false figures and documents as produced in court by Brad/Bing

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread

Is any one else interested in joining me in arranging protest meetings regards the lies and false figure produced and said in court by the building societies.

On the 17/7/02, Lord Justice Ward said in his judgment that the figures produced in court by the Bradford and Bingley were gobbledegook.

Lord Ward stated that the Bradford and Bingley had conceded they had had to return the illegal fines/additional interest imposed on us.

Lord Ward stated that NONE of the figures on the spread sheets the Bradford and Bingley produced on the day of the hearing on the 5/5/00 appears on any of their official documents. They were false.

Paul Jordan their head of legal services signed three statements that all contained false information for the court.

I have been sent four different sets of rules and regulations by Paul Jordan and their outside solicitors Wright Hassall.

I have been sent false year end mortgage statements by the Bradford and Bingley.

To many things to go into but the above is a very brief outlay, interested in going to the Houses of Parliament or something similar, let me hear from you please. rjenkins65@btinternet.com

-- roy jenkins (rjenkins65@btinternet.com), September 07, 2002


But did the court make you pay the shortfall?

-- Steve. (powerhousesteve@aol.com), September 08, 2002.

Steve, No i wasn't made to pay a shortfall, the Bradford and Bingley conceded they had to recredit the illegal fines/additional interest they had imposed on us.

In 1998 i received a letter from Mr Rodrigues stating that borrowers who were in arrears were fined to cover the costs of his highly skilled staff to closely monitor and to cover administration costs of borrowrs who were in arrears, and didn't i think this was fair.

Yet a few weeks previous to this letter Mr McGuiness the General Secretary for the Bradford and Bingley wrote to me staing, the society were unaware that for five years you were being fined even though you were making regular payments.

I wrote to Rodrigues asking how his highly skilled staff had missed this fact, he has declined to reply.

I have four different copies of rules and terms and conditions sent to me by the Bradford and Bingley, Mr Jordan their head of Legal Services claims that rule 16 applies to the legal right of the society to impose fines on borrowers in arrears, yet each rule 16 i have is different, why is that.

I was given a bundle of spread sheets on the 5/5/00 in court as was the judge, she was told these figures were false, because i was not using a solicitor she found for the Bradford and Bingley even though it was shown they had capitulated the day before the hearing.

A Mr Hugh Jackson the barrister for the B/Bing on giving DJ Isley the spread sheets that had been faxed to him that day by the B/Bing said these spread sheets showed that two sums of money had been credited to our account on the 4/5/00, this was a lie as confirmed by Lord Justice Ward on the 17/7/02.

If two sums of money were credited to our account on the 4/5/00 they should have appeared on our 2000 year end mortgage statement, they don't. This therefore has to be fraud and perjury and misleading a judge to gain a judgment.

I was granted leave to appeal after i had applied on the 30/3/01 which was within the one year time limit set by the courts, on the 5/6/01 i was granted leave to appeal by His Honour Judge Rubery against DJ Isley's judgment, this he granted not on new evidence as claimed by the B/Bing but on a document that was worked out for me to show that the society had lied and produced false figures in court on the 5/5/00.

My appeal date was for the 1/8/01, on the day before the hearing at 4- 30pm Stoke Courts rang to say our hearing had been transferred to Telford Courts, they claimed they couldn't find a judge at Stoke for our hearing,

We appeared at Telford Courtsc at 9-45am on the 1/8/01, we saw Mr Jackson the barrister for the B/Bing enter the judges chambers and come out smirking.

On entering the court the first words out of His Honour Judge Perrett's mouth was "i am not going to listen to your appeal because you are out of time", which we were not.

Judge Perrett states several times in his judgment of which i have a copy of, " i have no idea of what Judge Rubery was thinking when he granted you leave to appeal, he was wrong to do so" he also stated we had been sent to his court by Stoke courts to sort out their mess, he declined to state what this was.

Judge Perrett claimed that Stoke courts had failed to notify the B/Bing of our appeal in June of 2001, he asked Mr Jackson to confirm this fact, he Perrett stated that Stoke Courts should have informed the B/Bing of our appeal so they could have attended .

Mr Hugh Jackson claimed in court that he along with Paul Jordan and Richard Lane had spent a considerable amount of valuable time investigating my allegations which was why the costs they were applying for were so high.

I asked Perrett three times to investigate the false statements made by Paul Jordan and the perjury in court, his reply NO.

I asked him for permission to appeal, His answer was no.

Outside of the court i was chased after by Jordan and Lane, they asked me to make them an offer regards their costs, told them i wasn't intersted. Paul Jordan got angrier when i persited i stating i was going to the Civil Appeal Courts, he then lost his rag and said to me, " our barrister sorted out the judge this morning to stop your hearing, and he will sort out any other judge you try to appear before" i then walked away from them.

I contacted Stoke courts regards the remarks made by Judge Perrett, they confirmed by letter that we had applied for our hearing within the time limit, and that they the court service did not have to inform the defendant's of our appeal hearing on the 5/6/01 and that they only had to inform the person who was appealing. SURELY HIS HONOUR JUDGE PERRETT WOULD HAVE BEEN FULLY AWARE OF THIS FACT.

I gave the Fraud squad at Stafford Police a Sergeant Colley evidence that the figures produced by the Bradford and Bingley were false, not enough evidence? i gave DI Jon Drake of Cannock CID documentation to show that the Bradford and Bingley had committed perjury in court, he claimed the CPS had told him there was insufficient evidence for a prosecution. ??

I wrote to the Bar Council concerning the behaviour of Mr Hugh Jackson the barrister for the B/Bing, they kindly sent me a copy of his letter dated 10/10/01, in this he claimed twice that he had told DJ Isley and ourselves in court on the 5/5/00 that two sums of money had been credited to our account on the 4/5/00, he states he produced spread sheets taken from Bradford and Bingley's computer on the 5/5/00 to the judge and ourselves, he claims he had been unaware that Jordan's statements had contained inaccuricies, (LIES)

If these spread sheets Jackson provided the judge and ourselves came from the Bradford and Bingley's computer on the 5/5/00 as the fax tansmission proved, hen why do they not appear on our 2000 year end mortgage statement. Because they never existed which is why they can't provide the evidence they are being asked for.

Lord Justice Ward on the 17/7/02 stated he was unhappy with the actions of the Bradford and Bingley, he granted me a copy of his judgment out of public funding, he put in his judgment i should send a copy to the Bradford and Bingley and then to the Financial Ombudsman.

I faxed a copy to Mr C. Rodrigues the Chief Executive for the Bradford and Bingley on the 1/8/02, STILL WAITING FOR A REPLY MR RODRIGUES< MR JACKSON< MR LANE AND MR JORDAN.

Mr Jordan wrote to me on the 29/7/02 to say he had asked his appropriate office to find out where the second sum of money had dissapeared to that they had claimed in court on the 5/5/00 had been credited to our account on the 4/5/00 to a judge and myself, he now claims in a further letter that the figures are complicated, they are not complicated they are false.

I have taped conversations with the Bradford and Bingley's staff, Mr Murphy the old Ombudsman stated that on listening to my tape he found Jordan and Short of the credit team to be less than truthful. Blatant liars is the word i think he meant.

I undestand from the Big Issue that over 1,500,000 families lost their homes in a decade, the Council of Mortgage lenders have proudly announced that only 6,850 families lost their homes at the back end of 2001.al or HHJ Perrett in refusing to listen to our appeal because HHJ Rubery was wrong and out of order in granting us this appeal, i undestand i have to apply to the Human Rights Appeal Board to find this out, because if HHJ Rubery was wrong with his judgment then he is obliged to pay the costs incurred since his judgment.

The above is only a very brief premise, but i know for a fact by using the Bradford and Bingley's own documentation they show themselves to be blatant liars, and that they have committed perjury in court on the 5/5/00. Hope this explains briefly to the questions i have been asked. If a protest can be held i will supply any tapes and court documents as proof of my allegations. Anybody interested or are we going to let the societies keep getting away with this.

I was shown a document that showed that if the societies lost a case regards the illegal fines/additional interest they illegally impose on borrowers it would cost them in the region of three billion pounds to return all of the money. Nice incentive to lie in court.

Lets hear from you.

Regards Roy Jenkins

-- Roy Jenins (rjenkins^5@btinternet.com), September 08, 2002.

I am utterly confused by your "brief premise" (you are joking I take it?) B&B have won a judgment against you - is that right? So you allegedly owe them money? You dispute the shortfall, costs and/or their figures? They have been asked to return the arrears "fines" to you and have not done so, or have they? Chronological point form of *just* the salient facts might help all concerned to see what has happened here. I appreciate that some Lender's may tell porkies to cover their incompetent tracks ( I have proof mine did but that's a long way from fraud and proving it in court). There are already MP's involved in the shortfall issue (Early Day Motion signatories). Why would the CPS get involved in a civil matter anyway? Sorry to be so dim but I understand your anger and frustration (we all do). I think you may be out of time to do anything else, even if there were any grounds, but then again I am not a lawyer.

-- Too scared to say (iwasduped@yahoo.com), September 08, 2002.

This is outrageous, and we can also believe that ALL the building societies and mortgage lenders are up to these sorts of tricks as well. It just goes to show that justice in this country is not justice at all. Come the revolution, the judges will be the first against the wall, closely followed by the scum sucking bastards that cause misery for those people that find themselves in dire straits through no fault of their own. I wish you well in getting justice.

-- John (sharky_john@hotmail.com), September 09, 2002.

In reply to I was Duped,

I fail to understand why you claim you fail to understand the brief write up, unless of course you are Mr Jordan or Mr Lane as i suspect, If you have the proof you were lied to why not put it in writing for us all to see, or does it not exist only in your own mind.

In reply to your question we lost our original hearing because the Bradford and Bingley lied and produced false figures and spread sheets in court at our original hearing.

I ask you the question that as their barrister Mr Jackson told Judge Isley and ourselves i court that these spread sheets proved that two sums of money had been credited to our account the day before the hearing on the 4/5/00, then surely both of these figures should have appeared on our 2000 year end statement, which they do not as was confirmed by Lord Justice Ward.

Regards your remarks concerning the police let me enlighten you, i received a letter from Lord Irvine in another matter, he states very clearly, " If you believe perjury was committed in court, then it is a criminal matter and can only be dealt with by the police".

Are you seriously saying that the fact that the Bradford and Bingley in producing false figures and spread sheets in court, and stating to the judge they had been taken from Bradford and Bingley's coputer on that day, and then on receiving our 2000 year end mortgage statement they are not contained in that statement. Is that not perjury and fraud or are you living on Bradford and Bingley's planet.

Yes there is a further thing that can be done under the Human Rights Act, i am showing that HHJ Perrett was used by the Bradford and Bingley, strangely the courts at the moment are with holding the documents from me i require why do you think that is Mr Jordan or Mr Lane.

I am prepared to put my documents on the line for others I was Duped are you??

I am passing on the Q & A number to others to look at, one journalist in particular is very interested in Lord Wards judgment, care to put yours in there as well. Why be to scared to say as you call yourself, surely this is what the societies do.

I am not joking with regards my original write up, perhaps you should get a life Mr Jordan or Mr Lane, wait to hear from you with regards your proof that your society lied to you.

Roy Jenkins. notice not anonymous

-- roy jenkins. (rjenkins65@btinternet.com), September 09, 2002.

I'd suggest issuing a Judicial Review to challenge the judges decision that you were out of time. It would also be an inexpensive way to challenge all the other aspects of the courts conduct as well.

You must issue a Judicial Review within 3 months of the decision. You must issue a "Letter before Action" two weeks before you issue the Judicial Review.

It costs 30 to issue a Judicial Review, if your Judicial Review is accepted then you have to pay a further 120 for it to go forward.

Good Luck.

-- Harry (pearson_harry@hotmail.com), September 09, 2002.

To Harry Pearson,

Thanks for your advice re Judicial Review any chance of some advice on how to go about applying for one, unfortunately Stoke Courts are still not sending me the documents i have requested from them, have to ask them as i am not a lawyer, and its hit and miss as i go along. any advice is more than welcome. Thanks.

Roy Jenkins.

-- roy jenkins (rjenkins65@btinternet.com), September 09, 2002.

To Steve at Powerhouse,

Thanks for your e-mail, just to say thanks for your advice but i don't take things personally re "I was duped" if you have had as many letters as i have from Mr Lane and Mr Jordan you would be able to see why i believed the message i received from "I was Duped" came from them, you could put this e-mail alongside of their letters and you wouldn't be able to notice the difference.

I have spoken to a few reporters and have had to send Lord Ward's judgment to a couple, is the BBC department you are mentioning the one that Tim Whitwell works for, i gave him several names and address's a few years ago after i had put a letter on Ceefax with my phone number.

Grateful for any help you can give, with regards your remarks over the grey area, Mr Jackson the barrister wrote in his report the spread sheets were taken on the day of the hearing from Bradford and Binglies computer, i also have spread sheets from the Bradford and Bingley's data officer Emma Thompson with figures for 1999, yet the same spread sheets sent to me by Paul Jordan at a later date have figures inserted that are not on Emma Thompson's spread sheet, which suggests Mr Jordan has inserted them himself.

I can only suggest a computer can't insert figures itself, this can only be done by a human being.

Thanks again grateful for any help you can give.

Regards. Roy Jenkins

-- roy jenkins. (rjenkins65@btinternet.com), September 09, 2002.

Mr Jenkins - I'm not even the right gender to be those B&B people, but I understand your concerns. The trouble with any electronic forum, is that emphasis is difficult to adequately convey. When I said you were joking, I meant your use of the word "brief" in regard to the huge amount of detail and comment you provided.(I thought I put the word "brief" in inverted comma's to emphasise it?) Simply put,I found your post hard to follow, and was hoping for the short version, as I thought I saw similarities with my case. I fought and lost my battle, not with B&B,and choose to remain (reasonably) anonymous to protect my children, that's all. They lost their home once, I am not about to jeopardize it for them again.

-- Too scared to say (iwasduped@yahoo.com), September 09, 2002.

Firstly to reply to "I was Duped" if it is true what you have said please accept my sincere apologies, unfortunately your letter compares exactly to the many letters i have received from Jordan and Lane, no offence was meant to you if you are who you say you are. SORRY.

Secondly i am being asked many times how i can be sure the documents the B/Bing produced in court were false, i faxed six time to the following gentlemen asking them to certify personally that all the documents they produced in court, and to me since the hearing were totally correct and accurate.

Mr C. Rodrigues refuses to reply. WHY??

Mr Richard Lane of Wright Hassall solicitors for the B/Bing in this matter wrote to me on the 30/5/01 stating, " I am not prepared to give you personal certification of selected pieces of information, you may take it that both me and my clients will not make statements to you that we do not believe to be true, that aplies to each and every point we make in letters and everything we put in court. Therefore he agrees that the two sums of money he mentioned to judge Isley on the 5/5/00 had been credited to our account on the 4/5/00.

I received a letter from Paul Jordan head of legal services for the B/Bing dated 21/6/01, he states that, " all of the documents put before the court by Mr Lane and Mr Jackson were totally accurate", he is again confirming that the spread sheets he produced for the day of the hearing showing that TWO sums of money had been credited to our account was accurate.

Mr Jackson in his letter to the Bar Council on the 10/10/01 stated in two seperate paragraphs that he had told Judge Isley on the 5/5/00 that two sums of money had been credited to our account on the 4/5/00 by the B/Bing. The Bar Council's Mr Wolfe wrote to me to say that Mr Jackson could only put to the judge what he had been given by Mr Jordan and Mr Lane, and therefore Mr Jacksonm was not resonsible if the figures he had given the judge were false.

Mr Lane and Mr Jordan have written to me several times over the last two years denying that they told Judge Isley had been told two sums of money had been credited to our account, this totally contradicts Mr Jackson's statement.

Mr Lane and Mr Jordan have had two years to come up with some excuse as to where the one sum of money has disappeared to, this they have failed to do.

Mr Jordan wrote to me on the 29/7/02 to say he had asked his appropriate department to look for the one sum of money mentioned by Mr Jackson to the judge, his only answer so far is to say the figures are complicated. Hope this explains a bit better.

Thanks for the many e-mails its heartening to know how strongly people feel.

Regards Roy Jenkins.

-- roy jenkins. (rjenkins65@btinternet.com), September 10, 2002.

I can understand your paranoia Roy, after all there's a lot of it about what with Blair & Bush - another B&B... come to think of it does anyone have untroubled memories of Bed & Breakfasts? I think Harry's judicial review advice was sound. As to accusing 'Iwasduped' all I can say to you is that she has been posting here for a considerable length of time and if you took the trouble to look at other peoples' questions over the last year or so you would see her contributions from time to time and realise that she's no apologist for the B&B. Your large posting was difficult to follow for the uninitiated and rather than take umbrage at a tongue in cheek remark perhaps you should take the trouble to read what you have written before posting. The majority of site users here are genuine with a real desire to help by sharing information and the occasional stooges stick out like a sore thumb. Good luck with your quest for justice

-- Gordon Bennet (arsenewhinger@hotmail.com), September 11, 2002.

To Gordon Bennett,

Thanks for you mail, i have apologised to I Was Duped in an earlier reply, again i can only repeat her letter was more than a little similar to Jordan's and Lanes.

I may come across as being terse or brusque but i don't take umbrage that easily, i do appreciate that most people are trying to help one another, my only excuse is i have been fighting so long on my own, met so mant bent solicitors, barristers, Ombudsmen, police officers, i have a tendency to sometimes disbelieve.

My sole reason for putting my problem down on this page was to get others who have similar problems involved, or at the least to let genuine people who are in trouble use my documents as proof the Bradford and Bingley have not only lied in court but have consistently lied out of court as well, as their own documents prove.

Perhaps if i explain to you i have a corrupt senior customs officer on tape stating that " the use of dual invoices is rife in the UK by major companies, he appears to state ICI as being one such company", in my opinion these false invoices are for the purpose of not paying tax on import export goods. I have been given to understand by a customs officer that customs allegedly gently hinted that they would be grateful if the B/Bing repossessed my home. Again fotrtunately i taped Mr Short of Credit Control and Jordan's office and it was only because of this the repossession was dropped.

Hope this explains to you a little why you may think i am paranoid but i can assure you i am not as the Attorney General is finding out.

Yes Harry's advise has been very helpful and i have today suddenly received the papers for the Judicial Review i am requesting. Thanks again hope no one else takes what i say personally, i just get slightly pissed off that 1,500,000 families have had their homes repossessed by crooks.

Regards. Roy Jenkins

-- roy jenkins (rjenkins65@btinternet.com), September 11, 2002.

Don't worry Roy, this is a very stressful business. I quite often feel like I've gone a few rounds with Lennox Lewis when I deal with these people, it's soul destroying and debilitating when all you seek is justice. All I want is a level playing field and the big boys to quit using their corporate leverage to destroy already fragile lives. Have you approached Customs & Excise with your information about the invoices? You may find them more helpful than the police. Phone your local office and ask for the name of an investigation division officer. I wish you luck.

-- Too scared to say (iwasduped@yahoo.com), September 11, 2002.

To I was Duped,

Saw your message glad you have accepted my apologies, i can understand your reference to Lewis, got the Judicial Review papers yesterday, you need a month to read the rules and regulations, the system is certainly set up for the large companies etc, still we fight on.

Had an e-mail yesterday from a TV company whether it will go any further or not i have to wait and see.

Thanks for your concern re customs, i have someone from the Notts area arranging a web page for me to use, i understand it has to be offshore as people don't like being named apparently, i find this strange because if what you are saying or printng is only the truth why do others want to cover up for their own corrupt, incompetent employees, makes no sense to me.

I spoke to the Big Issue recently, they said they would try to get a small advert sort of thing in their magazine for me, has anybody seen it, i can't get the Big Issue from around here at all. I don't know if the e-mails i am getting are coming from this page or other areas at the moment. I have just noticed tonight that it says on this Q & A page that some people prefer to contact you direct.

Thanks again.

Regards. Roy Jenkins

-- Roy Jenkins (rjenkins65@btinternet.com), September 12, 2002.

In answer to the many questions about my remark that HHJ Perrett states several times in his judgment of the 1/8/01 that His Honour Judge Rubery had been wrong in granting us leave to appeal, there seems to be some confusion as to this word wrong and what it means in court, i'll print what HHJ Perrett says wrong means in court.

His Honour Judge Perrett, on page three, paragraph H of his judgment states. " Wrong is the word that is used in the Rules of the Court, as you have probably seen. wrong is something that i can only conclude if she has actually, on the face of it, in her judgment made an ERROR in some way of either fact or law"

HHJ Perrett states several times in his judgment that HHJ Rubery had been wrong to have granted us leave to appeal, which means Judge Rubery made an error in granting us leave to appeal, Judge Perrett also states we were sent to his court to sort out Stoke Courts mess.

My claim is if HHJ Rubery was wrong and he had made an error in allowing us to appeal, then all costs that have arise because of his error in granting us leave to appeal which was wrong according to Judge Perrett, these costs have to be paid by HHJ Rubery as we only carried on because of his ruling. Either Judge Rubery is right or Judge Perrett is right, they can't both be on this matter.

Hope this clears up what i have been asked.

Regards. Roy Jenkins.

-- roy jenkins. (rjenkins65@btinternet.com), September 13, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ