Can an unregulated & unregistered debt allegation be enforced through a regulated system?

Liz Watson made this Freedom of Information request to Prudential Regulation Authority

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Waiting for an internal review by Prudential Regulation Authority of their handling of this request.

Dear Prudential Regulation Authority,

1. What constitutes a proof of debt?
2. What defines and constitutes a lawful debt?
3. What has to be in place (if anything) for a debt to be registered?
4. what has to be in place (if anything) for a debt to be deemed 'lawful' ?
5. Can an unregistered debt be enforced?
6. Does an unregulated unregistered debt have jurisdiction in a regulated system of HMCTS?
7. How important is the forensic audit trail in proving that a debt actually exists before a bankruptcy order can be made?
8. Why are innocent people being branded "bankrupt" when they are not and where the Insolvency Service has no burden of proof to be met? Isn't this plainly wrong?
9. Where does one turn to if the police will not police, when major banks create false instruments / fake accounts using false sort codes and fraudulent numbers ?
10. Why are HMCTS being used by criminals to launder toxic and false 'debt' through against innocent people, when the judges are not adequately monitored?
11. why does the Government claim "separation of powers and independence" when judges are appointed, paid and pensioned by Parliament, and are all trained advocates or solicitors - surely this is a conflict of interests?
12. Can the Insolvency service really claim jurisdiction on fake debt where false instruments have been used? how can the abuse of bankruptcy be stopped?

Please see the email below to the Supreme Court Registrar which highlights the issues on our case. I have the documentary evidence referred to which can be provided if you email me privately.

Yours faithfully
Elizabeth watson - please see below

Fao: The Registrar
Louise di Mambro
Supreme Court

Dear Louise di Mambro,

2nd NOTICE of FOIA & DSAR REQUEST

This is a FOIA request and DSAR request, being the 2nd one following your non-response to the SARN request filed with you by Recorded delivery dated 11 September 2017 (copy attached). Why haven't you responded? Is the Supreme Court deemed to be exempt from the FOIA and SARN rules?

This is being copied to the Treasury Select Committee who we're relieved to note have announced last Thursday they are opening a Public Enquiry into Economic Crimes across the UK.

Six members of my family are victims of highly sophisticated and organised White Collar frauds spanning the past 18 years, along with hundreds of others on the Baker Tilly creditors list. The evidence I hold suggests that the latter firm, now RSM, conducted a fraudulent insolvency from 2004 to allow HBOS villains to walk away scot free, misguidedly justifying it as "in the interests of the economy". We contest this.

The Official Receiver, Mr Carton Kelly, admitted to me in May 2007 that he'd entered into a bribe deal (which he termed a '£10 million cooperation agreement') with the US Receiver after being "put on the back foot" as $233 million of British money ended up on American soil and has never been retrieved, since.
Yet, under the direction of IP Geoff Carton-Kelly, Baker Tilly as a firm disingenuously took millions in fees despite there being no forensic audit trail due to false accounting and false instruments being used! Is this permitted?
The victims have been sidelined and given a few crumbs under the table, through Baker Tilly's insidious "re-structuring" arm.

Also copied to the Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley Police, Anthony Stansfeld, who is deserving of full Public recognition for his outstanding corruption-fighting stand including the valuable role he played in the jailing of the HBOS fraudsters at Reading Quayside's scandal just over a year ago. We need more honourable officials like Mr Stansfeld whose fine example is exemplary .

OUR MAIN CONCERN:
Please take careful note, I have a suspicious document purporting to be a Supreme court 'order' awarding costs to BOS dated 29 October 2013 without any Consumer credit agreement nor registered debt in existence, which "costs award" it appears the purported beneficiary (Bank of Scotland) apparently do not even know about! (see the Bank's correspondence attached, from 2016)

FACTS:
I also have some Bank of Scotland PLC documents eventually disclosed by DHL under SARN in October 2016 which are equally suspicious because:

a) they refer to an alleged 'loan account' in the names of my husband and I, no: "00803502 122456 and "05594400 122456' neither of which we mandated nor gave any signed authority to open - this was confirmed by Gareth Boardman, David Baxter & Tom Aston as not being on their system as they used fake sort codes etc in evident identity theft;

b) BOS employee Gareth Boardman confirmed in September 2013 that "there's nothing coming up under your profile and postcode" - the DSAR of BOS confirmed in their letter on 24 October 2016 "the calls with Gareth and Tom are not available as they were not on recorded lines" (Actually, they both said they were and I have the recordings, however, in evidence)

c) BOS employee David Baxter in the BOS Fraud unit confirmed in 2013/4 they are fraudulent numbers and aren't on the bank's ledger (I have the phone recording of this call, and others like it to other fraud units)

d) BOS employee tom Aston confirmed in Sept 2013 that account "0535318' was "in someone else's names and had been migrated in error in November 2011 after the BOS/Lloyds merger" - i.e. not our debt. (see PDF transcript) - I have counterfeit 'bank statements' showing DR £407,024.19 in our names being nothing to do with us and not being a debt we have incurred on this unrecognised account number where several migrations occurred from the original "00803502" account without our knowledge.

e) BOS employee Martin Watt in Credit Risk is not known to us nor is Robert Lockyer - prior to the latter coming on the scene and inviting me to meet him "to settle" in February 2014, which proved impossible as it was merely a palliative for the BBC to be able to say "but there has been some movement..." - check out google to find "Nick Wallis HBOS" for the documentary link.

* the date being some 4 days after Robert Lockyer Mgr had relinquished his Lloyds Banking licence in Jersey
* and a month before the BBC 1 Inside Out South documentary was broadcast
* the latter was exposing the HBOS thieving Head Auditor Fraser Mackay of 34 years standing at the Bank
* who misappropriated huge sums of money using fake accounts through the Private Banking Unit of HBOS
* And who I hold his transcripted evidence where he perjured before the Crown, Judge & Jury in Birmingham on 26 & 28 Nov 2007
* demonstrating incontrovertibly that Fraser Mackay, also Director of the PBU, is behind the disappearance of $233m at 2001 values from 400 fellow victims
* this was all because he used false instruments and set them all up himself without any mandate from the named 'bank clients' who all became his victims,

* nor did Mackay disclose to the Judge & Jury that he'd been taking kick backs through a Guernsey account on the quarter billion USD seed capital he misappropriated / stole from the victims - isn't this perjury?

* which account had $214,050 in it when Justice Langstaff questioned him "what's this sum of money in your name" and he responded "nothing" - its there in black & white on his transcript

* then when the Judge asked Mr Mackay why the Watson's purported 'loan' was "held to the BANK's Order" (not the Watson's order) and he responded "oh they'll get it back -" then stopped himself....

* notably, Mr Lockyer's "offer" for ADR proved fruitless as he did not want to examine any of the issues of IDENTITY THEFT or forgery of our signatures that we've suffered for over 24.5 years in this nightmare matter.

* And my husband and I have been branded 'bankrupt' on 2/10/2017 on the fake account "0535318 301818" - being an account that doesn't exist ont he BOS ledger

* it was done using fraudulent means by co-conspirators of Mackay and several employees working at Eversheds solicitors, who've never come clean that they are NOT acting for Bank of Scotland PLC but rather, a SHADOW version of it, run off ledger! Isn't this racketeering an abuse of process and a licence to steal by abusing their positions as court officers?

On account of the foregoing, we require to know:

1. Is the Supreme Court above the Laws of England, meant to protect its People of these lands?
2. Does the Supreme court have exemption from the Data Protection Act 1996 and DSAR Rules and FOIA rules?
3. Does the Supreme Court have any checks and balances in place to validate Claim numbers are authentic and genuinely on the CASEMAN files of HMCTS?
4. Does the Supreme Court regard the statutory record-keeper for the Ministry of Justice, namely THE REGISTRY TRUST, as an official record of all legitimate judgment debts on record?
5. Does the Supreme court deem that an unregistered debt (created through cyber crime activities) which by its nature is unregulated, can be ENFORCED by abusing the Bankruptcy process within the UK ?

* Because, re para (5) above, an unregistered and therefore non-existent 'judgment debt' created through cyber frauds using the fake accounts referred to above, has been relied upon by Richard Pitt ("petitioner") of Eversheds, to purportedly brand us "BANKRUPT" on 2/10/2017 - without a shred of evidence of a Note or contract or audit trail, and no CCA!

* And yet, re para. (4) above, the Registry Trust confirmed to us in writing in October 2017 that they have "no such judgment debt for claim 8PC26793".

* And re. Para (3) above, we now know that claim "8PC26793" was statute barred because it was never sealed by the Court nor served to us, with no claim ever defined, and no extension of time ever applied for within the 6 year rule after it had been filed but not issued - do you require evidence of this?

We therefore submit we are 100% entitled to a Legal Remedy for being wronged by all of the above dishonest bank employees and their cohorts.

Please now examine the attached PDF of a Supreme court 'order' which it appears you signed, awarding costs to BOS which they have not applied to claim in FIVE YEARS - so it begs the question, WHY NOT?

Is it because they do not know about it?
Or Because they know they've no debt?
Or because they have no way of covering up the 10 years of lies by Eversheds, who are acting for a SHADOW VERSION of HBOS named 'In Parallel solutions' which ran in parallel to the 'real' Bank?

It begs the question: why didn't the Supreme court determine that NO SUCH CASE as 8PC26793 exists on the System? Surely, all they had to do was to check with the Ministry of Justice's STATUTORY RECORD KEEPER at the Registry Trust?

- Why should we have been bankrupted when we've never received a penny from any Bank in 25 years?

- Why do we stand falsely accused and now branded "bankrupt" when we are innocent and have had NO FAIR TRIAL in the 10 years this entire nightmare has continued"

- How is the Insolvency Department, using secondary legislation, able to call themselves a "service" for persecuting innocent victims of organised crime like ourselves?

(1) Kindly take note, we have never received any lawfully issued Claim from Bank of Scotland PLC!

(2) We have proof we are the Claimants against the Bank of Scotland PLC (not defendants), but were prevented from having a hearing by Eversheds manipulating the court process and deceiving us to return to the lower (County Court) on the unsealed un-issued and un-served "claim 8PC26793" in 2010.

(3)A fraudster parading as a County Court "judge", Martin Alan Gordon Dancey, colluded with Richard Pitt and his instructing thieving solicitor David Ross Webb on 30/6/2015 at an unnotified UNLISTED non-hearing to steal our home in a 'kangaroo court', where he held me prisoner when I tried to call the police after he admitted intercepting the orally delivered order for Part 31 Disclosure of a higher Circuit Judge HHJ Meston on 14/9/2014

(4) That same 'judge' in the Bournemouth County Court, acting with NO JURISDICTION in Law, deceived us that he'd made an "order for possession" against our home based on "the balance of probability" with NO FACT FIND or merits determination in the preceding 7 years as at 1/7/2015.

(5) The above lie of the untested unproven and fictional "judgment debt" has been used to defame and denigrate our names and credit rating by branding us "bankrupt" - but ON WHAT?

NOTABLY

- We remain ready, willing and able to pay anything that we lawfully owe - but no one will show us any proof

- We've been literally tortured and butchered through HMCTS since 2008 on all of the above deceptions;

- Surely, if there was ever a legitimate claim, it would be an N244 form by the challenging party and not an extreme measure of a purported bankruptcy? its wholly unjustified

- We've been denied all disclosure of any supporting evidence by Eversheds employees for 10 years now

- Tim Pyle fled the scene in Jan 2015 after the High Court realised he was a scammer, then Richard Pitt came on the scene, unabashed, unashamed and undeterred, to continue the 'spin' of deceptions

- The Bank of Scotland has repeatedly referred us back to Eversheds, whom they continue to hide behind

- Eversheds, in turn, have stone-walled us and disconnected the phone, bounced back all emails and withheld all disclosure of evidence

- Perjuring barrister PAUL MITCHELL of Hailsham Chambers has lied through is teeth to mislead the Court for nearly 10 years, relentlessly persecuting us - all in this evident Conspiracy to steal our home and assets.

- all of the above has occurred without due process of Law, using denial of disclosure and abuse of data in private (shadow) courts - which are the only way criminals can launder fictional 'debts" created in shadow accounts.

MORE IMPORTANT than all of the procedural defects and hallmarks of fraud, invalid service etc etc, surely it is that there is NO DEBT and no moneys have ever been given to us by the Bank AND Eversheds have lied in Court for 10 years pretending to be acting for the Bank when they're not?

Isn't PERJURY the highest offence any Court officer can commit under the Laws of England?

I have court orders from the lower County Court awarding costs in my favour in 2010 - which weren't complied with, on our counterclaim - but it was a counterclaim against (what we now know to be ) a void 'claim' which turned out to be statute barred, so would this count?

In early March 2018, senior employees at the Bank of Scotland/Lloyds BG have confirmed to me they have "no solicitors instructed against our property or address or names". So what now?

I also have it on tape in 2013 (as all my calls are recorded) that Nigel from the Supreme court told me (off the record) "sack the solicitors" - as Eversheds (we now realise) had created a FALSE RECORD at the COURT OF APPEAL in 2012 with a FAKE APPEAL NUMBER drawn from the County Court un-issued statute-barred "claim"!

The Supreme court MUST have known there was no such claim on the system

This appears to be precisely why the Supreme court 'order' does not show the FAKE APPEAL numbers,

Nor does it show OUR unheard and unlisted HIgh Court Claim HQ08X04884 from Dec 2008 issued June 2009

But it does, however, show the fraudulent 'claim number 8PC26793' which was never sealed nor issued nor served - on your signed 'order'.

and which 'claim 8PC26793', had NO application for an extension of time ever made as at October 2013.

Until it became STATUTE BARRED in November 2014

So why didn't the Supreme court detect that there was no such claim on the CASE management System?

Is it not the case that this inverse evidence proves that the two Eversheds employees (Tim Pyle and Richard Pitt) and their barrister Paul Mitchell, have committed 10 years of perjury?

Isn't this criminal contempt of court?

Our property rights and right to family life and well being have been treated as worthless by these named parties committing such unconsciable acts of malice.

See attachments in evidence. More evidence of all documents referred to here can be provided upon request. I will now copy this to your Parliamentary website, and trust you will do the right thing by us and all other victims of legal frauds of the likes referred to above.

Yours faithfully,

Liz Watson

Enquiries, Prudential Regulation Authority

Dear Ms Watson

 

We acknowledge receipt of your email and attachment dated 2 April below
(our ref: V 243654).

 

We will reply in due course.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Information Access Team, Communications Directorate

Bank of England | Threadneedle Street | London EC2R 8AH | +44 20 3461 4878

[PRA request email]

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Enquiries, Prudential Regulation Authority

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Watson

Please find attached a response to your email of 2 April below.

Yours sincerely

Information Access Team, Communications Directorate
Bank of England | Threadneedle Street | London EC2R 8AH | +44 20 3461 4878
[PRA request email]

show quoted sections

sent 21 April 2018

Dear Enquiries,
Fao: Stakeholder team
financial Ombudsman service
PO Box 73208
London E14 1QQ
tel: 0303 123 1113

Dear Sir / Madam,

Request for an urgent review of this matter

This letter from Peter Thompson in your Stakeholder Team isn’t a satisfactory response as it obfuscates and hasn’t answered any of my questions. Its more like a side-stepping to what I've asked.
(see these in blue, below)

1.) I didn't ask for any explanations on how the FOS operate - because thats on your website and I can see that information, which isn't what I asked for

2.) I had gone to the FOS' Technical department with these questions, because they're very important questions to know what the POLICY of the FOS is on such a critical topic as enabling people to distinguish between what is enforceable and what is not enforceable etc,

3.) It is obvious that the respondent does not understand The Law is here to protect people, not to expose them to "discretional decisions" by single judges - the Law in other countries in Europe is codified, and we need Law, not discretion - the latter is whimsical and is lawless.

4.) It seems that because the questions I've posed are technical, but they refused to answer them! that's more than odd. Why won't the FOS answer them?

5.) It is not clear why this was passed to a 'stakeholder' when these questions relate to a technical matter.
What is the link between the two?

6.) why are fundamental issues like defining debt and defining enforceability, not in the FOS Handbook and policy / decision-making guidelines? surely they ought to be?

7.) In any event, could you explain to me what is the context and/or relevance of a 'stakeholder' in relation to these questions and why was it passed to one of these, to answer?

8.) In fairness, for and on the record, I don't see much evidence of the FOS being fair and impartial, nor independent, because it is peopled with staff who've mostly worked in the Financial sector and has decision-makers who've had a history in some instances of substantial fines for money laundering etc! If there was genuine impartiality and fairness, the FOS wouldn't keep making rulings in favour of banks who are desecrating people's lives and ruining the Economy.

9.) It simply does not stack up that you say "only a court can decide if a debt needs to be registered for it to decide if a debt is enforceable".

This makes no sense & sounds convoluted: in fact it implies that you know that an unregistered debt can NOT be enforced, therefore you've written "if a debt NEEDS to be registered for a court to decide if a debt is enforceable" - you're twisting the meaning and my words!
Why not just answer the question truthfully? And keep it simple?

10.) It stands to reason that an unregistered debt is not recorded and therefore is unproveable and so can't be enforced. - do you concur with this logic?

It also stands to reason that an unregistered debt is a polite way of saying its a fraudulent debt and so on this basis, fraud cannot be regulated, can it? - in fairness, do you concur?

So if a debt isn't registered, then it can't be regulated, can it? - do you agree?

So can we at least agree that ONLY a lawfully registered debt can be regulated, and only a regulated debt can be enforced

The FOS has confirmed this previously by saying that they can only regulate registered debt and recognised products within the regulatory system - they say they can NOT regulate fraud. So can you please confirm this in writing?

11.) That being said, just WHO DOES regulate (for want of a better word) or DEAL WITH, Fraud? (this is a new question for you to answer please)

12.) You also need to quality "a LAWFUL court" - as there are 'shadow courts' being run which operate in a PRIVATE (not Public) capacity as we hold evidence of that, therefore a private court cannot possibly have jurisdiction, can it? Can we agree on this at least?

13.) How on earth can a FALSE INSTRUMENT (fake numbers and a fraudulent sort code) possibly be lawfully and legally "enforced" ?? i.e. isn't the whole point of regulation to separate the chaff (fraud) from the wheat (legitimate transactions) ?
yet you are suggesting it can be!

It is not right that the FOS are passing the buck on to the alleged 'powers of the court' because:-

a) you are supposed to be the Ombudsman, not the court
b) by your own admission, you say you are "an alternative to the court"
c) you have failed to quality that it needs to be a lawful court and NOT a kangaroo or shadow court with a judge acting in a private capacity (lawless, operating ULTRA VIRES of the System)
d) you fail to take into account a situation where a claim has never been issued, or the parties have no locus standii, or the case number is not on the court's computerised record but has been run ultra vires of the court system...? what then? Yet these are all common everyday occurrences. But don't appear to have been considered by you?
e) Judges do not make the Law
f) No one is above the Law, and unless Trial by Jury is bought back, the powers of the court have been so diminished as to render them demonstrably unfit for purpose with the way they're being used at this time.

14.) When I asked what the criteria are which are being used by the FOS in deciding how things are defined, e.g. if a debt is a cyber-fraud and not on any bank ledger, then the FOS surely needs to know and have a means of establishing what is true from what is false?

15.) In the same way, given a registered 'debt' has to be evidenced (as something can't be based on nothing), you can surely offer the FOS' support to agreeing that there needs to be some form of valid contract or agreement in place which can be proven in evidence to support any decision-making process, wherever that may take place?

16.) Would it be possible for you to send me a copy of the Financial Conduct Authority's Handbook? I would appreciate this.

Please can you advise how Ombudsmen and Case Handlers are selected to work at the FOS, i.e. what criteria are relevant, what credentials does an Ombudsman need to have?
How do Ombudsmen get their 'powers' as such, and from where and on what basis in Law?

I again draw your attention to Q.4, below: which hasn't been addressed. I now ask in particular what is the Law that permits an illegal eviction to occur, for example - since there is NO LAW IN ENGLAND that permits or allows anyone to have their house taken away from them! So why is this happening on such a wide scale?

And finally, I asked "please provide information or advice as to how to access due redress and restitution" in cases where there have been false instruments (fraudulently opened accounts, for example).

So, for the record, if I may ask:-

What is the FOS' policy on dealing with FRAUD?

What route can someone take if the police are corrupt (or involved / complicit in organised crime) and if they refuse to investigate financial crime, which in turn prevents any redress because no restoration can be made where no conviction has occurred?

I look forward to your soonest response, with thanks -
Elizabeth watson

1 What constitutes an enforceable debt?

2. Does a debt have to be registered in order to be enforceable, with some form of agreement in place?

3. If so, what are the accepted forms of agreement to evidence a debt?

4. If a Bank has confirmed that a debt peddled in their name is based on false instruments (i.e. bank accounts using false numbers, not on ledger), is it still enforceable in Law? If so, please provide the Law that permits this. If not, please provide advice as to how to access due redress and restitution response

I’ve carefully considered your request and I’m pleased to share with you the following information: It might be helpful first if I explain a little about how the Financial Ombudsman Service operate.
We are a public body set up by Parliament under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The rules setting out how we should handle complaints are published as part of the Financial Conduct Authority’s Handbook - in the section called Dispute resolution: complaints.

Our role is to informally resolve individual complaints between financial businesses and their customers. We aim to resolve complaints based on what’s fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances of the case.

We are independent and impartial, and act as an alternative to the court system.

In relation to the questions you’ve asked, only a court can decide whether a debt is actually enforceable.

And in terms of whether a debt needs to be registered – again only a court would be able to decide if a step like that is necessary for it to decide if a debt is enforceable.

Agreements for entering into various types of credit and loans can take many different forms these days – from paper forms through to online electronic signatures. Whether an agreement like this is enforceable, again goes back to the courts. And it would also be for a court to decide if a debt based on ‘false instruments’ is one that can be enforced.

please write to Stakeholder team Financial Ombudsman Service PO Box 73208 London E14 1QQ dx 141280 Isle of Dogs 3 website Financial Ombudsman | Free, fair, for everyone

Financial Ombudsman | Free, fair, for everyone
The UK's official expert in sorting out problems with banks, insurance, PPI, loans, mortgages, pensions and ...

Page 2 of 3 While we will take into account the law and regulations when considering a complaint, we don’t have the equivalent powers of a court to say whether a debt is enforceable or not.

We may say that it’s not fair for a business to continue to pursue a debt – but that’s not the same as us saying a debt is unenforceable.

You can find more information on our online technical resource about debt collecting.

And the January/February 2012 edition of ombudsman news also had a focus on this issue, and includes some case studies on the types of complaint we see. You may also find it helpful to take some independent, legal advice to get further answers to your questions. I hope that my response addresses your request; but, if you don’t believe we’ve fully complied with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 the next steps are overleaf.

Yours sincerely,

Liz Watson