No record of my request?
To me · 6 May 2022
“Unfortunately, I am unable to trace your original request…”
The Bank’s email to me, 6 May 2022
Its own diary · May 2022
“Full DSAR will be actioned.”
“DSAR sent out under tracking number…”
Servicing diary (SSR0070), p.93
To me · 9 June 2025
“Finally, we do not have a record of receiving a DSAR from you, but will raise this now.”
The same email: “MAS5 has not deliberately concealed any facts…”
MAS SVR email to me, 9 June 2025
Its own diary · June 2025
“DSAR request processed” (5 June 2025)
“DSAR sent to cust…” (11 June 2025)
Servicing diary (SSR0070), p.103
No record on 9 June of a request it had processed on 5 June.
Perhaps the departments should submit subject access requests to each other.
Read the evidence →
The new-mortgage offer
To me · 2 October 2025
“You will be aware that we have previously offered the opportunity to be considered for a new product from The Co-operative Bank’s current range of mortgages.”
The Bank’s letter telling me my mortgage would transfer to Topaz, 2 October 2025; in Topaz’s file, Batch 13, p.14 (E-CON-17)
To the Ombudsman · as my Final Decision records
“It’s contacted him in more recent years about applying for an internal re-mortgage to another lender within the banking group, but unfortunately Mr J wasn’t eligible to re-mortgage because of the arrears on his mortgage.”
Final Decision, p.6 (adopted at p.21)
Internally · 2021
“No mailing due to significant arrears on account”
MAS5 Mortgage Prisoner referral form (E-INT-06)
The Ombudsman was told I had been contacted. The Bank’s own form says I was not mailed, because of “significant arrears” that its own reconstruction says I did not have. The Bank’s letter in Topaz’s file says I “will be aware” of the offer. I am now.
When I complained in 2021, the Bank told me I was “not eligible for a new Britannia mortgage because you are not up-to-date with your payments”, with “arrears of £12,906.30” (complaint response, 17 August 2021, p.2). Its own later correction shows no arrears on that date.
Read the evidence →
The last resort, or a three-month trigger?
To the Ombudsman · statement of case
“Repossession is always the last resort. The decision to take legal action is never taken lightly, especially when dealing with vulnerable customers”
FOS case file, p.59
To the Ombudsman · 30 August 2024
“Mr J was 3 months in arrears, which meets our trigger for litigation action”
The Bank’s email to the Service
To the Financial Conduct Authority
Withheld
I cannot publish this information without consent. I have asked for permission to share it with the Service.
For a decision never taken lightly, that is a remarkably short explanation.
Read the evidence →
No specific information?
To the court · 20 December 2021
“The Claimant has no specific information concerning the Defendant(s) personal means or circumstances at the present time. Enhanced information will be provided at the hearing.”
MAS5’s notice to the court, addressing the effects of the pandemic (E-LIT-22, p.1)
To its own solicitors · 29 September 2021
“Sensitive/Vulnerable Information: Yes - Mr suffered a traumatic head injury in April 2019; this led to concussion & Amnesia.”
MAS5’s instruction to Aberdein Considine (E-LIT-01, p.1)
What the Bank had received · 27 September 2021
My letter explained my immunodeficiency, shielding and inability to work as a paramedic during the pandemic. The Bank’s copy is stamped received on 27 September.
My letter of 24 September 2021, stamped copy (E-DSAR-05, p.1; clearer copy E-FOS-04, p.1)
To the Financial Conduct Authority
Withheld
I cannot publish this information without consent. I have asked for permission to share it with the Service.
The FCA material remains withheld. My bank balance, meanwhile, is available for inspection.
The solicitors had been told about my head injury. The Bank had received my explanation of shielding and work. The notice to the court said it had “no specific information” about my circumstances.
Read the evidence →
The letter they knew was wrong
To me · letter dated 23 April 2025
“If we receive no contact and the mortgage is not redeemed within 15 working days from the date of this letter, the account will be passed to our solicitors. They will take legal action which may result in repossession of the property.”
MAS5’s LD18 letter, which also suggested solicitors specialising in probate (E-DEB-03, p.1)
In its own diary · 23 April 2025, 16:53
“Template content is incorrect therefore have requested for letter to be stopped and will reissue.”
Timed servicing diary (E-STM-07, pp.1–2; also E-STM-06, p.101)
I received the demand. The Bank’s own diary said the letter was wrong and should be stopped. The records do not establish whether it was dispatched before or after that instruction.
Even the template tried to withdraw.
Read my account of what followed →
Support, or the price of a meeting?
The assertion
“Thank you for sharing with my colleague [name removed] your current financial position and your personal circumstances so we can consider how best to support you at this time”.
The Bank’s email, 25 June 2025
My account and the record
I shared my financial position because I was promised a meeting, in an email sent on behalf of a senior executive of the Bank.
Apparently the meeting was optional. My financial details were not.
Read the meeting correspondence →
An agreement in search of a customer.
The recorded assertion
“We have been in contact with Mr. Jarrett and agreed that we will implement a zero interest rate on his mortgage”.
The Bank’s internal account of the 0% rate
My position
I had stopped the payments in 2024 so as not to affirm the contract, so a 0% rate was of limited interest. They supplied the rate, wrote the agreement and recorded my consent. A remarkably efficient service. The only thing they forgot was to ask me.
Six written accounts of one rate. None says when I agreed.
- 11 June 2025, the servicer’s diary note of the call: “SOLUTIONS OFFERED / AGREED ACTIONS N/A”.
- 25 June 2025, the Bank: “Please let us know if you would like us to implement the reduced interest rate…”
- 4 July 2025, an internal Capita email: “Mr has also consented to this.”
- 9 July 2025, the Bank’s letter: “We have therefore now implemented a zero interest rate on your mortgage…”
- 28 April 2026, Eversheds Sutherland for MAS5 and the Bank: “MAS 5’s agreement to apply a 0% interest concession”.
- 20 May 2026, TLT for Topaz (Aspiro): the rate “did not require your agreement to take effect”.
I hold the Bank’s own recording of the 11 June call. It contains no mention of 0%, of a reduced rate or of a concession.
The paperwork is very sure I agreed. I am very sure I did not.
Read the correspondence and my objections →
An arrangement of one?
MAS5, to me · 17 July 2025
“This rate concession plan will be reported to the CRAs [credit reference agencies] as an ‘arrangement’. This shows other lenders that you have agreed a plan with us.”
MAS5 rate concession letter, 17 July 2025
Topaz, to me · 2 December 2025
“…we elected to extend the duration of the 0% concession by four months…”
“As your account is currently on a 0% concession, we also report that there is an arrangement in place.”
Aspiro Mortgages (Topaz) letter, 2 December 2025, points 6 and 7
TLT, for Topaz, to me · 19 June 2026
“…the recording of the arrangement did not necessarily mean a new agreement was formally entered into or accepted by you…”
TLT LLP letter, 19 June 2026
It takes two to make an arrangement. On Topaz’s own account, it managed it alone.
Read the evidence →
Never raised it before?
The assertion
“This is not something you have raised concerns about previously.”
Eversheds Sutherland, 28 April 2026
My account and the record
I had requested CRA corrections in August 2025, raised the reporting with Eversheds on 1 October 2025 and chased it on 11 February 2026. I had asked Topaz about it on 6 November 2025.
“Previously” is doing quite a lot of work there.
Read the earlier objections →
Accurate, but not heard?
TLT, for Topaz · 16 July 2026
“…the records form part of the account history transferred to Aspiro from your previous lender… and accurately reflects contemporaneous views or notes recorded by MAS5 (or their agents) at the time.”
TLT LLP letter of response, 16 July 2026, para 10
The same letter
“Aspiro does not hold the call recordings or transcripts that originated with MAS5. We would suggest that you contact MAS5 in relation to these.”
TLT LLP letter of response, 16 July 2026, para 11(c)
TLT, for Topaz · 19 June 2026
“Aspiro cannot comment on what you were told by The Co-Operative Bank plc / MAS5.”
TLT LLP letter, 19 June 2026
According to TLT, the notes accurately reflect what MAS5 recorded at the time. Topaz has not heard the calls, cannot comment on what was said in them, and suggests I ask MAS5.
The paperwork appears to have vouched for itself.
Read the evidence →
A great benefit?
TLT, for Topaz · 20 May 2026
“This was plainly a great benefit to you.”
TLT LLP letter, 20 May 2026, p.2, on the 0% rate
The next sentence
“Aspiro continued to apply the Concession Rate until 28 February 2026… to allow time for: the transfer of the charge to be registered at the Land Registry; your injunction application under PT-2025-000865 to fall away…”
TLT LLP letter, 20 May 2026, pp.2–3, repeating Topaz’s letter of 2 December 2025
A great benefit to me. The first two reasons on the list were the Land Registry and my injunction.
Read the evidence →
Which claim?
Topaz, to me · 2 December 2025
It said it first became aware of:
“PT-2025-000865 on 22 August 2025 (when you informed us via email, received 10.23)”
Topaz’s letter, answer 1 (E-TOP-03, p.1)
The same letter · why it extended the 0% rate
One of its stated reasons was to allow time for:
“your injunction application under PT-2025-000865 to fall away (which we consider it has, please see 4 above)”
Topaz’s letter, answer 7 (E-TOP-03, p.4)
Topaz, to me · 18 February 2026
“We are not aware of any claim (or threatened claim) by yourself against The Co-operative Bank plc.”
Topaz’s email, answer 4 (E-TOP-04, p.2)
They knew the number, the date they first heard of it, and cited it as a reason for extending my rate. By February, they were not aware of “any claim (or threatened claim)” against the Bank.
The number they quoted was my August application. It was parked until I issued a main claim, and I hadn’t. Topaz said as much in the same letter: it considered that application “superseded by events” (answer 4). So the 0% was extended to give a parked application time to fall away.
The application that was actually moving was in my data claim against the Co-op and MAS5. At 11:03 on 23 October the court sent it to judges’ listing, and the same day the 0% was extended. Wrong claim, right day. It’s a bit like blaming the traffic jam on the car in your garage. Two claim numbers, and Topaz confidently picked the wrong one.
The December letter also described my data-access claim, the only claim I have issued (E-TOP-03, pp.2–4; E-CRT-02; E-CRT-04).
Topaz picked the claim that wasn’t going anywhere, which seems fitting for a 0% rate I never asked for.
Read the chronology →
Between placements. Not between careers.
To the Ombudsman
“By October 2018 Mr Jarrett was unemployed”.
Statement of case, FOS file p.58
My account
The placement ended. My employment did not. The Bank’s later reconstruction showed no arrears at the time anyway. I should have taken more time off. Perhaps a holiday—somewhere the post couldn’t find me.
Read the employment evidence →
The box says “No”. What was in the envelope?
The assertion
The “No” answer about evidence of an SMI claim.
Possession checklist, 29 September 2021
My account and the record
The possession checklist signed on 29 September 2021 answered “No” to evidence of an SMI or appropriate Universal Credit claim. My September letter enclosed the application paperwork, and on 7 October 2021 the Bank confirmed it had completed and sent my MI12 to DWP. What had the Bank received when it signed that answer, and did it correct the answer before the paperwork was relied upon in court?
Before relying on the tick box, perhaps we should look at what was in the envelope.
Read the court-document comparison →
No separate funding costs? The accounts had some.
To the Ombudsman, in the lead case · 16 September 2022
“They also note that MAS 5 was funded on a group basis using pooled funding sources. On that basis their view is that this ‘precludes any discussion of MAS5-specific funding costs that are different to group-level funding costs’.”
MAS5’s submission in the lead complaint, §8.3.10, citing its expert (E-FOS-15)
The Ombudsman’s finding, in the lead case · 6 November 2023
“I am satisfied that the accounts show that in fact MAS5’s business was managed separately from the group, and its costs of funding were also separate.”
Lead-case final decision, p.31 (E-CMP-09)
Separate costs were apparently impossible to discuss. Fortunately, the accounts had already started the conversation.
Read the evidence →
The regulator
Withheld
Information the Bank gave the Financial Conduct Authority is relevant to my case. I have asked for permission to share it with the Service; otherwise, to do so would be a criminal offence (FSMA 2000).