Banks who created this TV
Banks who created this TV

Banks who created this TV

On 11/03/2020 Bank-A applied to repossess a property. A court hearing was scheduled for 14/04/2020. On 03/04/2020, Bank-A wrote a false statement. But COVID-19 adjourned the hearing and on 09/04/2020, just 6 days later Bank-A wrote to apologise and accept legal service. During lockdown proof was obtained that 5 weeks before Bank-A applied to the court they were escalating this borrower’s offer to settle their debt to the top of their organization, and looking to uphold their complaint for mis-selling.


A legal trail of hundreds of thousands of equity charges worth tens of billions were then found registered at HM Land Registry in the name of Bank-B. In 2008, all these charges were transferred to Bank-C, and again in 2010 to a third-party trust. But, without ever owning them, Bank-A fraudulently acquired the charges at HM Land Registry. But the low court made administrative, procedural, and even legal mistakes which prevented this case from reaching the High Court.


On 25/08/2023, a sitting judge in this case said evidence of this has merit. On 02/02/2024, Bank-C wrote that the charge was all paid off in 2010, but when they realised they gave proof of their fraud, their sudden reversal revealed all three trusted high street banks as contributors to the last financial crash.




We have interviewed a whistleblower with more damaging evidence that 10.8 million equity charges have been wrongfully traded by abusing civil law this way in the United Kingdom.


Press packs


  • A skeleton argument that invalidates £14 billion worth of UK charges, including this family’s counterclaim for potentially hundreds of millions. This press brief is the latest version of what was sent to Bank-A on 06/06/2023, which resulted in foul play as referred to in paragraphs 81 to 83 of the skeleton argument.


  • A case chronology of over 4 years of this civil case with court orders and judges’ statements resulting in delays of at least 2 years, and significant extra costs because of court administrative, procedural, and legal mistakes which helped Bak-A and harmed their opponent. It shows that PART 1 – OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE of Civil Procedure Rules giving courts wide discretionary powers, “…enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost”, fails to meet most of its own objectives, and fails Article 6 § 1 – The right to a fair trial of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Likewise, because this case shows how this allows banks to deprive the public of their property through bank’s non-payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties, Civil Procedure Rules are also incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR – Protection of Property.


  • This is one of the first stories in which multiple Insolitus TV followers have connected for a joint claim.


1st TV pilot taster