“Transparency is the foundation of trust — and trust is the currency our financial system has squandered.”
For decades, millions of UK homeowners have believed their mortgage was owned by the bank named on their statement or Land Registry entry — Halifax, Bank of Scotland, Lloyds, or another household name.
But as a new parliamentary briefing and the Lloyds Bank plc v Cook [2025] EWCC 43 case make clear, that assumption has never been true.
Behind the Illusion: The Securitisation Machine
Most UK residential mortgages are sold into complex securitisation structures, such as the Permanent Master Issuer (PMI) trusts. Here’s how it really works:
- Halifax or Lloyds originates the mortgage.
- The beneficial interest — the real economic ownership — is sold to a trust (e.g. PMI).
- The Bank of New York Mellon acts as trustee.
- Investors receive the income from your repayments.
- The bank remains merely a servicer, collecting payments on behalf of the trust.
Yet the Land Registry still lists Lloyds or Halifax as the “legal chargeholder.”
In other words, the name you see on your title deeds is not the entity that owns your loan.
What the Cook Case Revealed
The Cook v Lloyds judgment is not an obscure legal technicality — it’s a breakthrough moment for financial justice.
For the first time, a court accepted that:
- Ownership, assignment, and standing in securitised mortgages are arguable issues, not fantasy claims.
- There is a tension in English law between older precedents (allowing legal owners to enforce) and modern realities (requiring clarity of beneficial ownership).
- If a bank no longer owns the debt, its right to enforce repossession is questionable.
This exposes a vast regulatory blind spot. Thousands of repossessions may have been pursued by institutions without clear authority from the true creditor — the securitisation trust.
A Warning Ignored: Carmel Butler’s 2009 Testimony
In 2009, former banker Carmel Butler told the Treasury Select Committee exactly this:
banks were selling mortgages into SPVs (special purpose vehicles) while continuing to repossess homes they no longer owned.
Parliament was warned.
Regulators were warned.
The FCA has still not acted.
The Regulatory Gap
The FCA often responds, “We don’t regulate the Land Registry.”
But this issue lies squarely within its perimeter:
- Consumer Duty — borrowers must know who their creditor really is.
- Principle 6 (Fair Treatment) — repossessions must be fair and transparent.
- MCOB Rules — lenders must act with integrity and competence.
- Systems and Controls (SYSC) — firms must document assignment and servicing authority.
When the name on the Land Registry doesn’t match the true owner of the debt, transparency, fairness, and legality are all at risk.
Why This Matters to Every Homeowner
This isn’t just a legal quirk. It’s about trust, consent, and justice.
If you don’t know who owns your mortgage:
- You can’t assess who’s profiting from your payments.
- You can’t challenge unfair treatment or misrepresentation.
- You could lose your home to an entity with no standing to enforce.
The Cook case proves that borrowers deserve answers — and regulators must provide them.
What Happens Next
A new Parliamentary Briefing Note (shared with MPs, Treasury Committee members, and constituency caseworkers) now lays out five key Parliamentary Questions demanding FCA accountability. These questions cover:
- Creditor transparency under the Consumer Duty
- Standing and enforcement legitimacy
- FCA coordination with HM Land Registry
- Fairness in arrears and possession decisions
- Disclosure of securitisation arrangements to consumers
This is a turning point. The facts are now in plain sight. The public, Parliament, and courts can no longer look away.
The Academy’s Position
At the Academy of Life Planning, we stand for transparency, integrity, and empowerment in every financial transaction.
Securitisation secrecy violates all three.
We call on regulators and policymakers to:
- Mandate full disclosure of beneficial ownership to all borrowers.
- Require lenders to prove standing before enforcement.
- Protect consumers from repossession by entities with no legitimate title.
As our movement continues to grow, we will amplify the voices of citizen investigators, planners, and truth-seekers exposing this hidden architecture of exploitation.
Join the Movement
This is not just about mortgages.
It’s about restoring trust in the foundations of finance.
👉 Follow the Academy of Life Planning and #GetSAFE to stay informed on the Cook case, securitisation reform, and the future of ethical, transparent financial planning.
Together, we can replace extraction with empowerment.
#AoLP #GetSAFE #FinancialTruth #CookVLloyds #Securitisation #MortgageJustice #Transparency #ConsumerDuty #FCA #CarmelButler #StructuralTrustworthiness
A house repossession is one of the most distressing events a homeowner can experience. It’s not dramatic like in films — it’s usually quiet, procedural, and emotionally heavy. Here’s what it typically looks like in the UK, step by step:
1. Before Repossession Day
- Court proceedings: The lender must have obtained a possession order through the County Court after arrears or default.
- Bailiff warrant: If the borrower hasn’t vacated, the lender applies for a warrant of possession — this authorises enforcement officers to take possession.
- Notice of eviction: The court sends a formal letter stating the date and time the repossession will occur, usually 14 days in advance.
2. On the Day
- Bailiffs arrive first: Usually two County Court bailiffs or High Court enforcement officers arrive at the property, often accompanied by a locksmith.
- Police presence: Local police may attend to prevent breach of the peace — they are not there to enforce the warrant but to maintain order.
- Entry: The locksmith opens the door if the occupier does not answer.
- Occupant removal: The occupants are asked to leave peacefully and allowed a few minutes to collect essential belongings.
- Lock change: Once the property is vacated, locks are immediately changed.
- Inventory: The bailiffs make a note of any possessions left inside, which may later be stored, disposed of, or sold.
3. After Repossession
- Property secured: Windows and doors are checked, meters may be read, and the home is secured against re-entry.
- Lender takes control: The lender or its appointed agent (often a receiver or property manager) takes possession and may prepare the house for sale.
- Occupant’s rights: Former occupants can retrieve personal possessions later by arrangement but no longer have legal right to reside.
4. The Human Reality
- Emotional impact: There’s often quiet shock. Families carry boxes, pets, or sentimental items out. Neighbours may watch silently.
- Financial aftermath: The sale may not cover the mortgage debt, leaving the borrower still owing a shortfall.
- Systemic issue: As revealed in cases like Lloyds Bank plc v Cook [2025], many repossessions are now under scrutiny — where the entity enforcing the repossession may not be the true economic owner due to mortgage securitisation.
Get SAFE: A Fellowship for Those Walking Through Fire
Get SAFE is becoming what people are desperately searching for —
a structured, ethical, trauma-informed community for:
- victims of financial exploitation
- whistleblowers
- bereaved families
- citizen investigators
- advocates and moral leaders
The Fellowship is simple but profound:
We gather to recover agency, share truth, deepen courage, and support one another in the long path from harm to justice.
We are not aligned with any regulator, political system, or institution.
Our strength is our independence.
People came alive when they heard it:
“A Fellowship of truth, justice, and recovery — not a bureaucracy.”
“A place where victims are finally believed.”
“A community rooted in courage, not compliance.”
And because of the AI frameworks we’ve introduced, this Fellowship is not just emotional support — it is practical empowerment.
For the first time, ordinary people can:
- build digital dossiers
- reconstruct timelines
- detect patterns of institutional misconduct
- write letters with authority
- expose evidence regulators overlooked
- collaborate safely across cases
- turn pain into purpose
This is how movements begin.
Planning My Life: Preventing Exploitation Before It Starts
What the event also confirmed is this:
People fall into financial exploitation when they fall out of sovereignty.
Planning My Life sits exactly at this junction.
It teaches people:
- how to think independently
- how to plan their lives before planning their money
- how to identify institutional risk
- how to spot predatory sales patterns
- how to avoid product-led advice
- how to stay structurally trustworthy
- how to build a life where no adviser can mislead, confuse, or coerce them
Prevention and recovery are two halves of the same circle.
Get SAFE rescues those already harmed.
Planning My Life equips people so it never happens again.
Together, they form a complete empowerment system.
A New Model of Justice Is Emerging — Built by the People Themselves
The collective energy of the event revealed a truth that no institution dares speak:
When regulators fail, citizens take up the role of regulator.
When governance collapses, the governed take up the role of governance.
When truth is buried, truth-tellers become archivists of justice.
The movement we are seeing now is not political.
It is human.
It is built on:
- transparency
- dignity
- courage
- integrity
- collective intelligence
- and the healing power of community
These are the values Paul Moore lived and died for.
This event honoured him not by remembering his warnings —
but by continuing his fight.
Where We Go From Here
The Academy of Life Planning now carries a responsibility that is both moral and strategic:
To give people the tools to understand their lives,
their finances,
and their evidence —
so exploitation no longer survives in the shadows.
Through:
- Planning My Life (self-sovereignty)
- Get SAFE (justice and recovery)
- AI-as-co-pilot (pattern recognition, empowerment, clarity)
- The Fellowship (community and courage)
- The GAME Plan (a universal cycle of intention-to-manifestation)
…we are building the world that institutions promised but failed to deliver.
A world where truth has a home.
A world where victims are lifted, not shunned.
A world where ordinary people can finally stand equal to the powers that harmed them.
A world where transparency is not a slogan —
it is a lived practice that restores dignity, agency, and hope.
This is the movement Paul Moore began.
This is the movement that rose in that meeting.
This is the movement we now carry forward.
And we will not stop until every victim finds their voice,
every truth comes to light,
and every life stolen by exploitation is honoured through justice.
In One Sentence
Goliathon turns victims of financial exploitation into confident, capable citizen investigators who can build professional-grade cases using structured training, emotional support, and independent AI.
Instant Access
Purchase today for £2.99 and get your secure link to:
- the training video, and
- the downloadable workbook.
Link to Goliathon Taster £2.99.
If the session resonates, you can upgrade to the full Goliathon Programme for £29 and continue your journey toward clarity, justice, and recovery.
Every year, thousands across the UK lose their savings, pensions, and peace of mind to corporate financial exploitation — and are left to face the aftermath alone.
Get SAFE (Support After Financial Exploitation) exists to change that.
We’re creating a national lifeline for victims — offering free emotional recovery, life-planning, and justice support through our Fellowship, Witnessing Service, and Citizen Investigator training.
We’re now raising £20,000 to:
Register Get SAFE as a Charity (CIO)
Build our website, CRM, and outreach platform
Fund our first year of free support and recovery programmes
Every £50 donation provides a bursary for one survivor — giving access to the tools, training, and community needed to rebuild life and pursue justice with confidence.
Your contribution doesn’t just fund a project — it fuels a movement.
Support the Crowdfunder today and help us rebuild lives and restore justice.
Join us at: http://www.aolp.info/getsafe
steve.conley@aolp.co.uk | +44 (0)7850 102070
Academy of Life Planning 
Here’s a clear and contextual explanation of Section 103 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA s.103) — both the black letter law and its practical relevance to mortgage enforcement and securitisation cases like Cook v Lloyds. 🧾 LPA 1925 – Section 103: Regulation of Exercise of Power of SaleThe Text of s.103
Section 103 of the Law of Property Act 1925 sets out when a mortgagee (lender) can lawfully exercise its power of sale over mortgaged property.
It states that the power of sale does not become exercisable unless one of the following conditions has been met:
⚖️ Purpose and Function
LPA s.103 acts as a safeguard between contract law (the private mortgage agreement) and property law (the public power to sell land).
It ensures that:
In essence, s.103 is what allows a lender, once default is established, to transfer the mortgaged property to a third party (sell it) without further court involvement. 💣 Why It Matters in Securitisation Contexts
Here’s where it gets explosive.
Under securitisation:
That separation raises a crucial legal question under s.103:
To lawfully sell or repossess under s.103, the enforcing party must:
If a servicer acts without clear authority from the true owner (trustee/SPV), their exercise of power of sale is ultra vires (beyond their powers).
That’s what Paul means by “the authority must come from the owner (acquiescence).”
Without explicit consent from the beneficial or legal titleholder, repossession may amount to unlawful conversion — a taking without title. 🧩 Case Law and Commentary
Established that a lender exercising power of sale under s.103 must act in good faith and take reasonable care to obtain the true market value.
Reaffirmed that mortgagees (or their agents) must exercise their powers for proper purposes only and not for collateral advantage.
(Current context) — raised unresolved tension between Paragon Finance v Pender (legal title sufficient) and Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (authority requires clarity from the beneficial owner).
s.103 sits at that crossroads.
⚙️ In Practice
For a repossession or sale to be lawful under s.103:
If not, any sale or possession may be void or voidable, with potential civil claims for:
🧠Summary: The Real Meaning of LPA s.103 in the Securitisation Age
Section 103 of the Law of Property Act 1925 sets strict limits on when a lender can exercise the power of sale over a mortgaged property. It was designed as a safeguard to ensure that homeowners could not be stripped of their property without due process — that is, without clear default, proper notice, and lawful authority from the true owner of the mortgage.
In theory, this means a lender cannot sell or repossess unless the borrower has defaulted, been given at least three months’ written notice, and failed to remedy the default. But in practice, s.103 also acts as a critical bridge between contract law (the private mortgage agreement) and property law (the public authority to sell land). It ensures that anyone exercising this power must have both the legal right and the actual authority to do so.
That’s where securitisation creates a fault line. In modern mortgage structures, the beneficial interest — the real economic ownership — is often sold to a trust or special purpose vehicle (SPV). The originating bank may remain on the Land Registry as the “legal chargeholder,” but it often functions only as a servicer. In these circumstances, the bank cannot lawfully exercise the power of sale under s.103 unless it acts with the explicit authority or acquiescence of the true owner — usually the trustee of the securitisation structure.
This distinction is not semantic. If the servicer acts without clear consent from the legal or beneficial owner, its actions may be ultra vires — beyond its powers — rendering the repossession or sale unlawful. In effect, the entity enforcing the charge may have no standing under property law, even if it believes it does under contract.
The courts have reinforced that the power of sale must be used for proper purposes, in good faith, and with reasonable care to obtain true market value, as seen in Cuckmere Brick Co v Mutual Finance Ltd (1971) and Downsview Nominees v First City Corp (1993). In the modern context, Lloyds Bank plc v Cook (2025) has reopened this debate by acknowledging the unresolved tension between older precedents that allow enforcement by the legal owner and newer interpretations requiring demonstrable authority from the beneficial owner.
In short, LPA s.103 exposes the heart of the securitisation problem. For a sale or possession to be lawful, the enforcing party must hold or be authorised by the legal estate, the borrower must genuinely be in default, and the statutory conditions for notice and fairness must be satisfied. When securitisation splits ownership between servicers, SPVs, and trustees — and none of that is disclosed to the borrower or the court — the entire enforcement process risks becoming structurally untrustworthy and legally defective.