Topaz’s knowledge and conduct

What Topaz knew—and what it did next

I had put Topaz on notice of my dispute before the transfer. I then challenged the agreement recorded in my name, the credit reporting and the reliability of the file. This page brings together what I told Topaz, what it said and the questions its responses have left unanswered.

Examine the Topaz file

How independent is Topaz?

A comparison of the disclosed records

Same history.
Different disclosures.

I compared the documents supplied by the Co-operative Bank, Topaz and the Financial Ombudsman Service. These 16 selected records and all 16 groups of wholly redacted Topaz pages show where copies were found, where there were only references to them, and where no matching copy was located.

Copy found
Note or reference only
Not located in reviewed records

How the black pages are placed: all 80 wholly redacted pages are shown once, in 16 source groups, with up to four tiles per row. The period labels describe neighbouring readable documents; they do not date the hidden pages. Some groups sit among documents in reverse date order. The question marks mean an unredacted counterpart has not been identified, not that the other files contain nothing from that period. For December 2019, for example, the FOS file includes the 18 and 19 December notes (pp.120 and 99), and the 24 December letter and notes (pp.87 and 89–91).

“Not located” describes the reviewed disclosure and search result. It does not establish that the organisation never held the document. A note mentioning a letter is not the letter itself. Finding a copy in the FOS file does not, on its own, establish when it arrived or whether the Ombudsman personally read it.

The unanswered question

What else have I never been allowed to see?

Taken together, these gaps give me reason to believe that relevant material may remain undisclosed. I ask Topaz to identify what the redacted pages are, explain each redaction, and account for documents found in the Bank’s disclosure but not its own.

I ask the Service to establish which of those records it actually received before deciding my complaint.

Sources and scope of this comparison

E-ANA-14, disclosure comparison matrix v2, “Priority” and “Letter Members” sheets. The 16 rows above use priority determinations P1, P2, P4, P5 and P6, and letter records EANA05-G304, G368, G370, G373, G388, G390, G395, G397, G398, G399 and G400. The added letter rows are classified as unique in that schedule. The 7 October 2013 order is a located order page; complete pagination is not asserted. The table is a selected illustration, not a new count of all missing correspondence. The enforcement-letter totals elsewhere on this site use their separately reconciled schedule.

The 80 wholly redacted pages shown in the table and summarised below are the same pages, not two sets. Their source runs are 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; and Batch 7 pp.88–95, 119–121 and 185–189. See The Topaz file. Their contents cannot be inferred from the identified records above. This chart shows disclosed-file differences; my allegation that relevant material has been withheld is an inference I ask the firms and the Service to address.

01 / Notice before acquisition

What I told Topaz before the transfer

I sent notices to Topaz by Special Delivery in August 2025, before it took over the account (delivered 12, 15 and 19 August), and again on 28 October 2025. I hold signed delivery records for all four. I had put it on notice of my Ombudsman’s decision and my dispute. The separately addressed notices to Topaz were not located in the material it later disclosed to me.

That raises a specific question: how did Topaz record, consider and pass on the notices it received before taking over the account?

The notices and the disclosure gap → · The transfer chronology →

02 / Consent and credit reporting

Where is my agreement?

I had not agreed to a zero-interest arrangement or repayment plan. On 6 November 2025, I asked Topaz to confirm that no adverse credit reporting had been or would be made on disputed arrears, and to identify the dates and credit reference agencies if it had.

On 2 December 2025, Topaz told me: “As your account is currently on a 0% concession, we also report that there is an arrangement in place.” On 18 February 2026, it said the Bank had told it the rate was “unilaterally applied” and that I “had not asked them to apply one”.

Those responses do not identify any agreement by me. I ask Topaz to explain the evidence on which it recorded an arrangement and what it did after I challenged that reporting.

My earlier reporting objections → · Read the correspondence → · The consent records in the file →

03 / Topaz’s stated reasons

Allowing my injunction application “to fall away”

On 23 October 2025, the day my injunction application was referred for listing, Topaz extended the zero interest rate for four months. I had not informed Topaz of my application by that date; I gave it notice directly on 28 October.

In December, Topaz explained that its reasons for extending the rate included allowing the transfer to be registered at the Land Registry and my injunction application “to fall away”. It also said it had exchanged limited information with MAS5 and the Bank before the transfer “under common interest privilege”.

On 28 October, Eversheds had said it was not instructed by Topaz. By 2 December, Topaz said Eversheds acted for it. I say the timing, communications and shared solicitors require an explanation.

Read the dates, correspondence and account of the hearing →

04 / The account it relies upon

Which decision—and which account?

Topaz’s disclosure contains another couple’s Ombudsman decision. My own Final Decision was not located in the material supplied to me, and TLT did not specifically confirm whether Topaz holds it.

The Bank’s later reconstruction shows no arrears, or a credit, every day from 12 March 2014 to 21 April 2023. That history matters when examining the earlier enforcement and the credit reporting. I ask Topaz to identify the decision and corrected account it relies on, and explain how my objections have been investigated and recorded.

The different Ombudsman decision in the file → · The requested and supplied account history →

The June–July 2026 exchange

What I asked. What TLT answered.

I raised these file problems before renewed enforcement. TLT replied and defended the transferred records. Its 16 July response grouped several questions into general search and accuracy answers; it did not resolve the specific points below. TLT also said Topaz held no MAS5 call recordings or transcripts.

My question	What the response resolved—and did not
Does Topaz hold my actual Final Decision?	The reply gave a general answer about searches and disclosure. It did not specifically confirm whether Topaz holds the Decision or explain why another couple’s decision appears in my file.
Which communication establishes my agreement?	TLT said in May that the rate was a forbearance measure that did not need my agreement. In July it defended the Bank’s entries as historical notes, but identified no call, email or letter in which I agreed to a repayment plan.
Where are my notices and objections?	Some objections are in later batches, and the WMS-addressed notice is in Batch 9. The reply did not give item-specific locations or a processing account for notices sent directly to Topaz and the Bank.
Were disputed entries investigated and marked as disputed?	TLT said the records reflected contemporary MAS5 notes and denied improper curation. It did not specifically confirm the requested correction or supplementary statement about the claimed consent, employment history or supposed settlement.

Sources: my 18 June 2026 letter, ¶20(g)–(m) and ¶¶22–24; TLT’s 20 May and 16 July 2026 replies, including 16 July ¶¶10–11; completed TLT correspondence review. The response is reported for what it says, not treated as an admission of my allegations.

Before enforcement

What has Topaz checked?

Topaz is responsible for explaining its own decisions and responses. Before this file is relied upon against my home, I ask it to identify the evidence supporting the agreement and account it asserts, and to show how it has addressed the objections I put to it.

The records behind these questions