman · as my Final Decision records
“…there is also a much higher risk of those mortgages defaulting.”
“…in general the mortgages MAS5 holds are higher risk than those held by other parts of the banking group…”
Final Decision, 16 September 2024, p.12
To the Ombudsman · September 2022 (lead case)
“The Bank had an eclectic mix of mortgage assets ranging from prime retail products to non-conforming (sub-prime) assets such as those held within the Optimum portfolio.”
The Bank’s submission of 16 September 2022, para 8.2.4, p.13
To Parliament · 4 September 2013
“…these loans were never worse performing than the Britannia-generated loans.”
“It was certainly a source of profit and a very good return on capital.”
“That has been a good book and, over the years, earned Britannia members profits of well over £100 million.”
Neville Richardson, former chief executive of Britannia and the Co-operative Bank, Treasury Committee, Project Verde, Vol II, Ev 25 (Q201, Q204–205). The £100 million is for the whole Optimum book, which included the GMAC loans.
The same Optimum book: “a good book” to Parliament in 2013; “non-conforming (sub-prime)” to the Ombudsman in 2022.
To the Ombudsman · 13 January 2022
“In light of this we are satisfied legal action is the correct course of action and its application has been handled correctly.”
MAS5’s statement of case (E-FOS-16, p.4; FOS case file, p.59)
Internally · 26 January 2022
“From what I can ascertain, no-one (including me) noticed the request within the FOS email of 04/10/21 to put possession proceedings on hold.”
The servicing complaint handler’s internal email (E-INT-01, p.1)
To the Financial Conduct Authority
I cannot publish this information without consent. I have asked for permission to share it with the Service.
The Bank was satisfied that enforcing my alleged arrears was the correct course of action. Its later reconstruction showed no arrears at the relevant dates. “Handled correctly” to the Ombudsman on 13 January. Internally, thirteen days later, the explanation was that nobody had noticed its October request to put the proceedings on hold. An unfortunate administrative oversight: they had remembered the repossession but forgotten the instruction to stop it. Recollections may have varied. Fortunately, the emails had kept a diary.
To the Ombudsman · 13 January 2022
“We believed we had done our best to help him return his mortgage to good order and keep his home since 2012.”
“…a team within our collections department which specialised in supporting vulnerable customers.”
The Bank’s statement of case, FOS case file pp.57–58
Its own call notes · November 2019 to January 2020
“Need to discuss exit strategies with MR or possibility of account returning to Lit.”
“I confirmed if he doesn’t accept AVS by 04/01/20, we will write out to confirm intent to litigate.”
“…we wouldn’t litigate if there were no arrears, not that I was expecting clearing them to be possible at this stage.”
Co-op DSAR 2(1), pp.342, 386 and 391 (undated as supplied). AVS is its Assisted Voluntary Sale scheme.
Its own reconstruction · disclosed in 2025
Arrears on 24 December 2019: £0.00.
The Bank’s reconstruction, using the Ombudsman’s limited correction
“We wouldn’t litigate if there were no arrears.” On its own reconstruction, there were none.
To the Ombudsman · statement of case
“By October 2018 Mr Jarrett was unemployed”
FOS case file, p.58
In the file passed to Topaz · undated
“was a paramedic but had an injury and gave up”
Topaz Batch 12, p.58, placed before my 2022 High Court statement; the diary dates it 10 October 2012
In its own notes
“Mr is a self-employed Paramedic” (9 January 2017); “Mr was employed via an agency as PAYE” (late 2019)
Bank notes; Co-op DSAR 2(1), p.386
To the Financial Conduct Authority
I cannot publish this information without consent. I have asked for permission to share it with the Service.
Even I’m confused! Nurse!
Internally · the servicer, 4 July 2025
“Mr has also consented to this.”
Capita email requesting the 0% rate
To Topaz · as Topaz reported on 18 February 2026
“The Co-operative Bank informed us that they had unilaterally applied a 0% concession to your account – in other words, they informed us that you had not asked them to apply one.”
Topaz/Aspiro email, 18 February 2026
To me · Eversheds, for the Bank and MAS5 · 28 April 2026
“…MAS 5’s agreement to apply a 0% interest concession to your mortgage account.”
“Both letters advised you to get in touch, within 10 days of the date of the respective letters, if you did not think the arrangement was right for you.”
Eversheds Sutherland letter, 28 April 2026, paras 7 and 10
To me · TLT, for Topaz · 20 May 2026
“…the application of the Concession Rate was a forbearance measure applied to the account and did not require your agreement to take effect.”
“Aspiro accepts that the existence or application of the Concession Rate does not evidence any agreement, consent, or affirmation on your part.”
TLT LLP letter, 20 May 2026, p.3
Four accounts of one 0% rate: “consented”; “unilaterally applied”; an “agreement” and an “arrangement”; and no agreement needed at all.
Eversheds, to me · 28 October 2025
“…we are not instructed by Topaz Finance Ltd. As such, service of documents upon us on behalf of Topaz is not accepted and nor is it effective.”
Eversheds Sutherland email, 28 October 2025
Topaz, to me · 2 December 2025
“…like MAS 5/ the Co-op, we engage Eversheds as our solicitors, although such instruction is entirely coincidental. Eversheds are instructed to accept service of proceedings on our behalf.”
Aspiro Mortgages (Topaz) letter, 2 December 2025, point 4
Eversheds, to me · 23 April 2026
“Eversheds Sutherland is no longer instructed by Topaz in relation to these matters.”
Eversheds Sutherland email, 23 April 2026
Not instructed in October. Instructed, “entirely coincidental”, in December. “No longer instructed” in April, a week after my notice of 16 April 2026.
To me · 17 August 2021
“As a subsidiary of The Co-operative Bank, since November 2019 we have offered MAS5 customers the opportunity to apply for a Britannia branded mortgage from The Co-operative Bank…”
Final response to my complaint, 17 August 2021; Co-op DSAR 2(2), p.344
To investors · July 2020
“…the Co-op Bank proposes to offer to eligible Borrowers the ability to switch to a new mortgage made by a member of the Co-op Bank Group…”
“The Legal Title Holders do not permit Product Switches…”
Avon Finance No. 1 prospectus, 31 July 2020, pp.37 and 12
To investors · 17 September 2020
“On 1 May 2020, the FCA published a statement noting the impact of coronavirus/COVID-19… it would be wrong to require letters to be sent to consumers at that time.”
“A plan for transferring mortgage prisoners onto new mortgages is still being worked through by the Treasury and FCA.”
Avon Finance No. 2 prospectus, 17 September 2020, pp.60–61 (the FCA statement is public)
According to the letter I received in 2021 (my complaint response), the offer had been running since November 2019. Eight months in, investors were told it was still a proposal. By September, they were reading that the letters could wait.
The judge’s clarification · 31 October 2025
“Thus there is no determination that case reference PT-2025-000865 or case reference BL-2025—001117 are somehow ‘totally without merit’.”
“I therefore refused to make the interim injunction that was requested but have made no wider order that affects PT-2025-000865 or BL-2025-001117.”
The judge said the “totally without merit” designation was the court’s own. He noted that counsel had presented it as agreed between them, and explained:
“…I was not invited to disagree with the defendants’ view that the application was indeed totally without merit”.
Mr Justice Richards, clarification sent through his clerk, 31 October 2025 at 14:50, paragraphs 2 and 4
Topaz, to me · 2 December 2025
“Instead, after you tried to issue a fresh application on 21 October 2025, this was struck out as being entirely without merit by Mr. Justice Richards on 31 October 2025.”
Topaz’s letter, answer 4 (E-TOP-03, p.2)
TLT, for Topaz · 10 July 2026
“Furthermore, Aspiro is aware that your claim under PT-2025-000865 was struck out by the Court as entirely without merit.”
TLT’s letter, paragraph 1 (E-SOL-14, p.1)
To the Financial Conduct Authority
I cannot publish this information without consent. I have asked for permission to share it with the Service.
Several audiences here. Was the judge told about the coordinated conduct I allege—Eversheds choreographing the Co-op and Topaz’s dance of deception?
The judge distinguished the particular application from both case references. Topaz’s December letter referred to the application; TLT’s July letter called it my claim. A small change of noun. A rather larger change of meaning. Apparently, even the court order needed a little choreography.
To the Ombudsman · as my Final Decision records
“MAS5 has calculated what the account position would have been had the interest rate been 1.25% lower… and that confirms the mortgage account would still be in arrears now had the unfair rate increases not been made.”
The Decision went on: “Even if the interest rate had been 2.76% lower than it was (as Mr J says it should have been), the monthly payments would not have been affordable for Mr J during those periods.”
Final Decision, 16 September 2024, p.17
To me · 9 June 2025
“…the balance of your account would have been £205,815.90 when our solicitors’ letter was sent to you in April 2019. Whilst the account would have been notionally clear of arrears at this date under this redress calculation approach, whether your account would have in reality been in credit or arrears at this (or any other) time, depends on a number of factors and it is not possible to definitively reconstruct your arrears balance simply by applying a reduced rate of interest to the account.”
MAS SVR email to me, 9 June 2025
Its own reconstruction · disclosed in 2025
No arrears, or a credit, every day from 12 March 2014 to 21 April 2023, using the Ombudsman’s limited correction.
E-CON-14
To the Financial Conduct Authority
I cannot publish this information without consent. I have asked for permission to share it with the Service.
To the Ombudsman, applying a lower rate “confirms” the arrears; to me, it is “not possible” to reconstruct them that way. And with no arrears for nine years on the 1.25% correction, why could I not have afforded the mortgage at 2.76% lower? Apparently, the arithmetic also depends on the audience.
These examples now have their full evidence cards on Assertion versus evidence:
What the Bank told the FCA: withheld under FSMA 2000. I am not allowed to publish it without consent.