Parliamentary enquiry into Insolvency Act abuse and lack of compliance to detect frauds

Liz Watson made this Freedom of Information request to Insolvency Service

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

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Insolvency Service should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Insolvency Service,

The most glaring feature that appears to be 'in absentia' in the Insolvency process and the way it is being conducted by those working in this field, is that the importance of establishing a REGISTERED DEBT exists, is simply not being done. WIth shadow banking and financial crimes at an all time high, it is surely a priority to place urgent focus on first and foremost going through COMPLIANCE before anyone can be adjudged bankrupt?

It is a demonstrable fact that many innocent People are being literally railroaded with no 'fair trial' whatsoever, in undisclosed PRIVATE (not Public) Courts, by greedy solicitors and bankers / shadow bankers abusing the court and insolvency process for private pecuniary advantage by abusing their positions and superior knowledge of the enormous weaknesses within the entire System - which they play to their full advantage, like a violin. Inequality of arms is an understatement.

A few Public Interest questions are raised here, and information is being urgently sought under the FOIA and Public Interest please, if I may -

1. Why is there no apparent policy within the Insolvency Service 1986 or thereafter, in place to protect solvent people who have been fraudulently declared 'bankrupt' using toxic paperwork false instruments, shadow banking and abuse of process through HMCTS by vexatious litigating solicitors or court officers acting in an evident private capacity?

2. How and why are the Public expected to tolerate the Insolvency Service distancing itself from the Court, thus abdicating any corporate responsibility by turning a Nelsonian blind eye to an abuse of process in the Courts as well as in the Insolvency process itself (involving in most cases of this nature both intrinsic fraud in the factum and extrinsic fraud / contempt of court issues, so serious, that it throws into question whether either the courts or the insolvency service can be deemed 'fit for purpose' ?)

3. Why is there no compliance requirement placed on the Official Receiver to investigate the veracity of a registered debt as a preliminary issue, and to establish a lawfully made 'bankruptcy order' before anything can proceed? why is everything done on presumption and assumption with no form of test to ascertain any standard of proof?

4. Why is there no accredited list of authorised Government signatories to sign Certificates of appointment for Trustees in Bankruptcy, leaving vicitms of organised crime wide open to being abused by this lack of compliance?

5. Why are there no penalties for dishonest court officers abusing their positions, who behave in a predatory and inarguably criminal fashion to harm and victimise upstanding law-abiding solvent people by petitioning bankruptcies against them with malevolent intent of accessing pecuniary gain when they can see their Estate is solvent and the debts remain unproven?

6. Why are sovereign individuals human rights to privacy and under Article 8 and Article 6 in particular, being so flagrantly abused and ignored by the contemptible Insolvency Act 1986 which then ADVERTISES in the Gazette to round up more alleged "creditors" with which to vex the targetted victims being subjected to such abuses and iniquitously attempting to bind them? Doesn't this invite all and sundry to jump on the band-wagon gravy train of insolvency abuse? This is like school bullying but far worse.

In a word, the Insolvency Act 1986 does not work: because its a self-evident sham. It does nothing to protect the solvent and in a disturbing number of cases, it is being abused by thieves who seek to access control of a solvent person's estate in order to gain pecuniary advantage -

7. Why are fraudsters abusing the insolvency process being given the same status as innocent victims of organised crime, and being treated as genuine?

8. Why is brazen criminal activity and a number of frauds being pushed aside and ignored, then treated as if they don't exist so that travesties of justice become commonplace within the Bankruptcy courts? This surely can't be right?

9. Above all, why is there little or no provision for detecting, preventing, or dealing with fraudulent 'bankruptcies' - it sanctions giving fraudsters purporting to be creditors the same status as honest creditors seeking restitution! - with no checks and balances or compliance in place to rout out the true from the false, nor separate the chaff from the wheat:

thus, criminals get to have a field day (as Eversheds have done in our case recently - but only to date, because it won't be permitted to last much longer), whilst innocent people seeking justice get no support.

For your urgent attention - please examine below
How the Insolvency Act works? - a Freedom of Information request to Judicial College

How the Insolvency Act works? - a Freedom of Information request to Judicia...
I have been unable to find any case law concerning the interpretation of section 271(3) of the 1986 Insolvency ...

Now hopefully once you've read this and studied the attachments, all can see how very easy it is for criminals, parading as court officers, to abuse the bankruptcy process for private criminal gain, using exempt status Solicitors (like Richard Pitt of Eversheds Cardiff) -
To conduct UNAUTHORISED regulated activity without a Licence to steal from victims and seize control of their assets using fraudulent means.....
Why are the Public tolerating this?
What has happened to The Golden Rule?

Even worse, the audacity of the petitioner (Richard Pitt, a solicitor and Partner at Eversheds Cardiff) involves further fraud as he has no locus to petition a Bankruptcy!
Eversheds Cardiff, (now T/a Eversheds-sutherland (Intl) LLP), who curiously have 'exempt status' with the FCA which they shouldn't have in the first place, according to the FCA are therefore debarred from engaging in regulated activity which is a criminal offence under Part 20 of FSMA 2012 and 2000!

So who's monitoring?

No one?
Lets examine a few facts...

Mrs Sarah Albon incredulously states in her letter to me of 10 October 2017 "....the court has made a valid bankruptcy order against you. ....As such, and I am aware the Official Receiver's office has explained this to you, it is incumbent upon you to cooperate fully with the official receiver at this time.
This fraud is being sanctioned under her watch. She is in a position of Authority - and she does not appear to have thought any of this through.

strong language, that - "incumbent" and "valid" - neither are true. Because we can't be compelled to comply with bullies who are using lies to bind us. Any more than a lie can be termed "valid". We are not slaves and they are not Masters to us. Why, then, is this master-slave relationship approach being adopted here?

An abuse of process is always maliciously motivated, it can't be otherwise - but why oh why are people in high office condoning this? Because it pays them good money? no excuse.
It begs the question in the Public interest - Why is there no policy to protect the innocent, and to protect and vindicate those people who are solvent but who have been unjustly and fraudulently declared 'insolvent' ?
In our case, it is a criminal masquerading as a 'court officer' (richard Pitt) that is making that false declaration.

The Offences
Section 1 creates a general offence of fraud and introduces three ways of committing it set out in Sections 2, 3 and 4.
Fraud by false representation (Section 2);
Fraud by failure to disclose information when there is a legal duty to do so (Section 3); and
Fraud by abuse of position (Section 4).
In each case:
the defendant's conduct must be dishonest;
his/her intention must be to make a gain; or cause a loss or the risk of a loss to another.
No gain or loss needs actually to have been made.
The maximum sentence is 10 years' imprisonment.
Fraud by false representation (Section 2)
The defendant:
made a false representation
knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.
The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.
Fraud by failing to disclose information (Section 3)
The defendant:
failed to disclose information to another person
when he was under a legal duty to disclose that information
dishonestly intending, by that failure, to make a gain or cause a loss.
Like Section 2 (and Section 4) this offence is entirely offender focussed. It is complete as soon as the Defendant fails to disclose information provided he was under a legal duty to do so, and that it was done with the necessary dishonest intent. It differs from the deception offences in that it is immaterial whether or not any one is deceived or any property actually gained or lost.

Conclusion: Is there not a legal duty under the BSB / SRA Code of Conduct rules for a barrister and solicitor to conduct themselves with ethics, and not to mislead the Court?
yes, indeed.
Is there not a legal duty for all Court officers to disclose the debt which they are bringing Bankruptcy proceedings for? yes, of course, I hear you say.....
Without a proof of debt, what do they actually have?

Why are solvent people being "ordered" to do what they're told by corporate bullies who do not understand our rights under Common Law and where many of them appear to have taken leave of all Common sense?

Why are they getting away with casting burdens on innocent people which they do not have to bear themselves (and would not be willing to bear themselves) ?

Who amongst these court officers engaging in these practices and meting out these processes are acting in good conscience? What is qualifying them as being 'fit for purpose" ?

Why is the Government institution called the Insolvency SERVICE ? Its anything but a 'service'. The purpose of Bankruptcy is meant to shield and protect one from creditors, not to feed you to the lions - especially when you have no debt and are NOT insolvent!

The Law is being used against us, instead of to serve us - it is apparently being treated and twisted by bullies to seek to bind us instead of to liberate us from oppression and tyranny and tort.

In our own case, it's an obvious abuse of position for attempting asset-stripping on a non existent debt

1. We've had no disclosure of a debt
Therefore we cannot be adjudged bankrupt

2. The alleged 'judgment' was made in tort and in contempt of court, on an un-issued 'claim' which referred to 2 fraudulently opened bank accounts being allegedly 'in default';

3. In Law nothing exists, so there is nothing to appeal
On this basis we refuse to appeal the purported "Bankruptcies" which aren't worth the paper they're written on and would be nonsensical as otherwise it gives life to the lifeless,

4. but we are prepared to appeal the Chancery judge's refusal to HEAR our rescission application on the grounds of Fraud and the fact that there is no registered debt in existence. Chancery Judge Marcus Smith told me on 12/10/2017 "I can't hear you on anything to do with the case" - so what is the purpose of having courts? What happened to our rights to a fair hearing?

5. We therefore do not consent to these vexatious bankruptcy proceedings which are a nullity, and intend to stand our ground and make this Public - to show what is going on with our Government mis-governing us in favour of criminal activities for their commercial interests.

Also, its a bit ironic that:

1. The "bankruptcy orders" have been plucked from the air without any due process of Law nor anything to under-pin them, and we are being told we must respect them as "valid". This is an affront. It is like saying we must be allowed to cash a cheque that is not signed. Or to be given a University degree certificate without doing the 4 year course for it.

The "bankruptcy orders" can be disingenuously said to be every bit as valid as the fake bank accounts set up by dishonest senior employees within HBOS PLC - they have NO VALIDITY AT ALL. Nullity is the word.

2. We're Creditors of the SAME BANK whose two agents Gangar & White, went to prison for 'conspiracy to defraud and bribing a US official' in 2008, for $233 million stolen via fake bank accounts run by a shadow bank from 17 years ago, still untraced 17 years can we be creditors and debtors to the same bank at the same time? the original debt by the Bank has still not been settled! This is because it was a shadow bank.

Those two accountants are still in prison now - why? Because they were unable to stump up the millions for the confiscation orders...

Why is that? Because the cabal who hired them (led by Fraser Mackay the ex-Head Auditor of HBOS, of 34 years standing at the Bank, and Director of the Private Banking Unit in Manchester), used an inside track or shadow bank run OFF LEDGER within the Private Banking Unit in Manchester under the big HBOS PLC name.
This, in turn, enabled them to get away with utilising false instruments (fake bank accounts, using non-existent sort codes and fraudulent account numbers, plucked from the air).

3. All the above has occurred on an unsealed and unissued claim for possession of our home on a mortgage we've never received!

See the Bank of Scotlands letter confirming they have no record of granting a mortgage: so who is telling the truth? Eversheds employee or the Bank of Scotland PLC which has an evident major problem with employee fraud?
(NB: the petitioner is Eversheds employee Richard Pitt and NOT Bank of Scotland PLC) - going by the form itself.

4. This is the Govt allowing and sanctioning criminal acts due to non-compliance with the Common Law of the people, it's giving shadow banking the same rights as regulated banking! WHY?

5. I also attach the shadow banks illegible purported "ledger" which has no named bank in it, produced in "evidence" of the alleged "debt" if you please!

The FCA told me that no one can enforce an unregustered and therefore, unregulated debt
But I'm being told the Insolvency Service's CEO that the Bankruptcy orders are valid!

6. We are Claimants in the High Court against HBOS PLC now T/a Bank of Scotland PLC since December 2008, so how can a lower court adjudge us 'bankrupt' on an un-issued claim, all made possible because of court officers (Messrs Pyle, Pitt and Mitchell) abusing their positions to twist and tamper with the Court records (eventually even destroying them to hide their criminal acts of deception and then "re-constructing" them according to what the RCJ has told us)?
and how can a Claimant in the High Court be turned in to a "defendant" in a lower court and their role thus be reversed without any disclosure of a legal mortgage or debt in 10 long years?

On the basis of the above, we do not consent to these "Bankruptcy proceedings" nor do we consent to the mindless "Insolvency laws" which are fatally flawed, are being mis-applied and mis-used, and w hich have emerged from the Corrupt EU which itself does not allow its own books to be audited and are reported they have not been signed off for some 20 years!

Reality Check: Has the EU had its accounts signed off? - BBC News
Has the EU had its accounts signed off?

Has the EU had its accounts signed off?
Leave campaigners claim the EU has not had its accounts signed off for 20 years. Are they right?

12 May 2016 - Leave campaigners claim the EU has not had its accounts signed off for 20 years. ... the
European Court of Auditors has not signed off its accounts for 20 years. ... but money that: "should
not have been paid out because it was not used in ... For comparison, the UK National Audit Office
says fraud across UK ...

Mrs Albon - the only cooperation I am obliged to give is under God's Law. Therefore, my message is this: if the Official Receiver investigates the matter under Section 289 and determines that I am 100% correct that :

* there is no registered debt
* there is no legal mortgage
* there is no liquidated debt
* there is no Cause of action
* We are not insolvent
* we are ready to settle any lawfully proven debt and that has always been the case
* there is no valid judgment or court order in the 9 years of County Court proceedings due to no issuance of any claim and therefore no jurisdiciton arising therefrom to make a single order;
* there is no basis in Law to have lawfully and legally adjudged me and my husband bankrupt
* we are therefore entitled to compensation for harassment,reckless negligence, intimidation and unjust discrimination with an apartheid system working contrary to the Courts Overriding Objectives and the Rule of Law - in favour of the 'rule of lawyers' and lawlessness.

See in the link below how Chapter 20 of the Insolvency act relating to notifiable offences appears to have been repealed - why ?
Section 9, however, states the Official Receiver has a Public duty to investigate the conduct and affairs of the matter imposed by section 289 of the Insolvency Act 1986 -
and we are 100% confident that once an investigation is competently and properly done, the Official Receiver will find there is no lawful or possible basis to continue with the Bankruptcy proceedings and will be obliged in Law to report them as an ABUSE OF PROCESS and refer the matter to the criminal Authorities under his or her duties under the Anti-MLRA 2002 as a money-laundering offence.

Dear insolvency practitioner: Chapter 20: Offences and prosecution
Reporting of s.11 and s.13 CDDA offences - undischarged bankrupts and ... imposed by section 289 of the Insolvency Act 1986, he/she should notify the Official ...

How would any of you like it if this happened to you?

9. Official Receiver’s duty to investigate the conduct and affairs of bankrupts
Insolvency practitioners acting as trustee are reminded that the notes to form “IPROH” which is amongst the documents produced by the Official Receiver on the handover of the bankrupt’s estate, require that if the trustee becomes aware of any matters which may require investigation by the Official Receiver under his/her duties imposed by section 289 of the Insolvency Act 1986, he/she should notify the Official Receiver as soon as possible.
Bankruptcy restriction proceedings are a product of Official Receiver’s investigations and these must be commenced within 12 months of the bankruptcy order. It is possible that insolvency practitioners acting as trustee may discover conduct such as a failure to disclose assets or asset disposals which the Official Receiver may not have been aware of. Such conduct might form the basis of an application for a Bankruptcy Restriction Order and/or referral of a criminal offence to a relevant prosecuting authority and insolvency practitioners should notify the Official Receiver of it as soon as it is discovered rather than wait until their own enquiries or recovery action has been completed.
Any enquiries regarding this article should be directed towards Mark Danks, Authorisations: Bankruptcy, 5th Floor, The Balance, Pinfold Street, Sheffield S1 2GU, telephone: 0114 221 2744,

Once again, bear in mind that all of the above has been accomplished by qc Paul Mitchell acting in fraud in collusion with Richard Pitt of Eversheds and driven by HBOS ex-head Auditor and director of the Private banking unit, Fraser Mackay - using proceeds of crime from moneys misappropriated 17 years ago, in a self-evident conspiracy to steal. it is pure theft.

I submit that we need urgent reform and a full Parliamentary review and Public enquiry into the abuse of the Insolvency process and how Bankruptcy is being malevolently abused by greedy solicitors and bankers and other White Collar criminals for asset-stripping solvent people who are being unlawfully targetted with no checks and balances in place to protect them from such abuse. A public survey will reveal how widespread these abuses actually are.

Yours, distraught
Liz Watson

FOI, Insolvency Service

Dear Ms Watson,

I acknowledge receipt of your FOI request below.

Our reference for the request is 2813.

Your request is being processed and you may expect a reply within 20 working days, which will be 10/11/17. In some circumstances we may not be able to achieve this timescale, but if this is likely to be the case you will be informed at the earliest opportunity and given a revised timescale.

Yours sincerely,

FOI/DPA | Official Receivers Services-Business Development | The Insolvency Service-Delivering economic confidence | [email address]| 3rd Floor Cannon House, 18 Priory Queensway, Birmingham B4 6FD | DX 713901 Birmingham 37 DX | Tel: 0121 3803452/07814599865 |

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,
I would just like to add a further update of yet another two or three major glaring flaws with the toxic paperwork and incompetently drafted 'petition' that was posted to me in the 3rd week of August:-

1. The petition is meant to come AFTER the Statutory demand, but it came before! The petition is dated 18 August 2017 and the Statutory demand is dated 8 September 2017. What is this nonsense?

2. There is no debt in existence, and no proof of any debt has yet been disclosed! And so on what grounds under Common Law is there any compulsion to attend without a basic proof of a debt? We do not consent! And why should we? where is the lawful jurisdiction?

3. NB: NO test has been met by Eversheds nor Bank of Scotland PLC under S265(2) of the IA 1986 to establish our ability to pay any genuine debt! That is because there isn't one. On the contrary, we have repeatedly offered to settle subject to being shown a lawful and enforceable debt - but nothing has been forthcoming. No evidence has been provided. Notably, that section of the petition under (1) para. has simply been crossed out.

4. There is no judgment either, because no Claim was ever issued nor sealed by the Court, and the court confirmed this in a letter on 15 September 2014. So how can the Bankruptcy order purport to be based on a 'judgment debt' that doesn't exist? Its totally fraudulent.

5. There was no sanction obtained under CPR 3.9 and Part 7.6 to apply any 'cure' under CPR 3.10 for the absence of a court seal which did not comply with CPR 2.6, especially some 7 years 'out of time' without even an application being made for an extension of time for issuance.

6. Eversheds LLP Cardiff, it turns out, have NO STATUS OR LOCUS to conduct regulated activity which includes bringing a money claim through the Court - as they have "exempt status" and the FCA advised it is a criminal offence to conduct regulated activity under Part 20 rules - so who is going to take action over that? they are doing as they please and disregarding all the rules and laws.

7. The petitioner is richard Pitt of Eversheds, not Bank of Scotland PLC, and they are in contempt of court for perverting the course of justice and misleading the court for 9 years. It is indeed, Eversheds who have made the fraudulent 'Bankruptcy orders' using a privately hired "judge" in the Bournemouth court with no fair trial or hearing being permitted (by the judge's own admission, he forced me out of the court room, refusing to answer whether he was sitting in a private or public capacity), and all this was without the court having any lawful jurisdiction to make the said orders. So there has been no hearing or fair trial. It is a total scam and unashamed abuse of process.

8.. There is no basis under the Insolvency Act 1986 to bankrupt someone on an alleged SECURED debt: please note that there is a 'charge' on our Register under Bank of Scotland, albeit giving no amount of money and put there in fraud using a void deed which Land Registry have refused to remove without a court order, since October 2001 - so where is the basis for a bankruptcy? They are having it both ways and that is not legal is it?

9. The Bank is not a creditor because they have not registered any CH1 form with Land Registry.

8. It states in para 3 on page 3 that "the debtor is justly and truly indebted to us in the aggregate sum of £430,022.82 which relates to a money judgment obtained in the Bournemouth & Poole county court under claim no. 8PC26793 arising from a claim for possession of the debtor's residential property ON THE GROUNDS OF MORTGAGE ARREARS." But however:-
(i) There is no legal mortgage, and the Bank has confirmed this in May 2011 in writing where they say "there are no records that a mortgage was granted"; So how can there be any mortgage arrears when there is no mortgage? There is no mortgage contract either! So nothing to enforce.
(ii) The £430,022.82 is not our debt, the Bank's Group Operations unit employee, Tom Aston advised me on 25 September 2013 that "it is someone else's debt belonging to Gavin & Eileen Stewart and was migrated in error on 18/11/2011 at the time of the Lloyds/BOS merger - there are 4 names on the account and this is fraud". He offered a 'letter of release' for the charge but Eversheds intercepted this and perverted justice to prevent the letter of release being sent.
(iii) The Bank of Scotland confirmed on 14 October 2013 that the accounts used to launder the alleged "debt" are fraudulently opened and have used fake sort codes and fake account numbers.
Is the Official receiver, therefore, going to ignore this and state "seek legal advice" when the Bank itself has confirmed they have no debt, no legal mortgage, no solicitors instructed (so who ARE Eversheds really acting for?) and fake bank accounts that do not exist on the Bank's ledger?
(iv) The Bank of Scotland has opened up 5 fake bank accounts in our names, without any signed Mandate of Authority from us, and misappropriated more than £100,670 from one of them, $546,000 from another of them (used to launder other family 'investments' through), and have never accounted for the stolen money from us and from my sister, Rosie, who is in the same boat - being targeted by Richard Pitt and Paul Mitchell in the same way.
(v) Messrs Pitt and Paul Mitchell of hail-the-sham chambers have taken our High Court claim HQ08X04884 and turned us from being claimants into defendants through fraud and tampering with the due administration of justice - having recently been caught out in August/September 2017, they have plucked a new HC High court claim number from thin air, and are now using that with yet another fake 'order' written in Paul Mitchell's own hand, to try to steal my sister's house on the back of it on another UNSEALED and UN-ISSUED 'claim' in the Bury St Edmunds County Court - this excuse-for-a-QC is a compulsive perjurer, unfortunately, and cannot seem to help himself from lying all the time and misleading the court - he is unfit to practice.

NB: Unlucky for Messrs Pitt and Mitchell, the Bury St Edmunds County Court Management have now confirmed in writing to us that there are "no records of the said claim number on their system".
This is incontrovertible proof that Messrs Pitt and Mitchell are fraudsters masquerading as court officers.

9. Richard Pitt has signed a fraudulent 'statement of truth' which is contempt of court, as well as pushing a claim he knows is false through the courts for 9 years so far.

10. Both my husband and I are not resident in the UK and have been overseas for more than 7 months at the time before the petition was served the petition, which is against the Insolvency rules it appears.

We herein rest our case: " When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty".
Yours sincerely,

Liz Watson

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Hi Liz,
to assist you and as a means to the persons also seeking an understanding of the gaps that allow cases like yours to happen , l would like to copy directions given to another victim.
Firstly it is advisable to understand for the timeframes we are referring to , it was / is, for Land Registry to refer suspected frauds involving property / land , to the police for their investigation.
This is because The Police Reform Act 2002 , ran with the setting up of the LRA2002. taking matters to do with property / land away from the jurisdiction of the police and placing it firmly together with the Land Registry Rules 2003, as instances where Land Registry would instruct the involvement if needed of the police.
I fully understand the complete confusion , as many have tried to involve the police unsuccessfully.
The wording l am quoting is from a letter dated 20 th August 2003 and is from D Kilbride Superintendent Divisional Commander on behalf of Paul R. Kernaghan QPM LL.B MA DPM MCIPC, Chief Constable at the time of Hampshire Police.
It is written to a person who was cheated out of their property ( being a similarly large property, not dis-similar to the size of your own property / plot) :-
" Dear Mr B-----,
Thank you for your letter dated 26 th July 2003 concerning your suspicions of criminal activity by the Solicitors R----- J----- and R---- D--- of C-----.
Your original correspondence and your most recent letter has been reviewed by CID . It l felt that the matters you raise emanate from an unfortunate incident for which you were arrested charged and convicted.
The letter from Mr T--- the District Land Registrar explained in detail issues around the title to land at the rear of -- M-- H-- Road , C----. The full and proper application of land transfer and property transfer are subject to the scrutiny of the financial institutions, the District Land Registrar and the Solicitors involved in the transaction. Any complaints you may have in relation to the transfer of land at the rear of -- M--H-- Road would need to be properly addressed by one of these three persons and not the Police. I would advise you to take legal advice on this matter . Yours sincerely ".
To continue both the person this letter was written to and yourself , being both members of CASIA , had your concerns replied to by Jonathan Smithers in his then role as head of Property / Land Fraud at The Law Society to Diana Mitchell secretary for CASIA, where he stated that the Law Society was well aware of the methodology of the fraud involving what had been happening at Land Registry to do with the open register . The open register was opted for by government in 1990 and was exposed in March 2009 by BBC Radio 4, as Land Registry never having challenged the lodging of different addresses for service.
I feel you need to insist on Land Registry's co-operation in supplying the information presently missing from your having prior lodged a DPA(SAR) , and the use of that information to then furnish the means that Land Registry use to refer the issues of your case for your local Police force to follow up.
Your elected MP would need to be copied in in order for MP's across England & Wales to catalogue , what l believe is a national problem and needs addressing as such , if redress for the many victims is to be achieved

Policy.Unit, Insolvency Service

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Watson

With regard to your email below. Please find our reply enclosed.


Policy Unit
The Insolvency Service

show quoted sections

Dear Policy.Unit,

Your response does precisely nothing to address my concerns. I note there is no named contact in your Policy unit but understand that Andrew Shore is entrusted to make decisions on the Insolvency Service's policies, and it is he who recently hung up the phone on me because he could not face the truth in a dignified or responsible or honest manner. The truth is that:-

1. the Insolvency Service is acting outside of its own Rules, and

2. is failing to apply its own rules

3. is ignoring its own rules and is appallingly badly run

4. does no compliance to comply with the Anti-MLRA reporting Act 2002

5. allow the widespread abuse of the Bankruptcy process by all and sundry without a care in the world, it seems

6. fails to determine whether any REGISTERED DEBT exists and fails to deal with fundamental and preliminary issues

7. fails to protect the Public and victims from fraudsters, instead giving willing assistance to unauthorised ill-motivated individuals masquerading as "official receivers" -

8. by your own scurrilous admission, you state "certificates appointing insolvency practitioners are signed by employees of the Insolvency Service who hold delegated authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary of State" and then say "the Insolvency service does not hold a list of those employees holding delegated authority" (so its a free for all?) and how can they possibly have delegated authority to perform the functions of the Secretary of State? this is insane.

9. incredulously, you continue by saying "No government department is required to maintain lists of or publish the personal information of any employee of the civil Service who holds delegated authority to exercise its functions of the Secretary of State appointed to the Department in which they are employed" - this is nothing short of scandalous. Where is the proof of any of this?

10. There is no evidence that you keep the operation of the insolvency "regime" under review to ensure you have a framework that is fair - the opposite appears to be true. Because you do not appear to understand the critical importance of COMPLIANCE with the Law to rout out and proactively prevent, abuse of the Insolvency process. Currently it is being widely used as a backdoor route for illegal 'debt' collection by greedy solicitors and criminals with no scruples or conscience, who are seeking to launder toxic 'debt' which has been accumulated from shadow banking practices run off ledger, through the incompetently run and asleep-at-the-wheel Insolvency Service.

11. The Insolvency Service also seems to be living in cloud cuckoo land in saying "the Insolvency Act provides that it is for the court to determine whether a bankruptcy petition has been properly presented and a debt is properly due" ' NO! It is for the Insolvency Service to determine this!
Otherwise you are not a service of any description. You are conducting commercial activity on a pile of leaves. There's no substance to your actions. The courts can be easily bought privately and large numbers of judges routinely sit in a private (not Public) capacity, where the accused have no protection of Common Law. You surely are not that blinkered that you do not even realise this?

12. You place far too much reliance upon the Courts and NO reliance upon people's human rights being upheld - there is absolutely no evidence that the Insolvency Act is "compatible with the Human Rights Act" - quite the opposite! Because:-

* You victimise the accused without any compliance or basic checks that a debt even exists
* You allow unauthorised people with no jurisdiction from your self-elected "service" to preside over innocent victims of crime when they have no such authority to do this: you presume too much
* you rely on statutes which have never been ratified through Parliament by the Electorate, and exceed those statutes;
* you ignore that your alleged 'official receivers' fail to investigate how the alleged debt arose or if it even exists;
* You humiliate your prey and treat most of them in an insulting and degrading manner -' railroading' is an understatement
* You act like bullies and label victims of your organised crime as "bankrupts" and put these lies on to them without any evidence!
* in our case, you ignore that there wasn't even a proof of debt able to be verified nor adduced to the petition, which itself was wrongly served before the Statutory demand instead of after it!
* you fail to apply or provide any checks and balances to ensure that the accused are not already creditors against the same alleged and UNPROVEN "creditor"
* You violate people's privacy rights through advertising recklessly and without any care or attention in The Gazette
* You totally desecrate innocent people's reputation by placing foolish sole reliance on a "court order" procured in fraud to then display to the entire globe that person is "bankrupt" and iniquitously displaying their HOME ADDRESS when they are NOT bankrupt nor are they insolvent nor has any form of test under IS 86 section 265(s) ever been applied - you should all hang your heads in shame. These are abhorrent practices.
* You do not even bother to check there is a creditor! You ignore what is put in front of you. You employ mindless "examiners" who haven't got a clue what they are doing nor why they are doing it.

It is a demonstrable fact that the Insolvency Service is responsible for engaging in the following acts of tort:-
a) Aiding and abetting identity theft
b) Providing dishonest assistance to criminals masquerading as officials (especially solicitors conspiring to steal) using forgery and encouraging money laundering;
c) Bullying your targets and condoning the widespread abuse of those targetted - for your own commercial gain
d) Providing no transparency or equitable relief to victims of insolvency abuse
e) utilising false accounting and fraudulently opened accounts which do not exist on a ledger anywhere
f) Giving unconsciable credence to 'ghost proceedings' where no Public record exists - becuase you do not bother to even check
g) condoning violent trespassing and harassment against those being targetted with predatory practices
h) Encouraging and supporting inhuman and utterly illegal eviction often using violent means and methods assisted by police
with no valid paperwork - this includes pushing people out of their homes using brutal force, driving them to suicide with no Law that allows this or supports this scandalous behaviour, forming no part of a 'civilised' Community.

Once the fictitious "bankruptcy" is 'created' ad-hoc rather than issued, it is then managed 'in a private capacity' in complete abuse of the Law against its carefully selected targets - with the conspiracy of asset-stripping and embarking on a feeding frenzy on their Estate. These practices must be outlawed and the perpetrators, punished and imprisoned. Its about time you all woke up and applied THE GOLDEN RULE as a foundational starting point. Without this, there is no upholding of our rights under Common Law and no Law and order in this country.

Yours sincerely,

Liz Watson

Policy.Unit, Insolvency Service

Dear Ms Watson

Thank you for your email below.

We have provided as much information as we can with regard to Insolvency legislation, and should you have further queries you should discuss those with the Official Receiver as we understand you are already in communication with them.


Policy Unit
The Insolvency Service

show quoted sections

Dear Insolvency Service,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Insolvency Service's handling of my FOI request 'Parliamentary enquiry into Insolvency Act abuse and lack of compliance to detect frauds'.

this is be cause the issues have NOT been dealt with and the writer of the messages is skirting the important issues. We have been defrauded with bogus bankruptcy orders - that is evident from my FOIA request. There is no official receiver lawfully appointed as there is no judgment debt in existence - confirmed by the Statutory register who work with the Ministry of Justice!
You need to clean t his up and sort it out urgently please. We are entitled to substantial compensation for your blunders and failure to carry out any due dilligence or checks that a regsitered debt exists.
Your so-called "official receiver" has not complied with S.289 of the IA 86 requiring him to investigate the bankruptcies - which are provably fraudulent as they are based on a NON-EXISTENT "judgment debt" with no claim ever issued by the Court, what is more, the 'bankruptcy proceedings' were never issued by the Court either!

Why doesn't the Insolvency service do any compliance? It is a national disgrace
Please will you contact the researcher Jonathan Smith who works with the Cabinet Minister Margot James as a matter of urgency - he will confirm the above.

Elizabeth watson


A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:

Yours faithfully,

Liz Watson

FOI, Insolvency Service

Dear Liz

Thank you for your email.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) gives certain rights to members of the public to access information held by public authorities. The FoI Act also encourages public authorities to proactively make information available to members of the public (except where exemptions apply).

I have looked at your requests including email exchanges in "What DoTheyKnow", I can confirm that the information relating to your case and circumstances surrounding your bankruptcy cannot be processed under the FoI Act. I would therefore like to please ask that you write directly to the Official Receiver (OR) office in Reading and Southampton. I am sure they will be able to assist you.

If you require any information under the FOI Act please do not hesitate to put your request in writing.



Lolu Adeniji| Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer | External Relations|The Insolvency Service-Delivering economic confidence|
[email address]| 4 Abbey Orchard Street, London, SW1P 2HT |Tel:  0207 637 6319||
Please consider the environment before printing

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,
Why ever not can't my FOI request be processed?
There isn't a lawful Official receiver because there isn't any registered debt and no Proof of debt has been provided! So where has the alleged 'Official receiver's role come from?
This is 100% fraud and our data subject access rights are being ignored and our rights are being violated.
Please explain why you consider we are not entitled to the FOI data disclosure concerning the abuse of our data?

Yours sincerely,

Liz Watson

Dear FOI,
There us no transparency with the Insolvency “service” - it is no service at all. It’s an oppressive regime which is lawless and has never been ratified through parliament - and riddled with corruption and abuse of its own processes by those it employs.

The IS have demonstrated a wholesale failure to protect or serve the Public. It is mostly being used for criminal activity by irresponsible administrators who
Fail to heed their own Rules and have no understanding whatsoever of Common Law.
There are no checks and balances in place within the IS and it’s wide open to its process being abused for money laundering and criminal gain as a back door route for toxic debt collection or to asset strip people through false instruments (fake bank accounts, unregistered debt, fraud that’s not on any ledger)
- the CEO Sarah Albon is out of touch with the corrupt way the IS is being run and it’s clear the IS should be urgently reformed , Re-named or disbanded altogether.

Why is there no lawful process being used to appoint alleged “official receivers”? How can anyone assume authority over another human beings Estate without any jurisdiction or Cause of Action?
It’s utter madness. It needs an urgent Oubkuc enquiry into this Draconian Regime called “The Insolvency Service”.

Elizabeth Watson

Yours sincerely,

Liz Watson

Dear Malfeasant office holder in the corrupt Insolvency Service,

I am writing to request an internal review of Insolvency Service's handling of my FOI request 'Parliamentary enquiry into Insolvency Act abuse and lack of compliance to detect frauds'.

There is NO lawfully appointed official receiver. Because there is no Bankruptcy. And there is no Bankruptcy because there is no debt, not even any Proof of debt form, nothing adduced to the fake 'petition', nothing issued by the court (only from Eversheds) apart from the null 'order' made without due process, and no Cause of Action. A disgrace. Open your eyes please!
None of you look at any of the forensic paperwork do you?

If anyone bothers to examine the fraudulent 'bankruptcy orders' it can be seen there is no named creditor! its all clearly nonsense. This demonstrates criminal malfeasance in Public office.

It also constitutes vexatious harassment against me and my husband .
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
The Insolvency people are evidently running a criminal enterprise - that is self-evident.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:

Now deal with it please
Yours faithfully,
Elizabeth watson

Liz Watson

FOI, Insolvency Service

Dear Liz

Thank you for your email.

As previously explained in my below email, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) gives certain rights to members of the public to access information held by public authorities. The FoI Act also encourages public authorities to proactively make information available to members of the public (except where exemptions apply). Please see link on FoI:
Your request cannot be treated under the FOI Act because information about you is not a public information / record. Information about you is personal.

If we had held any personal information about you this would have been treated under the section 7 of the Data Protection Act - Subject Access Request. However, I have checked our database and there is no personal information held about you And as you have said there isn't a lawful Official receiver because there isn't any registered debt and no Proof of debt has been provided.



Lolu Adeniji| Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer | External Relations|The Insolvency Service-Delivering economic confidence|
[email address]| 4 Abbey Orchard Street, London, SW1P 2HT |Tel:  0207 637 6319||
Please consider the environment before printing

show quoted sections

21 November 2017

Dear FOI at the Insolvency Service Data Protection unit,

Public Notice & SWORN AFFIDAVIT by Elizabeth watson


Thank you for finally confirming that you have at last checked your database and found there is no personal information held about me and for confirming that THERE ISN'T A LAWFUL OFFICIAL RECEIVER BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY REGISTERED DEBT AND NO PROOF OF DEBT HAS BEEN PROVIDED.

For and on the record, we have been vexatiously and relentlessly pursued by uncontrolled criminal activity of 'court officers' from Hailsham Chambers and Eversheds-Sutherland and their various agents and accomplices, for a full year and for 8.5 years preceding the commencement of the fake 'bankruptcy' attempts meted against us, and so we require that our positions are fully restored at the earliest, within no later than the next 7 days:-

(1) Can you therefore please now advise when the Insolvency Service will contact the Gazette and get the fraudulent entries that we are "bankrupt" removed?
Please give your reassurance this will be done with all haste as time is of the essence, as a damages and LIBEL claim TBA is racking up, to say nothing of the implications of SLANDER against my husband and I, through a flagrant abuse of the Insolvency process.. WE ASSERT OUR LAWFUL RIGHT TO CLAIM AGGRAVATED DAMAGES, TO BE ASSESSED. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTIFIED EVERSHEDS INSURERS AND THE SRA AND OTHERS. WE REQUIRE THAT OUR REPUTATION AND NAMES ARE FULLY VINDICATED IN THE INTERNATIONAL MEDIA

(2) And to ensure that the alleged 'official receiver' GRAHAM ROGERS who is unlawfully involved and acting in tort, is notified and asked to immediately rescind and recuse himself and restore our position, confirming the same IN WRITING to us within 7 days with appropriate correction to the records - and so lawfully un-doing all of the corrupt meddlings he has been engaging with on our Estate in the past 7 weeks? This includes his evidently vexatious acts of involving Plymouth Land Registry to harass us with the threat of "restrictions" being put against our Estate with no lawful basis whatsoever, and when the Land Registry has known since at least 2012 that our Estate is the subject of a Bare Trust since April 1997 and have been fully informed about the compound frauds and torts against our Estate.

(3) And for the Insolvency Service to immediately contact the Bournemouth County Court (and specifically Deputy District Judge Dixon and DJ Avis and DJ Martin Alan Gordon Dancey, all acting in tort in defiance of their Oaths of Office), and the Ministry of Justice, to alert them all to the foregoing fully-evidenced facts that:-

My husband has not even lived or worked in the UK since June 2010 and it is against the Insolvency Rules to bankrupt anyone who resides outside of the jurisdiction, notwithstanding there is no Cause of action and no debt in existence.
It is a demonstrable fact that we have been severely and maliciously HARASSED by Eversheds Cardiff and Eversheds-sutherland LLP in Cardiff for nearly TEN YEARS now. They have written off a decade of our precious lives through spurious litigation on what amounts to nothing more than a 'pile of leaves'.

Until and unless it happens to you or your colleagues, you can never imagine the corrosive, devastatingly distressing, and deleterious impact of such a thing as this.

Lord Evershed MR said: "the so-called 'rule' in bankruptcy is, in truth, no more than an application of a more general rule that court proceedings may NOT be used or threatened for the purpose of obtaining for the person so using or threatening them some collateral advantage to himself, and not for the purpose for which such proceedings are properly designed and exist, and a party so using or threatening proceedings will be liable to be held guilty of abusing the process of the court and therefore disqualified from invoking the powers of the court by proceedings he has abused."

The situation that has evidently arisen through criminal negligence and fraud caused by NON-COMPLIANCE with the Insolvency Act 1986 has been intolerable in recent weeks, and we consider that we have been severely victimised and suffered grave prejudice on account of the false advertising in The Gazette, displaying our home address to the entire world because of the fraudulent 'bankruptcy orders' which have no named creditor on them and where we have never been served with a Bankruptcy petition issued by the Court - with NO RECORD of any 'judgment debt' under the bogus "possession order 8PC26793" on the Government's Statutory Register in London, confirmed IN WRITING by their Manager Veronica Foster, only last week in mid-November 2017 - which will be produced in evidence as needed.

Awaiting your URGENT action to put things right, since we have been caused enormous alarm and distress as well as gross inconvenience with having all of our bank accounts and credit cards illegally frozen on the back of the unlawful and unappointed 'official receiver' whom you had earlier kept telling me to refer to.

The paramount issues are that there is NO DEBT and NO PROOF OF DEBT and the false 'official receiver' has refused to speak to me but has acted in tort - so can you please investigate if the person who has caused havoc with our financial affairs really IS Graham rogers the unlawfully involved 'official receiver', or just someone who is impersonating him?

Please also take note that appropriate steps should now be taken by the Insolvency Service to immediately report to the Authorities the attempted MONEY LAUNDERING AND CONSPIRACY TO STEAL AND DEFRAUD by Eversheds-Sutherland and Nicola-Campbell Clause and Paul Mitchell counsel acting for them, to take due cognisance of the Law under SECTION 135 of the COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 which states:

135 Penalty for falsely pretending to act under authority of court.

Any person who—
(a)delivers or causes to be delivered to any other person any paper falsely purporting to be a copy of any summons or other process of [F1the county court] , knowing it to be false; or
(b)acts or professes to act under any false colour or pretence of the process or authority of [F1the county court] ;shall be guilty of an offence and shall for each offence be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.

We herein rest our case and await your urgent and appropriate action with your proposals investigate this matter and to fully restore our position with all haste with your detailed response within no more than the next 7 days.

Yours sincerely,

Liz Watson
Fraud investigator, Activist for Justice and Founder - One United Voice (action group)

FOI, Insolvency Service

Dear Mrs Watson,


I am aware that the FOI team’s response to you of 20 November has been
published to the website


Please be advised that a bankruptcy order has been made against you and
against your husband and personal details relating to those bankruptcies
are held by us.


Our response to your email of 20 November 2017 has been misconstrued. In
replying to you Mr Adeniji was quoting your words when he said “there
isn't a lawful Official receiver because there isn't any registered debt
and no Proof of debt has been provided”. I agree that the wording of the
last paragraph could have been better phrased and it should have been made
more clear that Mr Adeniji was quoting from your correspondence.


I should make it absolutely clear that in using these words we did not
intend to imply or establish any agreement with you that your bankruptcy
is invalid. As you have been advised previously, matters relating to your
bankruptcy should be discussed with the Official Receiver.


Yours Sincerely


Helen Main | Customer & Complaints Manager| External Relations

The Insolvency Service | 4^th Floor, 4 Abbey Orchard Street, London, SW1P



Follow us on Twitter @insolvencygovuk


This email is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not an intended
recipient then you have received this e-mail in error and any use,
dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying is strictly prohibited. You
should contact the sender by return then delete all the material from your



Visible links

Dear Helen Main "customer & complaints Manager for The Insolvency service"

Notice of Fraud - 2nd FOIA & SARN REQUEST

I am in receipt of your astonishingly irresponsible fob-off response which still does not deal with the fact there is NO DEBT and NO PROOF OF DEBT and NO PETITION served from the Court against which any LAWFUL BANKRUPTCY ORDER could be made!

So where is the proof of what are you referring to?

UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY, we urgently require:

1. Proof of a valid 'bankruptcy" together with details of how you measure "valid" from "invalid". No lawful Bankruptcy order exists because the alleged "order" is a FAKE DOCUMENT which is an offence under The County Court Act 1984 Section 135.

2. Proof that a fee was paid to the court and a claim issued by the Court. Because the Bankruptcy proceedings do not exist and you have been unable to prove this in more than 8 weeks so far.

3. Proof of a registered debt and proof of a Cause of action and proof of a lawful claim issued by the Court and proof of the fee being paid to the court and proof of valid service and proof that this is not all one huge fraud and a conspiracy to steal.

What official receiver and on whose appointment? Where is there a lawfully appointed Official Receiver?
Moreover, where has the role and lawful jurisdiction of the alleged Official receiver come from?

Yours sincerely,

Liz Watson

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

Hi Liz and followers of the miscarriages being aimed at legal owners of property / land.
In a typical Land Registry cock-up, a solicitor at Land Registry meant to be assisting an information request lodged with Gurmale Sondh and via WDTK, admitted TWENTY-TWO CASES, that Land Registry had wrongly passed for judicial involvement of the AHMLR, were fielded by the AHMLR for investigation of THE INDEPENDENT COMPLAINTS REVIEW during March - October 2009 inclusive.
The AHMLR actually had no right to pass these cases to the ICR, as they would come under the PHSO and so the natural progression would be for the PHSO to investigate.
I was instructed by the ICR for this same timeframe being March 2009, to involve the PHSO and to copy the AHMLR into matters, which l did and still wait to this day for the PHSO to investigate.
In line with the LRA2002 and on record, l involved :-
1) A Registrar at Land Registry.
2) The Financial Services .
3) The Solicitor for the purchase / conveyance of my title.....
And still the criteria of The Police Reform Act 2002 was not followed by Land Registry , as in it was for Land Registry to involve the Police.
The Consultation Paper for the LRA2002 sent out to the whole of the UK , repeatedly states The Secretary of State for Justice would step in if there were unworkable issues and yet here we are now facing possible injustices for potentially over A MILLION CASES, and Land Registry is seen to climb into bed with The Information Commissioners Office in failing to provide information under Information Acts being Acts of Parliament.
I stupidly said back in 2002 that with all the errors stacking up, it would be just a question of time before some poor sole lost their home because of someone else's dept, never thinking l would also be in danger , because of course, it did not matter how many times l flagged up the dept being foisted against me , was for someone else, because in Land Registry's eyes they are not accountable for mistakes, therefore they make no attempt to correct the register and incompetently pass cases for litigation to further add insult to injury. It's called MALADMINISTRATION IN PUBLIC OFFICE and l for one have plenty of paperwork evidence ,going back to a SWORN AFRIDAVIT in 1994 for depts of a previous owner of my property and their not having paid their mortgage for five years at that point. It is therefore utter fantasy to allow deptor's of such proportions , to use LEGAL AID PAPERWORK FORMS and to file those forms in the system at KINGSTON UPON HULL LAND REGISTRY in 1999, to seek to deprive property / land from an already registered title , being the registered title in it's entirety that l purchased in 1995 and have the THREE CONSECUTIVE CONVEYANCES FOR THE RELEVANT TIME FRAME OF THE REGISTRATION , that on the written advice of Julius Juispais of the AHMLR , l have sent on four occasions to KUH Land Registry's John Edon and presented into Great Grimsby Combined Courts on the 22 nd July 2011 ,