Woolwich Sucks .co .uk - the condemned building society

Under major reconstruction

I will explain why we have these 'mis-selling' problems and the banking crash - and why we will continue to have them. You may think the Endowment Scandal is historic but it is also recent - with Antony Jenkins, CEO of Barclays, taking part June 2013. Also involved at the time was Natalie Ceeney (FOS head) - under whose supervision our customer complaint was falsified. More specifically, the FOS actually altered our customer complaint to remove mention of fraud (and that we claimed others were defrauded) and Barclays evasion and delay. As it was a big case I was careful to inform her - and she admitted reading our communications. Ms Ceeney now works for HSBC - which came as no surprise to me. Like all before her at the FSA and SFO she followed Barclays example with deliberate evasion and cover-up. The fraud was ongoing, yet the FOS did exactly what Barclays told them to do and dropped the case. This was even though the evidence of fraud or mass fraud was undisputed and it was admitted to be within time limit of 'final response' (DISP 2.8.3). This meant we had to pay Barclays thousands more - please see bottom of page. The FOS were not critical of Barclays refusal to answer our complaint or their evasion of questions and their delay but instead were sympathetic to Barclays of us picking on them for so long.

This is not a 'mistake' when 'lessons will be learned' - but deliberate wrong-doing. So then, are the financial authorities really corrupt? See what you think after reading the evidence.

To be updated when health permits.

First things first - this is the internet after all - how do you know this is not a spurious claim by somebody of dubious intelligence?

Here is evidence that the cover-up claim is valid. I made an official complaint against the ill-fated FSA for their corrupt behaviour. Please do not be taken in - re-branding by changing the name to Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) does not mean the dogma or the people are different. This is the reason why banks and the finance industry are allowed to get away with with mass 'mis-selling' (fraud) to the public and the recent banking crisis. It is why they can never be trusted - the financial authorities aid and abet them with a cover-up.

If the financial regulators 'lack integrity' then what is the point of them exactly - and who else do you know that has proved this?

Hello, my name is Garry Anderson. I am married with two daughters and live in Haverhill, Suffolk. My personal sites are skilful.com and skilled.org (contains the old skilful.com site). Obviously a person with good reasoning skill not prone to wild allegations. Indeed, if you think any argument illogical or proof not conclusive then please explain why: garry@skilful.com

I hereby declare this to be a truthful - to the best of my knowledge. These are the facts and also carefully considered informed opinion based on the documented evidence from the people involved, which is as objective as I can make it. I regard myself as a person of average education and good intelligence. Somebody not easily taken in - or so I thought. The truth is we can all be conned, it is arrogance to think you cannot. I had to fight Barclays and financial regulators whilst in bad health. Indeed, this pic is from 1997, it was placed on my site to warn of operations going wrong. Things got much worse with the stress of having to confront Barclays, FSA, SFO and FOS. I end up in a ball of unbearable pain on the floor each time, which is why there are big gaps in approaching them. We thought it was because of a damaged nerve bundle but it was in fact a growing aneurysm which eventually burst. It split the artery from chest to stomach causing another large (inoperable) aneurysm which is growing wider every year. You expect to fight those that defraud you - but not the financial authorities (our supposed 'protectors').

Why is this not defamation?

To those that falsely claim this is defamation (to stop criticism) - possibly Barclays, SFO or the financial regulators: The UK Defamation Act 2013 "provides increased protection to operators of websites that host user-generated content, providing they comply with the procedure to enable the complainant to resolve disputes directly with the author of the material concerned". However, you already have our details - I would like to see you try deny what you did. Show in all the evidence when you addressed our complaint or where you explained why it was not fraud. Barclays surely cannot show where they warned their clients of market crashes in original letters and brochure. They did show a performance chart after one.

The Act also "introduces new statutory defences of truth and honest opinion to replace the common law defences of justification. and fair comment" - so I really cannot lose. The fact of the matter is that all this is documented - so is not libelous either in truth or honest opinion.

Key areas of UK Defamation Act 2013

  • includes a requirement for claimants to show that they have suffered serious harm before suing for defamation

  • removes the current presumption in favour of a jury trial

  • introduces a defence of "responsible publication on matters of public interest"
  • provides increased protection to operators of websites that host user-generated content, providing they comply with the procedure to enable the complainant to resolve disputes directly with the author of the material concerned

  • introduces new statutory defences of truth and honest opinion to replace the common law defences of justification. and fair comment.


Here are some recent uploads - more will be added soon:

1. The letter to Mr Jenkins asking him to “either telling us why we were not defrauded or [admit his] company did wrong and making good what they did to many customers”.

2. His reply when one of his staff do a cover-up and say what an exemplary job they did with handling of the process and their supposed adherence to the ‘rules’.

3. Our response - as needless to say this cover-up was false e.g. he did not admit that they were evasive all this time and Barclays had never once addressed our complaint (about fraud of their repayment mortgage customers). Nor would he admit they falsified it into a complaint about inappropriate individual advice to us. At least he was good enough to admit they were frustrating us by not answering the question put to Mr Jenkins (and many times to Barclays).

4. Our original complaint direct to Ms Ceeney at the FOS.

5. The FOS falsified version of our complaint, taking their lead from Barclays, removing all mention of fraud, their delay and evasion. Instead they showed bias and accused us of delay with my seriously bad and worsening health (shown in 1. the letter above). Even though Barclays told us, “the bank will cooperate with any ruling made by the Financial Ombudsman Service” and the FOS admitted that our complaint was within time limit of Barclays 'final response' (DISP 2.8.3) - the FOS refused to rule. Barclays (who pay FOS millions in fees) had lied again and told the FOS not to rule. The FOS complied - I believe this was to protect the financial industry and not for financial gain.

6. See the end of this webpage for a snippet of the letter and reverse of cheque sent to Barclays advising them that they profit from use of fraudulent material.

So what is our story?

We had been paying into a repayment mortgage for five and half years and paid many thousands of pounds when we got a letter and brochure from Barclays (building society now owned by them). It was not simply an endowment circular as Barclays later lied about - but an actual personal quotation targetted at all their repayment customers.

I believe everybody that got an endowment mortgage was "mis-sold". Well, worse than that actually. Not least because it was admitted they are "unfit for purpose" by Walter Merricks in 2001 (Ms Ceeney’s predecessor as head of the FOS). The solution to these financial wrongs is obvious - jail the guilty people. The law is already in place - do not believe the lies. Incidentally, the financial authorities only warned us when loss was imminent - yet they must have known years before this. But they kept quiet - guess why.

Please allow me to explain why it was fraud. You probably will not believe what I have to tell you - it involves the Financial Services Authority, the Serious Fraud Office and the Financial Ombudsman Service all being rather 'evasive' (to say the least). Any large fines are a scam - who do you think they get the money from - the authorities know this.

BTW: Do you know the difference between mis-selling and fraud? Neither it seems do Barclays, FSA, SFO or FOS - they were all asked many times. Indeed, ask yourself; "Why it is not Fraud by false representation or Fraud by failing to disclose information or Fraud by abuse of position? Why do the financial authorities give corrupt firms large fines - which are then passed onto you the customer or shareholder - instead of putting the guilty people in jail?". Indeed, would jail not be even better than personal fines (money which comes from you), which over the coming years they will more than get back? See for yourself that this is illegal already with the Fraud Act 2006 and even before that with the Theft Act 1978.

The corrupt people in authority know jailing the guilty is a bigger deterrent to 'mis-selling' (defrauding) the public.

In fact the Crown Prosecution Service say they should be:

8. Prosecution of a company should not be seen as a substitute for the prosecution of criminally culpable individuals such as directors, officers, employees, or shareholders. Prosecuting such individuals provides a strong deterrent against future corporate wrongdoing. Equally, when considering prosecuting individuals, it is important to consider the possible liability of the company where the criminal conduct is for corporate gain.


Analogy: Imagine I have a horse and tell you to bet on it with me because it cannot lose – it is a cert. I pocket big commissions and make regular charges to you, whilst you look after the financial well-being of my horse. I claim that it wins the Grand National every year with at least 5% extra gain on the winnings – though such a small win would seem most unlikely looking at the chart of performance. Yes, I even show you a factual chart of the races that my horse won over the previous eight years with up to 44% extra every year. Although there are no ‘rules’ about having to give a risk warning at the time there were laws about misleading people. I even tell you the horse is so good that you should also put all your winnings from every previous year on it. I hide from you the fact it fell in a couple of races just before that chart, losing the previous mugs much of their winnings and I know it could fall again any number of times. I will pretend I did not know it was most relevant for a 25 year accumulator bet, but in actual truth there was no way I could not know this. Not least because of our chart starting after it. Exactly why is this deception not fraud? Why is it not criminal when I target many people with the same scam?

But what if it is much worse than this even. What if you were also already deeply indebted to me for a lot of money – and I was in a position of trust, like your bank or building society manager? Why would the authorities want to protect them?

Most of you were fed with charts and figures to show how well you would have done in the past - implying you would have to be really very stupid not to put into it now.

Some building societies even tell you these charts do not show future performance - your investment could do slightly better or worse. If they are not indicative of future performance - why the blinking heck show them?

Look at these charts - and given a 19% average growth figure - you would be an absolute mug not to get an endowment - wouldn't you?

Before we go any further - the definition of Fraud, from the Oxford English Dictionary:

FRAUD: Criminal deception; the using of false representations to obtain an unjust advantage or to injure the rights or interests of another.

Isn't "mis-selling" the same as false representation for gain - fraud - why then no criminal charges?

Look at the Fraud Act 2006; Why it is not Fraud by false representation or Fraud by failing to disclose information or Fraud by abuse of position?

This was also fraud under the previous legislation - do not be fooled by any excuses you may hear from the authorities.

These experts knew the market would not stay as it was for 25 years - didn't they?

If somebody takes money from you hiding true risk - basic deception - why is that not fraud?

Most warning was totally inadequate - like being told it is safe to jump off a twenty-five storey building while wearing only a crash helmet. Why did they not warn of the real risks - and tell about "churning"?

"Churning" is a scam - we were "churned" out of many thousands of pounds.

Why the semantics of calling it "mis-selling" - is it to protect them from criminal charges?

The endowment was sold to you as an investment that would grow to pay off your mortgage - not as a gamble which could lose all the twenty-five years payments you made - and then would still leave you having to pay for your house at the end of it - or lose that also.

Yes - you could lose all twenty-five years endowment payments - and your house.

Everybody with endowment mortgage was "mis-sold" it - or "defrauded" to give correct term.

They hide the distinction. Fact: You get a mortgage to REPAY your loan. Repayment mortgage does this, it is fit for this purpose. Endowment is a nothing but a GAMBLE in the HOPE of repaying loan - you could lose big time - all your payments and home.

The Financial Services Authority seems to think an endowment is a "savings scheme" - when it is clearly a "gambling scheme".

Your "horse" could stumble, never to make up ground - this could happen any number of times during the very long twenty five year race. Worse, it could fall and break a leg - having to be shot. To those people contacted at Financial Services Authority - the "horse" is policy OR market.

A "savings scheme" - like doubling up on red at roulette until you have enough to repay loan.

Objectively: Is endowment a "suitable product" (fit for purpose) with the most important and imperative aim of repaying your very large loan, when a deep market recession or crash could take it out, along with your pension and investments?

The Financial Services Authority seems to think it a "suitable product" that is "fit for purpose".

At least with repayment scheme, money is coming off the balance all the time. Can somebody please tell me why are the FSA not aiding and abetting in this?

You were "mis-sold" endowment mortgage because it was not "fit for purpose".

You were told it should be safe to jump off twenty-five storey building - instead of being told to walk down the flights of stairs. Endowments are NOT the magic elevator or escalator that they made them out to be.

In 1986 I was one of many that got a letter from the management of my building society (pre-Gateway & Woolwich merger) about swapping from repayment to endowment mortgage. Like my bank, I expected them to be honest and to truthfully inform me of any risks. It did not - it was quite the opposite - a glowing endorsement that spoke only of advantages - see for yourself. Please show me where it says you could lose all your payments and house - or where it explains how they will "churn" you out of nearly all the money you have paid so far.

The letter also contained a brochure explaining the plan. Again, please show me where it says you could lose your payments and house or explains "churning". They said only conservative performance required to meet the target and named the individual members of the award winning investment team. Showing wads of money and only two possible outcomes - finish years early OR a cash sum.

I have been in touch with the Financial Services Authority (FSA), about what most rather euphemistically call "mis-selling".

They have been most evassive and refuse to tell me why I have not been defrauded.

I made complaint against FSA for "lack of integrity" - it was upheld. But still they refuse to answer.

The Serious Fraud Office will not tell me either.

Can you guess why the individuals of the FSA and SFO would conceal fraud? - Isn't this perverting the course of Justice?

The FSA say that churning is the proscribed practice which "results in the consumer suffering two sets of charges and hence consumer detriment." The effect of churning is FAR WORSE than this for endowments. MOST of the money paid in the early years of the repayment mortgage is taken in charges and interest. Consumer detriment could hardly be any worse - could it (anybody at FSA)?

Our building society actually quoted a cash sum that we would get at the end of loan term. We did not know all this at the time, but it was less than the money they had "churned" from us in charges and interest from our previous repayment mortgage with them. Of course, with inflation, this money would be worth a lot less in twenty five years time. This loss was actual - our gain was illusory. The building societies gain was all actual. The building society did not tell their customers about this money - it is a double fraud to these customers.

If a similar thing happened to you, have you ever thought the reason you feel conned (like me), is that you have been? This is why I feel so outraged now - enough to get this site going. Like most people I was naive to trust them. Yes, okay, I was stupid - thinking BOTH the lenders and myself would gain out of this method. Everybody can be conned - it is clear they played on peoples thoughts to save money.

How wrong I was, thinking BOTH the lenders and borrowers would gain. The lenders were gambling with our money - they could only gain from it - we could lose it all. It is a con - pure and simple.

The people who took out endowment mortgages were not trying to get something for nothing - nor were they after easy money. These people were trying to save money on their most expensive life purchase. They thought they would get back a few thousand pounds - out of the very many thousands of pounds the mortgage lenders took from them in profits.

Everybody was told it was a SPECIAL kind of mortgage. We were ALL told that we would either pay years early OR get wads of money at the end. Not one person in the UK - as far as I know - was told that they could lose everything - all their payments and family home.

Can anybody say these facts are wrong?

Fact 1. Many people were told they would have to pay thousands - to increase their payments to make up for a 'predicted' shortfall in Endowment Mortgage. This is very bad financial advice - like being told to gamble more money on a losing horse.

Fact 2. Although paying thousands of pounds extra for the shortfall - this does not protect them. They could lose all that extra money on top. The stock market could still have a big fall or crash - losing all their money.

This means that people would lose most (if not all) the benefit of many years' payments and have to pay for their house 'again'. That is - if they had not lost their investments or pension in the same crash. Or if they could afford to repay for it when heading towards retirement - at a time when most are trying to save towards old age. Although they will have to - else they would lose their home.

Fact 3. Even without rudimentary risk assessment - the experts and managers of finance companies selling endowments must have known this was BOUND TO HAPPEN to people with endowment policies due after big plummet in the market. It was obvious - it does not require retrospective knowledge. Yet, experts and finance managers did not disclose this risk or, at best, made light of it.

This is not a maybe or a perhaps - there is no doubt at all - IT WILL COME TO PASS after a market collapse. People will lose many thousands. I have yet to hear of one endowment company director that warned borrowers of the true risks. They dishonestly made false representation, knowing this risk and abused a position of trust - with intent to make a gain by exposing others to the risk of loss.

Is it GOOD FINANCIAL ADVICE to make GAMBLE to repay biggest loan you are likely ever to make?

That is basically why I believe those that took out endowment have been defrauded. This fraud is ongoing. The FSA and SFO are involved in covering this up.

One person emailed, "It was the poor stockmarket that was the problem which no one foresaw."

Well it is true that nobody can forsee when any problem will come to the stockmarket - but is a lie to say that financial market do not know that these problems arise.

It is my informed opinion that any of these financial experts saying they did not know about big drops in the market or crashes and the consequences is a liar. Also the possibility that the entire industry has been financial incompetent to remain silent for all these years is too incredible to believe.

Fact: the level of risk in this gamble is unknown - nobody can say when problems may occur.

Ask any one of these financial experts on the witness stand, "EVEN IF a couple might think it is good idea to take out an endowment, a VERY LARGE LOAN (years of their joint salary), though they know it a gamble - when is it ever GOOD FINANCIAL ADVICE to say they should go ahead with a GAMBLE TO REPAY THE LARGEST OF LOAN?"

Surely, the honest answer is "NEVER"?

Fact: Endowment Policy is a gamble - therefore is not fit for use of repaying largest of loans - we were conned.

The authorities would like to sweep it all under the carpet - like it was some great big mistake.

They want individual settlements, putting a small portion of people back in the position they would have been in.

This is letting guilty get away with fraud - to give false confidence in the market and let others be conned.

By accepting settlement, it is like saying to house burglar - "Well give us our things back and we will not say any more about it - you did not mean to take them".

You should also be given damages and they should be punished.

Is it also not fact - FSA fines get paid by customers and investors - guilty fat-cat directors can award themselves big pay rise to make up any shortfall?

There is lots more to tell - come back soon.

This is the reverse of the cheque accepted by Barclays and Mr Jenkins after seeing the brochure and letter we were conned with.
Make a Free Website with Yola.