Hello Philip, I believe we have quite a few things in common regarding Alliance & Leicester mortgages. If you have the time would you read my thread here on CAG? I would appreciate your advice. Thanks

Thank you for responding so quickly. Regarding their name: it was the Alliance and Leicester Building Society. Most of the activities I have described took place during their years of negotiation with Santander for take over, which finally occurred in 2010. Regarding Fraud: I quote from my diary 31st May 2013 - Spoke to Action Fraud on phone; officer named 'Steve'. He said that this case was one of 'fraud'. He passed my account (taped?) to his senior, an Information Officer, and he concurred, adding “Definitely Fraud”. I gather that certainty over that word can come only from a Crown Court Judge, and I have not progressed that far. If I had, there would be no problem perhaps. Therefore I do not stand much chance of getting a police officer to put it in writing. I have had access to law school libraries and have researched the definitions, finding that the circumstances of our case fits every one I found; but I have no legal training. Regarding the press: about 2 years ago I sent an account, much the same as you've received, to the Daily Mail but got no response. I am not at all keen that our names and address should become public knowledge. Thank you for letting me know about the 12 year limit. From what you say I can make use of it. Please let me know, is it the BCOBS – the 'sourcebook' an actual book which can be obtained? I can give you much more information it is voluminous. But how, without putting it all in the public domain?

Since 1988 we have been victims of fraud by a Building Society – now part of a major bank. In 2006 we exposed part of the fraud ourselves; the FOS upheld our complaint; on the same day the Building Society registered their displeasure by surcharging us an amount equal to twice the refund ordered by the FOS. Evidence discovered subsequently via the FOS (using the Freedom of Information Act) showed there had been other infractions by the Building Society. The City of London Police declared there have been fraud; we now have a case number. They asked us to forward details to the Financial Conduct Authority. Our mortgage was redeemed precisely on the prescribed date but, unknown to us at the time, the amount was split by the Building Society and used for other purposes. By way of explanation to the FOS, the Building Society claimed that an endowment policy had been inadequate. However, there had been no endowment policy used in the settlement. That had been the third piece of false evidence they had submitted to the Ombudsman. A surcharge valued at 10% of the mortgage was made against us by the Building Society soon after. There had been other such sanctions by the BS totalling over half the capital amount of the mortgage. At the time of our invoking the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Bank seemed to be aware there had been earlier transgressions by the Building Society, for some pieces of information had been redacted. We have notified the ICO. Our numerous letters to the Building Society asking them to address these issues have been ignored for the past 7 years, They have however continued to charge us £40 routinely, now amounting to over £11,000, all of which is based upon a fake debt, contrived by the Building Society. Action Fraud have explained they are too busy to progress our case. The FCA do not deal with individual cases. I, at the age of 77, do not have the funds to confront a major bank at court. We have been given to understand that the Statute of Limitations (the 6 year limit) which is available to defendants at the FOS, should not be available in cases of criminality, and so our case was not suitable for the FOS to deal with, either in 2008 or again now. 1. Is there anyone who finds this at all familiar? 2. Does anyone have a useful suggestion on which way I should turn next for help? For reasons of brevity there is much I have not explained here, but I have compiled a chronological and more comprehensive account, cross referenced to a compendium of evidence.