FAO Anthony Stansfeld PCC Thames Valley Police
Further to our conversation yesterday, attached is confirmation from Mike McGrath that he was unable to locate Stephen Charles Ball, the (ex?) Lloyds Bank employee, who signed the allegedly perjured affidavits in my case. I am convinced that SC Ball does not exist and the FCA are aware of this.
The affidavits signed by the non-existent Mr Ball falsely stated Heritage Plc (the company I was chairman, major shareholder, and guarantor of) had a shortfall against its debt to Lloyds Bank. These allegedly perjured affidavits led to a flawed Court of Appeal decision in 1998, which set a precedent allowing secured lenders to seek recovery (frequently the family home) straight from the guarantor without having to recover from the borrower (frequently a limited company) first.
At the same hearing, the precedent that “on-demand” means two banking hours was also established.
My then MP, the late Dr Rudi Vis MP, took this matter up with the FCA (the then FSA) in 2007 and I am still awaiting the results of that investigation. Initially, the FSA appeared to be doing an in-depth investigation into the shortfall in recoveries. This investigation abruptly ceased at the same time as the crash around Northern Rock.
Whilst attempting to get documents relating to the shortfall in recoveries, I then became aware of an internal note and attachments that were provided to the then chairman of the FCA, Lord Adair Turner, prior to him responding to my MP.
As a result of my repeated request under the Freedom of Information Act, the FCA provided the ICO with those documents in confidence to enable the ICO to administer the DPA and FOIA. The FCA have refused, on a number of occasions, to release them to me. My right to see these documents is currently with the Court of Appeal under reference number C3/2019/1356.
I am convinced that the FCA is concealing something that is relevant in this case and is tainting the reputation of the ICO and the Courts with that concealment. (The closed part of the First Tier Tribunal hearing was described as "Consideration of the Closed Material, however, while helpful and informative, has not materially influenced the Tribunal`s decision” at point 44 of the First Tier Tribunal decision).
An email from the FCA (attached) would suggest the FCA were aware of this matter at the highest level. I refer to Briggs J`s judgment (attached) where the Judge makes the point the FSA confirmed on sworn evidence that “they have provided all the necessary information relating to the memo dated the 14th June 2007”.
I submit the information now being sought from the ICO provided by the FCA surely falls into the definition of "all the necessary information”.
At point 13 of the same document Judge Briggs says “The evidence given by the FSA is sworn evidence by an employee of the FSA which on this application I accept. There is no evidence to allow me to go behind it.” I now strongly believe there is evidence. I strongly believe the documents I am seeking in the Court of Appeal would have allowed Briggs J to "go behind" Joel Christopher Scott`s evidence and, therefore, demonstrate that Mr Scott misled the court.
Further to my recent conversation with Frazer Hunt at the FCA`s Complaints Department after his initial interest, he suggested the "matter would be better handled by the relevant court or tribunal" on the 12th of December 2018.
I believe the alleged perjured affidavit has not been disclosed by the FCA and I believe that Briggs J`s hearing on 22nd of January 2010 was misled by the FCA into believing there were no more documents.
The FSA/FCA apparently ceased their investigation into the Heritage-case in 2008. Clearly, the FCA have additional information about the Perjured Affidavit they are not sharing. They misled Briggs about its existence.
Furthermore, there is some major confusion around Joel Christopher Scott (employee of the then FSA)`s witness statement that is frequently quoted and referred to in Briggs J`s decision. The Witness Statement is dated 16 March 2010, which is about two months after the date of Briggs J`s decision.
The confirmation from Mike McGrath yesterday that he was unable to find SC Ball just adds to the weight of evidence that the Affidavit was untrue. This affidavit has created a precedent that has led to hundreds of thousands of wrongful evictions, where money may have been recovered from the borrower rather than the guarantor. The FCA have been aware of this for many years and Joel Scott’s misleading of the court of Briggs J is just part of that cover-up.
Anthony, I understand you wish to share this with Andrew Bailey at the FCA. I am happy for you to do this but please reserve the right of submitting this and any response you may get from Mr Bailey to Bristol Courts as part of my Private Criminal Prosecution.
This post is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.