Please read a piece by William May from LloydsBankVictimsGroup on the Rule of Law.
All credit belongs to the original publishers.
This is for general 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.
“The underlying principle of the Rule of Law is that everyone is equal under the law – all are subject to it and no-one is above it”
Project Heritage is a digital dispute resolution tool designed to facilitate the bulk handling of legal claims, as demonstrated here.
https://www.diylaw.co/personal-guarantee-campaign/2021/2/3/project-heritage-update-3-february-2021
David Fabb, long-term litigant in person: This great initiative by diyLAW is to be applauded! Reform of Personal Guarantee and security instruments generally is long overdue.. Provision of credit to businesses large and small ought not provide the means by which enterprises and the lives of owners are wiped out by opportunistic white collar spivs.
Paul Williams, Chartered Accountant: A few years ago I reviewed the financial records of the Heritage plc administration and identified some potential errors. From the documentation shown to me, I was surprised at the apparent indifference of Lloyds bank to the outcome of asset realisations before pursuing the personal guarantee of Jeff Lampert.
Daniel Jani, diyLAW: The abuse of Personal Guarantees (PG) has devastated the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. They have had no alternative but to turn to Law as a Litigant in Person (LiP). According to the victims, the "adversarial" legal system in the UK is disastrous for LiPs and they get no help from the Law. LiPs don`t stand a chance in a legal battle against well-paid and seasoned professionals and virtually unlimited resources on the other side. From the LiPs perspective, the inquisitorial legal system (in civil law countries, such as Portugal) is much fairer, as the court may ask questions of the parties and actually have a better chance to understand the dispute in front of them.
Email to PCC Anthony Stansfeld by Project Heritage
In Parliament, Steve Baker MP talks about money creation and says the methods of money creation in our society are profoundly corrupting. Mr Baker quoted Henry Ford: "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." (20 November 2014)
Project Heritage is a digital dispute resolution tool designed to facilitate the bulk handling of legal claims typically on behalf of litigants in person (LiPs). It is a bulk dispute resolution tool focused on the abuse of Personal Guarantees - based on a perjured affidavit - which allows "vulnerable women (https://www.diylaw.co/cjc-2020-pg-widow)" to be abused by the existing process. Project Heritage is a 3-stage process.
Project Heritage Stage 1: Lampert v Lloyds case
During Jeff Lampert`s guarantee litigation (referred to above) Lloyds Bank entered what the Met Police later identified an allegation of a "Perjured Affidavit" into the action. This "Perjured Affidavit (https://bit.ly/2L5Y0b9)" was entered into the Court of Appeal by Stephen Charles Ball, then a Lloyds Bank employee. This Affidavit alleged that Lloyds Bank only recovered £1.5m of a £3m Heritage Plc debt Jeff was guaranteeing. The best estimate of the recoveries is between £5m-£7m. Lloyds have repeatedly refused to provide Jeff or anyone else with access the actual recovery figures.
After a great deal of research, SC Ball has very recently been located. The matter has been handed over to Action Fraud (ref. no. NFRC200803860541), who have forwarded this matter to the Met Police "to be recorded as a perjury".
The matter is being looked at by Avon & Somerset Police as requested by PCC Anthony Stansfeld.
Jeff is advised that as a result, hundreds of thousands of evictions may have occurred. This case established the toxic combination of:
failure to repay an overdraft within two banking hours can be considered an act of default on all company loans
allowing the secured lender to immediately take action against the Guarantor. The Guarantor's home is all too frequently taken before all recoveries against the borrower have been exhausted. This is because recovering from the Guarantor`s home has historically been the most cost-effective and easiest way to make recoveries.
The Head of Civil Policy at the Ministry of Justice has suggested to Jeff that Stage 1 "looks to be criminal" and Stage 2 remediations "looks to be civil".
Project Heritage Stage 2: remediation scheme presented by Jane Farmer
Jane Farmer`s Impact Statement (https://www.diylaw.co/jane-farmers-impact-statement) shows the horrors that the victims of the abuse of Personal Guarantees have had to endure. The Judiciary are aware of this (https://www.diylaw.co/cjc-2020-pg-widow).
Project Heritage is a dispute resolution tool designed to facilitate the bulk handling of legal claims to assist the victims in achieving recompense and closure. From just the address of the lost property, an algorithm will calculate the loss on the property against the current value. The Claimants would use that amount to close their claims. The Claimants will also have the opportunity to include their impact statement (as per Jane Farmer`s Impact Statement above). We believe that pragmatism will ensure a take up for the scheme, as it surpasses any other alternative that is currently available. Statutory Interest at 8% would be applicable to ensure a rapid resolution.
The process is designed to be transparent: it will be chargeable to the secured lenders who are one of the main beneficiaries. The process recognises that these funds originate only from a liability on the secured lenders` balance sheets, which will have been securitised. Project Heritage process would, therefore, work towards closing long overdue legacy cases and removing enormous pending liabilities off the lenders` balance sheets. Read more about Project Heritage: https://bit.ly/2LqvyQQ.
The process makes use of digital technology and has been given support by LexisNexis. Users of the process can fill in their own claims online (https://www.diylaw.co/calculating-the-loss-of-propertysold-due-to-pg) and they will also have the opportunity to include their impact statement (as per Jane Farmer`s Impact Statement above).
Project Heritage Stage 3: the way forward - an alternative to Personal Guarantees
Reforming the broken Personal Guarantee-based lending is of paramount importance and would benefit the millions of SMEs (that covers 99% of all businesses) in the UK. In the 21st century, 80% of companies` assets are intangible. The current system ignores that important change. Project Heritage and Areopa`s vision is to encourage the SME sector to invest in itself.
As outlined in Areopa`s concept (https://www.diylaw.co/replacing-personal-guarantees), Intellectual Capital could be a suitable alternative to Personal Guarantees:
AREOPA's approach to replacing PGs with ICGs (Intellectual Capital Guarantees) requires placing a Knowledge Manager Inside the borrowing company to ensure that their key knowledge is captured, controlled and commercialised beyond its current use. There is a legal and commercial arm's length distance between the Knowledge Manager Inside and the lender, to better ensure against a lender who is more interested in cashing in on the knowledge than simply benefiting from the interest on the loan.
This is Jeff`s quest to achieve recompense for SMEs for the misery heaped on them following Lloyds Bank`s alleged perjured affidavit of 26 September 1997.
Here is what happened so far:
Made with Visme Infographic Maker
diyLAW`s proposed solution: Project Heritage
Case reference: Jeff Lampert v the ICO (GIA/3422/2016)
Relevant documents in the case:
The First Tier Tribunal`s decision in this matter dated 20th of September 2016.
The Upper Tribunal`s decision in this matter dated 1st of March 2019.
Note to the ICO dated 14th of March 2019 at 12:37.
The ICO`s response dated 14th of March 2019 at 13:36.
Jeff Lampert`s response dated 19th of March.
Jeff Lampert`s further submission dated 20th of March.
Jeff Lampert`s submission to challenge the Upper Tribunal’s response
Jeff Lampert`s submission to the Court of Appeal on the 10 June 2019