IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CLERKENWELL & SHOREDITCH
CLAIM NO L1QZ86AN
7th July 2025
BETWEEN
MS MARY MOSS
Claimant
And
HUBBARD PEGMAN & WHITNEY LLP
Defendant
Dear Courts,
Index:
1. Grounds of appeal. Pages 2-3
2. Notes of the hearing, request for the judge to approve on 11th July 2025. Pages 4-13
3. Order of Judge Lightman 07/07/25. Page 14.
4. Skeleton argument as e-bundle as per court request 16/7/25. Pages 15-47.
5. Statement of Truth, signed and dated. Page 47.
The Applications attached separately are;
N164 appellants notice applied for 7/7/25 to set aside the order 07/07/25
I appeal the order entirley and want a new trial date with judicial process as the court yesterday said, since 27th March 2025 after 4 months having brought this case to the county court, they did this yesterday without providing Judge Barry Lightman, without either sides bundle or witness stateman, which he complained of in the hearing.
As an LIP, I, in this small claim of £1800, was ordered to get expensive legal representation, to re-particularise and also the other sides costs which were reprehensible in the extreme, were reserved. In essence a hearng was conducted against me, without the starting pistol going off, with catch 22 consequences, that if I don’t produce this, and it’s agreed by the defendant also, that my unheard claim of fraud in the execution will be struck out and that was not judicial process. I was told my claim did not mention fraud in the claim form which it absolutely did.
The claimants bundle was put to the court as early as 27th March 2025 when ordered to do so within one week by the court.
The judge stipulated that no other documents could therefore be lodged. However a June 2025 index and supplimentary bundle and costs making outlandish claims was not only disallowed under process but was seemingly said to have been in isolation, the single and only thing read, throughly he said, in full, saying he understood the defendant by Judge Barry Lightman.
At this stage due to the prohibitive costs to which Judge Lightman asked the defendant to read out smiling at the defendant, who was asking for costs on an indemnity basis which was ridiculous and I was not allowed to hear or defend them and then I was too stymied to dare to ask for permission to appeal for what up to that point had been firstly an unorodox bulling process regarding me and my locus standi and secondly a whole heartedly one sided patronising process, where 'she', and 'Mary Moss' "what makes YOU think, YOU, have any claim", that had a laid back in his chair opponent running the show, on a wholley, 'this was said by the judge', 'without merit', and without a hearing about the actual fraud, a bank cheque refunded by bank 'as fraud' and yet we heard time and again the other sides position, said by the Judge 'as misconceived' (their defence). You would need to hear the transcript. At one point I said my entire case, under bullish questioning, was, "void ab initio", SO.. it was said!
-
The Judge outside of a fair hearing, gave me 30 days to adjust my claim and ordered me to get representation which who cannot afford this day and age and it defied the objective of the small claims court. I pleaded 'void ab initio'. Fraud. An order without a case hearing leaves me in no position that's fair and he even asked that family members join the claim, when I, alone, took this claim, not them. I have locus standi, it's established but he made out it didn't and I even backed it up but he refused in a two hour hearing to read that statement. I won't be drawn, into dual costs its my case and I will win it as is right by the laws, statue and common law. How dare what has been done today be a mask for justice. I was literally costs stymied of this Judges attitude.
I apply for an order that:
Set aside and a new court date for the small claims court asap ordered and the costs be unreserved as no proper judicial process hearing took place due to their judicial error, which was no fault of mine and since 'courts don't lend their hand to fraud', this order should be struck out as without judicial process, since no case files were handed down, and the judge said he was brought in for 'this' hearing (retired). The small claims court should do their job and give the judges both bundles before all hearings.
It's corrupt otherwise, undermines due process and the law especially of fraud where 'no man who commits fraud shall be assisted by the court or walk away enriched by a process that has never even be heard, we don’t enrich wrongdoing and unlawfulness in the UK or this case would undermine the British law courts no matter what technicality, in the claim form. where he said I didn't claim fraud, which is anyway disputed as I said it’s common law, ‘fraud’, and now it's used against me.
Evidence in support
In support of my applications in Section 7, I wish to rely upon the following evidence:
The judge had no bundles
The judge said that was often happening
The judge picked a part of the case and made a costly and prohibitive, punitive order defying fraud lending its hand to corruption. This undermines the law.
My particulars said forgery, fraud. A transcript should be ordered.
N164 applied for again on 14/7/25 with a time extension added, as no reply from the courts until today, 16th July requesting an e-bundle or three copies to be delivered on paper but that time extension maybe is not required as the delay was the fault of the courts. The second N164 time added, is attached as a back-up but can be disposed of.
Moss v Hubbard Pegman and Whitney solicitors 07/07/2025 Noon Court 8.
Clerkenwell and Shoreditch
County Court
Case No: L1QZ86AN
Grounds of Appeal
1. The District Judge Lightman in case L1QZ86AN did not have the bundles in court, due to he said, a ‘fault of the court’. They were produced in March 2025 by the claimant and the defendant and yet the judge claimed twice to have read the defendants case, that the claimants case was ‘misconceived’ meaning not planned properly or not articulated in a fit manner, so much so, that despite no hearing at all taking place, which is not jurisprudence, an unwanted and costly order, outside of a full hearing, was made for the claimant forcibly to have permission, which she did not request, to re-particularise her claim, which she wanted as stood, and this was all on the advice in the court room of the defendant, who was also given a peculiar right, to consent, or not, to her forced amendments, and this because the judge insisted, on reading it out, her claim, didn’t mention fraud, albeit forgery was said which amounts to fraud generally, and so the claim absolutely did fraud but did not and never will mention or imply any fraud, from the defendant, just fraud as in the forged cheque, stated in the claim form box and in the direction questionnaire and in the mediation and at all times. The forged cheque factually was cashed after death. The defendant is attempting to change, ‘fraud’, here to avert from the actual claim itself and is attempting to say that this claimant is implying that they faked a will. This is denied and not particularised. What is particularised is that the will could not be tested by an expert, as it was not certified, so no claim can be made or was. The visual resource is an expert not relied upon, whom has alerted the claimant to ask for a single joint expert, to test the validity of the signatures in the will, now being redundant since the instrument is void ab initio from fraud in the execution so now is as if it never existed and therefore it’s merit or not is not in the courts remit, its adjudged. It does not stand. The only contract to be refunded is the Larke v Nugus.
2. The interpretation of fraud to be kept as in the original claim, as the judge read:
Solicitors, Hubbard, Pegman & Whitney, acted in a probate case with no authorisation either by a signed and dated client care letter or by payment. The payment they did get was from a forged cheque made out for £1,080 and illegally cashed after death. A scanned copy that was scant illegible signatures, illegible in dates and the handwriting for one of the witnesses, has also been analysed and the signatures of the will writer as well as the block capitals of her name underneath that doesn’t seem to be in her handwriting, judging by her May 2023 sworn statement, but like the cheque, bears the exact same handwriting seemingly.
The Larke v Nugus was charged £1800 for so we claim it here.
3. An abusive costs order was sent by the defendant of £10k, to which the judge had no 'due process' to reserve without a hearing. This would leave the defendant unjustly awarded in a case of 'fraud in the execution' and a void from illegality contract which is against common law and statue and costs should be adjourned to be heard at a fair hearing appropriately, so this claimant wants those costs unreserved, with her own, until the full hearing, under Jackson law, as they bear no relation to a small claims court hearing and are punitive, so should not hide behind the skirt of this order.
John Cunningham - Certified copy of the will and other confidential correspondence
Judge - Has copies been provided to the court and the claimant, if not please sit down. Who are you (friend whose, named). Now I don’t have the bundles so I can’t proceed. Ms Moss this is a claim for £1800 is there anything you wish to say.
Ms Moss - I wish to say that I was not sent an issue of the date of these proceeding, the time and for how long and on the 27th May I had another case, and the Judge did not have the claimants bundle just the defendants, similar to this.
Judge - That doesn’t matter, why do you think £1800 should be paid to you?
Ms Moss - The reason why is the Larke v Nugus
Judge - No, just tell me why £1800 should be paid to you?
Ms Moss - It’s because the original contract was void, so it was fraud in the execution
Judge - woooooooooooo woooooooo woooooooo wo wo……..
They’ve been paid £1800 for a Larke v Nugus request, what right have you Mary Moss, to ask for a refund. What rights have you got
Ms Moss - My family disputed, when we were contacted
Judge - No, no, no
Do you have locus standi
Ms Moss - My sister provided that, the locus standi
Judge - Who is your sister, what relation does she have to the estate, to the deceased?
Ms Moss - Mrs Geraldine Whiley, she’s the oldest and I’m the second oldest and we are the first children of the deceased
Judge - The solicitors got paid for the information, so who paid the money
Ms Moss - We all did
Judge - You all did
Ms Moss - My sister paid it on behalf of all of us. She was representing all of us. Would you like to see this, it’s the locus standi, permission from Geraldine Whiley written for the court today, it’s just 3-pages?
Judge - Not at the moment
Ms Moss - It provides the locus standi
Judge - Does it! Have, you seen this? (referring to the defendant).
Mr Cunningham - No sir, I haven’t seen anything whatsoever
Judge - Why haven’t you provided a witness statement? Did you, lodge a bundle (asking Ms Moss)?
Ms Moss - Yes
Judge - What was in it?
Ms Moss - I provided a visual resource of two handwriting expert reports, regarding the fraudulent
Judge - Did you get permission to provide expert reports
Ms Moss - No, It’s just a visual resource
Judge - No, no, no, you can’t do that, what else
Ms Moss - I provided the NatWest fraud letter about the
Judge - You say you have a bundle, (looks at his computer) yes, I can see that here and do you have a copy of the bundle?
Ms Moss - I served it to the court
Judge - What date did you send it to the court?
Ms Moss - I served it on the 26th March
Judge - I have a computer in front of me. You served it, drop box, witness statement, according to court records you have served the witness statement around the 28th March, and supporting documents, so the court has received it, it hasn’t made its’ way to the file.
Ms Moss - Sorry to hear that
Judge - This case is for 2 hours which normally involves in terms of pre-reading, and I’ve got nothing and I’ve been put in a back-to-back list.
Judge (talking to Mr Cunningham) - You position is that, 'you have no locus standi and the whole thing is misconceived'
Mr Cunningham - That’s in our the defence sir
Judge - Yes I’ve read your defence as well. You filed
Mr Cunningham - A defendant’s bundle, a main bundle and a supplementary bundle.
Judge - The only thing that’s on the file is the supplementary bundle, and they’re are saying, we have a problem.
Mr Cunningham - We have a spare bundle sir.
Judge - Well how long will it take, well I’ve got to read, how long will it take
Mr Cunningham - I filed my submission on the 26th June
Judge - It’s not your fault, 26th June! Let’s see if we have that? Yes, supplementary bundle 13th June I’ve got that, these supplements have been received but they’re not here.
Mr Cunningham - We have a spare bundle sir
Judge - This is the court system
Mr Cunningham - We have a spare bundle and a spare supplementary bundle and some spare
Judge - Assuming that the court reads everything that you want read, and you want read, how much reading time is required?
Mr Cunningham - An hour
Judge - You have the advantage of knowing how much reading time would be required?
Ms Moss - Their bundle is 240 pages and mine is about 20.
Judge - So that’s an hour and then there is submissions, so you need a full two hours. I have a back-to-back list, it’s enormous, it’s not your fault, I’ve got lots of people and people who are listed for 10am, and I’ve got to look at this one, I think who ever asked me, didn’t realise what this case was about, it’s a disputed will or something. My instincts tell me that this needs to be adjourned, to be adjourned for 3 hours that would include an hour’s reading, with a direction that I prefer the bundle of everything be lodged in an e-bundle, they’re perfectly capable of doing bundles
Mr Cunningham - Might be too large for the computer
Judge - Yes
Ms Moss - May I say that if we both have bundles, we could give you our bundles and you could read them
Judge - That’s easy for you to say, there are only two other Judges and I’ve got to read them.
Ms Moss - Shall we just take our chances Mr Cunningham?
Judge - When you say that you mean just wait?
Ms Moss - Yes if you’re happy to take the bundles from either side
Judge - I’m happy to do that, what do (referring to Mr Cunningham) say because you say the whole thing is misconceived
Ms Moss - And I say it’s illegal
Mr Cunningham - it is
Judge - I know where you’re coming from, I’ve read that bit, the question is has this lady got the right to make the claim at all, she says she’s got locus standi, is Geraldine Whiley in court.
Ms Moss - No she’s got cancer and she’s provided the statement, giving me the locus standi
Judge - Well she should be a party to the proceedings
Ms Moss - She’s got cancer
Judge - That’s not the point
Ms Moss - But we all paid together
Judge - That’s not the point
Ms Moss - What is the point then?
Judge - She should be the one making the claim, your claim at the moment reads;
Solicitors, Hubbard, Pegman & Whitney, acted in a probate case with no authorisation
either by a signed and dated client care letter or by payment. The payment they did get was from a forged cheque made out for £1,080 and illegally cashed after death. A scanned copy that was scant illegible signatures, illegible in dates and the handwriting for one of the witnesses, has also been analysed and the signatures of the will writer as well as the block capitals of her name underneath that doesn’t seem to be in her handwriting, judging by her May 2023 sworn statement, but like the cheque, bears the exact same handwriting seemingly.
Nothing to do with this case.
(Continued reading POC)
The Larke v Nugus was charged £1800 for so we claim it here.
Judge - So, you are saying we but you are Mary Moss, singular
Ms Moss - But there’s five of us
Judge - I’m just looking at the claim, as it stands you haven’t got one sentence that say’s you’re claiming £1800 and you don’t say why, has there been,
Ms Moss - I say,
Judge - Has there been, any amendment to this claim? This claim as it stands is a non-starter
Ms Moss - No, because the claim says that the contract was illegal and the payment of the the Larke v Nugus is illegal because it’s void ab initio,
Judge - Well,
Ms Moss - it’s fraud from the beginning,
Judge - Well,
Ms Moss - It’s fraud in the execution
Judge - Well, your claim is for £1800 and you say it’s a 'we', I know what you mean, by a, 'we'
Ms Moss - Yes
Judge - That’s not a claim, with the greatest of respect, this should have been 'struck out', if I had seen this I would have struck it out, now I give you 'permission' to 'amend' your case, for this £1800, have you taken legal advice, yes or no,
Ms Moss - No
Judge - I urge you to do so, the claim as it stands now is a non-starter or a nonsense
Ms Moss - It’s a small claim and it’s a small box on a claim form and I believe it is pleaded right
Judge - It’s not
Ms Moss - There are a lot of facts in the case and with respect, that’s the only thing you’re looking at
Judge - You need to have amended your claim, I’ve seen their defence and on the face of it, this should have been struck out straight away, I would have, now what I propose to do is this, strike this out
Ms Moss - Without a hearing
Judge - Yes because on this claim, it’s a nonsense
Ms Moss - But as you say, then that should have been done before
Judge - I as you say (referring to Mr Cunningham) would give 'her' permission to amend her claim, with 'others' being added to her claim, that is correct procedure, it may be that what you’re, saying, is still correct and that 'she’s' got no claim.
Mr Cunningham - Yeah
Judge - As it stands the claim for £1800 is a nonsense, there’s no cause of action
Ms Moss - It says fraud in the cause of action
Judge - Let me finish
Ms Moss - It says fraud
Judge - You’re not a lawyer and you haven’t taken legal advice and I’m telling you if you want to make a claim for £1800 then you’ve got to have a cause of action
Ms Moss - Which was fraud
Judge - No it’s not
Ms Moss - It’s in there
Judge - No it’s not, if you’re pleading fraud you have to plead it
Ms Moss - It’s in the documents
Judge - You can’t do what you’ve done Ms Moss according to the law, fraud is very specific, if you’re alleging fraud against this firm of solicitors you’ve got to set it out in chapter and verse. A claim with one line for £1800, we want the money back, is not going to get you anywhere
Mr Cunningham - If the claimant has an opportunity to amend her claim form that would be after the defence has been made and served, therefore the claimant should make a formal application, with a witness statement signed by the estate and we 'be given permission to approve', the amendments, and add 'others' to the claim and then there’s the question of 'costs'
Judge - I understand because you’re 'entitled to see it before the court gives permission'.
Judge - You understand what he’s saying to me.
Ms Moss - No
Judge - No I know you don’t, strictly speaking, if I’m going to 'allow you' to plead a case, you’re going to have to look up the rules and you’re going to have to 'get legal advice', it’s bad enough for lawyers and if the court is minded to consider getting you to amend your claim, you, make a note;
Recital order
1. "upon reviewing the court file and court computer (caseman) and upon hearing the claimant in the first person and legal exec for the defendant, and it appearing that the claim is for a 'refund' of £1800, yet the claimant asserts
(a) That the defendants are guilty of fraud and 'the court being of the view' that the claimant, has 'no locus standi,' (as payment of £1800 was made by Mrs Geraldine Whiley) it is ordered that,
(i) The claimant shall by 4pm issue and serve application to amend claim form and to serve particulars of claim in compliance with CPR 16.4
(ii) If the claimant asserts fraud, she shall in her POC set out fully all facts of the matters, relied upon as required by the CPR.
(iii) If the claimant asserts that she makes a claim on behalf of herself and others she shall as necessary, apply to amend her claim, to 'include other' persons and provide their 'written consent'. To be 'added' to 'this claimant', to proceeding, for the claimant to, serve to take 'independent legal advice' in relation to these proceeding.
The date by which she has to do this I will instinctively give her 4 weeks, it will be 'covered' by a 'default provision' that if she hasn’t done so, the claim will stand 'struck out'.
Mr Cunningham - Yes, I agree.
Judge - 4 weeks, 4 weeks for which, it’s up to you, you can take legal advice and you’ve got to apply to amend your claim, I’m going to give you 4 weeks.
The date will be 4th August.
Paragraph 5.
If the (claimant) defendant 'fails, to issue and serve' the application, referred to in paragraph 1. above, with 'witness statement' in support, by 4pm 4th August 2025, this action will be 'struck out' as 'misconceived' as 'totally without merit'.
6. If the said application is made within time, list for hearing, first open date thereafter, time estimate, 1 hour?
You’ll still be seeking to' strike it out' (looking at defendant)?
Mr Cunningham - Yes
Judge - Time estimate 2 hrs. Your asking for 'your costs', say why? Remember this is still a 'small claim'.
Mr Cunningham - There are 'circumstances' where the defendant can 'seek to have certain costs'
Judge - I’ve read it, and I assume you have served all this correspondence on Ms Moss, you think 'she’s' 'misconceived', it should be 'struck out' and you think you should have 'costs' on an 'Indemnity Basis'!!!
Mr Cunningham - Yes, I believe that this claimants 'behaviour' has been 'extraordinary' and every letter that I send out, I finish the paragraph with 'I think you should seek legal advice' and I think that if the claimant had taken 'legal advice', we wouldn’t be here.
Judge - So, what are you asking me to do today?
Mr Cunningham - I have a statement of costs here
Judge - Forget about the statement of costs, let’s deal with the 'principle', what are you asking me to do today, are you asking me to 'make an order of costs' based on today’s hearing, better 'now' to say 'why' so that 'she' can respond?
Mr Cunningham - I’ve set it all out in the statement
Judge - I know you have but 'say it allowed' for the recording and so that 'she' can reply
Mr Cunningham - Shall I say it now
Judge - You can indeed, just read it out, take your time.
Mr Cunningham - In the 'event that this claim is struck out' the defendant makes a claim for its 'costs', on an 'Indemnity Basis'!!!!
You haven’t struck it out today? (speaking to the Judge)
Judge - I haven’t struck it out today. 'Not yet'. I made a 'default' and 'a default on her compliance'
Mr Cunningham - You haven’t 'struck it out today' so it 'doesn’t stand' 'struck out'?
Judge - So costs reserved?
Mr Cunningham - Yes costs reserved!!!
Judge - Paragraph 7. costs reserved and "I will tell you Ms Moss", your opponent probably believes I’m being to soft with you but I believe in 'fairness and justice'!! One because we haven’t got the paperwork and the 'courts failed' and Two because I think someone from the court should have told you earlier that as it stands, "what was their view", and I urge you to take legal advice!! As it stands at the moment you 'failed' but if you can come up with but if you can come up with 'answers to the queries' I’ve raised in 'what I’ve said', 'several claimants' and if you 'allege fraud' you’ve got to 'spell it out', this is very serious, this is "not a simple debt claim for £1800, you’re alleging their firm of solicitors, their professional reputation, and their position in the future is at stake because of alleged fraud, it’s very serious".
Ms Moss - Can I ask just one thing when you say, 'fraud', can you just add 'in the execution' because,
Judge - You have mentioned fraud and you think they’re crooks
Ms Moss - So 'fraud' is 'general'?
Judge - And if you think they’re crooks
Ms Moss - Just to clarify for my brain, sorry, when you, say 'fraud', I’m saying, 'fraud in the execution', does 'fraud cover all of it'?
Judge - I can’t answer that question, you are alleging 'fraud'
Ms Moss - I’m alleging 'fraud in the execution'
Judge - 'Fraud is fraud'
Ms Moss - Yes, so it covers it? Because you’re using a 'general' term 'fraud' and I’m saying 'fraud in the execution'
Judge - You must spell it out, say what they have done, that’s fraudulent, you’re the one using the word 'fraud',
Ms Moss - I’ve said that to you today but I’ve used the words, 'fraud in the execution',
Judge - Alright
Ms Moss - You’ve 'shortened it to fraud'
Judge - 'I can', you can 'clarify that' in your 'witness statement'
Ms Moss - Okay 'so it’s okay to just say fraud'
Judge - I’m 'giving you an opportunity to explain your case'
Ms Moss - Okay that’s fine
Judge - Your case at the moment, the bit that 'proceeds' that 'one sentence' about £1800, "I know where you’re coming from"
Ms Moss - Yes
Judge - But you’ve got to 'spell it out'.
Ms Moss - Right
Judge - And you’ve got to 'spell it out why the £1800' and how it 'relates' and it’s not for me to 'put words into your mouth'
Ms Moss - right
Judge - But this is 'so serious' I can’t 'let it stand' as 'it is'!! I’ve made my order.
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CLERKENWELL & SHOREDITCH
CLAIM NO L1QZ86AN
BETWEEN
MS MARY MOSS
Claimant
And
HUBBARD PEGMAN & WHITNEY LLP
Defendant
UPON reviewing the court file and court computer (Caseman) and upon hearing the claimant in person and legal executive for the defendant and it appearing that the claim is for a refund of £1,800 yet the Claimant asserts:-
(a) The defendants are guilty of fraud and
(b) Payment of £1,800 was made by Geraldine Whiley and the court being of the view that the claimant has no locus standi.
IT IS ORDERED THAT
(1) The claimant shall by 4pm on 04th August 2025 issue and serve application to amend the claim form and to serve particulars of claim fully particularized in compliance with CPR r.16.4;
(2) If the claimant asserts fraud, she shall, in her particulars of claim, set out fully all facts and matters relied upon as required by the CPR;
(3) If the claimant asserts that she makes her claim on behalf of herself and others, she shall, as necessary, apply to amend her claim to include other persons and provide their written consent to be added as claimants to the proceedings;
(4) The claimant is urged to take independent legal advice in relation to the proceedings;
(5) If the claimant fails to issue and serve the application referred to in paragraph (1) above, with witness statement in support, by 4pm on 04th August 2025, this action shall stand struck out as misconceived and totally without merit;
(6) If the said application is made in time, list for hearing on the first open date thereafter, time estimate two (2) hours;
(7) Costs reserved.
DATED THIS 7th DAY OF JULY 2025. District Judge Lightman (Sitting in Retirement)
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CLERKENWELL & SHOREDITCH
CLAIM NO L1QZ86AN
7th July 2025
BETWEEN
MS MARY MOSS
Claimant
And
HUBBARD PEGMAN & WHITNEY LLP
Defendant
Appellants application bundle - Skeleton Argument to set aside the 07/07/25 order
Due to the fact that this claimant went to a hearing dated 07/07/2025 where the Judge had no bundles, he made an order for permission, although not asked for, to amend particulars.
The appellant’s notice was served to the courts 07/07/2025, for the order to be set aside with costs un-reserved, and costs to be correctly applied for at the next proper full hearing.
The claimant could amend the claim, for her part-refund of £360, for one fifth payment, of £1800 of the 'will file', under the Larke v Nugus, as an 'issue' of the deceased, who paid for it.
She is at liberty, to make the £360, reasonable adjustments, if it were entirely necessary, for medical reasons, even though locus standi permission to make the full claim, has been given by Mrs Geraldine Whiley, which the Judge said he did not want to see 7/7/25, set out below:
Dear Sir/Madam at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court
Please can you make the court aware of my sister's locus standi in the claim for £1,800 made at the money claim courts.
My sister Mary has now made two claims on behalf of myself, Geraldine Whiley (nee Moss), the eldest sibling and she is also acting for and on behalf of Elena Moss, Dorothy Moss and John-Paul Moss. My sister Mary is the second eldest of 6 out of 7 surviving siblings.
The Locus Standi was raised in the previous court case regarding the fraudulent cheque that was handed by our brother Mr Patrick Joseph Moss (jnr) to the will writing solicitor, Ms Ana Gonzalez of Hubbard, Pegman & Whitney LLP (HPW), for our father’s will, on the day that our father died. Our father, Mr Patrick Joseph Moss (snr), is of the exact same name as our brother.
Due to a successful fraud investigation by the bank, the same amount £1080 which was paid to HPW using the fraudulent cheque, has now also been refunded to the family by the bank as a gesture of goodwill. Unfortunately the Locus standi to make a claim from HPW stood with the bank so although it was accepted by the judge that the cheque was fraudulent, my sister Mary was not able to make a claim to reclaim the money from HPW on behalf of the bank who have now paid out twice. The bank has not yet made a claim themselves against HPW which means that HPW have not been held accountable for receiving the fraudulent cheque and they still hold that money with full knowledge that it is fraudulent. I do not want to waste court time by this happening again and therefore as the person who paid for the Larke v Nugus I give my sister full consent to make a claim on my behalf.
Background
Myself and my siblings Mary Moss, Elena Moss, Dorothy Moss and John Paul Moss
all received legacy letters, regarding our fathers will, in February 2023 from
the will writing solicitors, Hubbard Pegman and Whitney LLP (HPW). Since then,
all my correspondence with HPW was written and received on their behalf and
with their consent. HPW are well aware of this and it was consistently referred
to throughout our correspondence with emails being sent to HPW from my siblings
to confirm their consent. The Larke v Nugus request and payment was made and
paid for by myself on my sibling’s behalf as part of that correspondence.
Unfortunately, I was diagnosed with breast cancer in June 2024 so due to my ill
health all further correspondence with HPW has continued through my siblings.
My siblings and I knew that there were suspicious circumstances with regard to the validity of our father’s will and so I applied for a caveat in January 2023 and worked tirelessly to establish grounds. Due to my ill health, I have closed my caveat but my sister Elena now holds a caveat which has been sealed by Leeds probate office. It is based on our investigations which include hospital records and information in the Larke v Nugus file which was reluctantly given to us by HPW. Much of the information in the Larke v Nugus was wrong with dates that needed to be corrected by the firm and it took 5 months of stressful correspondence with HPW, for me to eventually get further documents from the firm as the original documents did not make sense and it was clear that much of it was missing. Having eventually received the extra documents and information our suspicions were confirmed on fraud, fraudulent calumny, undue influence and the consistent third-party involvement by our brother Patrick (jnr) in the making of our father’s will.
Our father who was deemed to have capacity did not pay for the will and we know that he had doubts and wanted to see his daughter Elena in the week before he died as he now knew after signing the will and LPA papers, 2 weeks previously, that Patrick (jnr) was now actively trying to transfer his (Patrick snr) house, into his (Patrick jnrs) own name. So, paying for the will was not a priority. Sadly, obstacles were put in the way of communication that week and he did not get to see Elena. To add to that she and the rest of the family were not told he was so close to death and the only person who knew that he was dying was his son Patrick who went on to hand in the fraudulent cheque as intended payment for the will writing service on the day that our father died.
Obtaining the Larke v Nugus file from Hubbard Pegman and Whitney LLP was far from straight forward as they seem to have portrayed in their defence statement and I also believe that it was unlawful to be charged so much money (£1800) for so few documents in the file that should have been photo copies of the original documents, legitimately stored and easily accessed by the family. The will writer Ms Gonzalez had only met twice with her terminally ill client and one of those times was to sign the will at her client’s hospital bedside with no medical support and no proof of capacity.
‘In respect
of testamentary capacity, ‘the golden rule’ is attributed to the case
of Kenwood v Adams [1975] which sets out that in cases where a testator is
elderly or may be suffering from an illness, their Will should be approved and
witnessed by a medical practitioner who is satisfied as to the testator’s
testamentary capacity.’
This did not happen.
All other correspondence was with her client’s son, for which there are at least 6 attendance notes. Ms Gonzalez terminally ill client was also given no time to look over any of the paperwork before signing the will, terms of conditions or LPA papers. The fraudulent cheque was also accepted by the will writer Ms Gonzalez from Patrick (jnr) despite the terms and conditions, which were signed on the same day at the execution of the will, and specified their clients’ money is not accepted by third parties due to the possibility of money laundering.
I would like to make it clear, as the person who paid for the Larke v Nugus regarding the will of Mr Patrick Joseph Moss that due to my ill health I give my consent to my sister Mary Moss to make a money claim on my behalf on the basis that our terminally ill father Mr Patrick Joseph Moss who had doubts, did not pay for his will. An invoice was sent to him the next day with 14 days to pay. He died 21 days later with no intention of paying. 3 weeks was plenty of time to do so and this was his last power not to pay to void the will.
Thank you Geraldine Whiley
List of facts leading to avoid ab initio, making my part-payment of Larke v Nugus refundable as the original contract was void, due to fraud in the execution, making the LvN £1800 void.
1. According to Charing Cross hospital records, Mr Patrick Moss, our father, stopped eating on the 20th Oct 2022, collapsing on the 27th Oct 2022, after a week of no food. Hubbard Pegman and Whitney solicitors allege they made an initial appointment with him during this week. Proof of this appointment has never been shown, to show this was true and according to hospital records, he was at the start of serious decline. This could, be seen as lacking safeguarding or duty of care of the alleged client by the firm, (continued here as the firm, meaning Hubbard, Pegman and Whitney solicitors) when initiating a contract, with said hospital records as evidence, as coercive contrary to section 76 (1) and (11) of the Serious Crime Act 2015. Here these are the facts set out, and are not being applied to the case, they are showing facts before the case, to allow, a factual base to be established before the actual proved by the bank ‘illegal act’, that the firm was never paid by the deceased, since the cheque was fraudulent and refunded to the estate, is used as the primary evidence to prove void, from the beginning. No allegation is implied or inferred, these are lead up facts.
2. Clarification was sought from the firm after the alleged meeting, from the alleged client, to imply a contract had taken place between, the alleged client and the firm.
This was in their own contractual written standard terms, in all their contracts. No clarification was made, either in person, in email or by letter from the alleged client. No ID was shown, to the firm, by photograph of identification, with no passport and no terms of business, with each page signed, was made by the alleged client, and neither was money was put on account at the initial meeting, for substantive work to be initiated. This breached their own contract. The work was not invoiced for until the 4th November 2022 after the, 3rd Nov 2022 execution, with no clarification and if it had been accordingly, for the value of the estate at £1.5 million it would be as a guideline on the firm’s website between £16,000 to £20,000 and nowhere near £1,080, even for staff hourly payments, that were noted or for a hospital visit. In law this is a breach of statue, in statutory contracts and remuneration, in common law.
3. On 3rd Nov 2022, with no payment, no clarification, no ID taken, no letters having been received by the alleged client, two of the firm are alleged to have visited Charing Cross hospital. No proof has ever been given that this took place when the proof could have been sought with an independent medical witness. A will, where none of the above, contractual terms in their own contract were met, let alone in common law and statue, had been drawn up, as well as Finance LPA’s and Health ones. It goes without saying, that the LPA papers alone, which had to be paid by the testator but were not, according his bank account and to the office of the public guardian, these were significant amounts of paperwork, amounting to over 42 pages. With no proof, given either of the signed LPA’s or at the very least, as far back as May 2023, a certified copy of signed terms and conditions and a certified copy of the will despite requests was never given, after payment of £1,800, for the Larke v Nugus how can anyone state or imply fairly after all the breaches with the facts above, that any of this took place or was lawful and therefore legal in contract.
4. After 75 days of their alleged client dying 24th Nov 2022, the children of the deceased got letters from the firm, whom by this point had on request from the son, renounced their position and were no longer allegedly acting for the deceased client.
5. Meanwhile Mary Moss second oldest daughter of the deceased, accordingly with locus standi, with no will having been now produced, she had made normal administrative applications, by way of paying for a will finding service and contacting the co-op where Mary Moss had known that a pre-paid funeral, had been paid for, for both parents as her Mother, had dealt with all that administration before she had died and had had a co-op pre-paid funeral herself. Mary Moss provided notification to the death notification service, to proceed to intestate probate, to administer the estate, paying back the department of work and pensions, over payments and dealing with the deceased administrative finances including his Nat-West bank.
6. During the administration, as early as Jan 2023 Mary Moss had seen a payment that went out after her father died of £1,080. She asked the bank for a copy of the cheque. Upon getting a copy, she could see that it was not in the handwriting of her father and the signature was not his. She asked the bank to refund it but they refused without prosecution of the forger, whom she knew to be her brothers, very distinctive poor handwriting with a distinctive ‘&’, in the writing of Hubbard, Pegman ‘&’ Whitney, ampersand so Mary produced cards from her brother with this ‘&’ to prove it was Patrick the son, the third party, who had paid the solicitors, on the day of his fathers, imminent death. Accordingly palliative health care records show the care home, contacted him, and then with that knowledge at 2-3pm of his father’s imminent death, on the 24th Nov 2022, coupled with the attendance notes that we got from an SRA complaint, the firm said he handed them the cheque, at 4.31pm.
How I got to making a claim for the refund of £1800 (now perhaps £360) based on ‘fraud in the execution’ with the forged cheque, was that my first claim was for that forged cheque but then the bank bereavement team, after seeing my expert report, albeit, a visual resource and not relied upon, they independently decided to investigate for themselves, through their fraud department, and low and behold they refunded the money in November 2024 saying this:
19/11/24 1.04pm Transcript of accepting this claim for fraud (private link of the audio)
https://youtu.be/3tTymGxzXJQ?si=PuYghlxy4bmhRLDF
David - Cheques that your father wrote around the same time, it literally isn’t,
Mary - Yeah
David - So we are accepting this claim for fraud
Mary - Oh my god, oh my god, you don’t know, you don’t know, oh my god that’s so amazing thank you, so much, thank you.
David - Oh not at all,
Mary - Oh my god, I’ve got to phone my family, I’m crying, thank you, you just ended two years of hell
David - Oh good grief
Mary - I can’t believe it I just want to cry
David - Yeah, so, when you look at the cheque,
Mary - yes
David - It just doesn’t look anything like it, the original cheques he wrote before, you know
Mary - No
David - Yeah so, no problem, I have a thousand and eighty pounds to give to you
Mary - Okay
David - Refund
Mary - Thank you
David - No problem at all
Mary - Excellent
David - I can’t remit it to your late fathers account because it’s closed of course Ms Moss
Mary - Yes
David - So I just need some bank account details, that you could give me, so that I can arrange for a bank transfer
Mary - Yeah that’s fine.
And a second transcript is here for verification that the defendant just won’t accept fraud.
18/12/24 9.46am Nat-West fraud team. (private link of the audio)
David - Good morning your through to the fraud team, who’s speaking
Mary - Oh hello is that David
David - Hello
Mary - Hello, (typing away loudly) sorry I was just sending you another e-bal, e-bal, gosh it’s only first thing on a Wednesday morning, sorry I’ve been up since six, how are you?
David - Yeah very well thank you, how can I help?
Mary - Oh yes, no, I’m going to send this anyway (meaning email finished being typed), no what it is that I’m sending you the thread of what’s happening with Hubbard, Pegman and Whitney, solicitors,
David- Yep
Mary - Basically I’ll send you the thread through now so that you can see what I’m putting up with, it just, it just, he’s basically, putting this massive defence, I had a claim in for the £1,080
David - That’s right yeah
Mary - And a second claim in for, no, not with you with them, and a second claim, with them, of £1,800 because they made us pay that to see our own fathers will, so those two claims are in the money claims on-line court. I have been now putting up with emails from them, where they’re just throwing money at it
David - Yeah
Mary - They’re just throwing money at it, and they will not take no for an answer. I said look, I’ve spoke to fraud at Nat-West
David - Yes
Mary - They’ll be sending me evidential value, that you require since you’re not taking my word for it and you’re racking up the costs, to your client, which is my brother, the forger
David - Yes
Mary - So, they’re just, they’re just, wasting, I just need to put an end to it
David - Yes
Mary - And the only way, this email, that I just sent you that shows my emails with them, it’s really distressing all of it, it just makes me head hot, it’s just boiling, I’ve got other things to do
David - Yes
Mary - It’s coming up to Christmas,
David - Yes
Mary - I don’t need this I need it like a hole in the head. They are progressing like horses through court, going this is our defence you better, give us this, so, he said I acknowledge your receipt of email at 16.16, I look forward to receipt of the NatWest evidence
David - Oh
Mary - to which you refer. And I say, Dear John, it’s strange you didn’t mention my dad, was on Morphine, so the will doesn’t stand up,
David - Hmm
Mary - because they purport to do this will, while my dad was on morphine, in the hospital
David - Yep, yes
Mary - Then I say it’s strange how Pat was with our dad on the day he died but now they are saying, “oh he gave us the cheque that afternoon” and the way they say it, David, they go, “and we got the cheque, just that afternoon”, why the “just”, “just that afternoon”
David - Yeah, yeah.
Mary - “just that afternoon, we got the cheque” as if seemingly saying,
David - They’re saying
Mary - As if ‘seemingly saying’, as if it were ‘a novel’, “just that afternoon”
David - Yeah yeah
Mary - ‘And the bank may have’, “just that afternoon”, ‘not cashed it, until the day after’
We put it in, just that, get out..
They put that cheque in the day after he died, and they knew he’d died so there’s so complicit in it
David - Yeah yeah
Mary - but that’s not your problem
David - Yes, I see Ms Moss
Mary - I said, all cheques, cash on the same day and you cashed that after my dad was dead. So.. and now they’re admitting they are a beneficiary of the will
David - The will
Mary - Yes, because they’re doing the conveyancing
David - Yep
Mary - So, I say, well how can you be an independent witness, of a will if you’re the beneficiary?
David - That’s right yeah
Mary - I said, just ask my brother, did he sign, the cheque, because you know my brother, he’s so cheeky, he will just say, yeah he did, and it means they’re acting for him, knowing that he did that. Do you get that?
David - Yeah
Mary - So, they are crooks, I know they’re crooks,
David - Yes, you said that implicitly
Mary - Yeah
David - Yeah
Mary - And then, they’re saying I’m no part of the will and they want to do, sort of, the probate case, through the money claims on-line.
So, all I need is some email that just say’s….
“the cheque was written to Hubbard, Pegman and Whitney on the 21st of the 11th 22', for one thousand and eighty pounds, it was a forgery, it was neither in the handwriting of our customer or his signature, it was also not presented to us, until the 25th of the 11th 22' and that will knock them out of the water and they’ll have to pay up the £1800 that they made us pay to look at our own fathers will, which took them seven months, or was it May?
David - Yes
Mary - May, yes, seven months to do that, meanwhile, they’re putting our house in a trust, its real corruption, also, that will knock them out of the water because they can’t cash a dead man’s cheque but also what they want to do to me now, is rush this through, and they’re saying, oh, I’m making a vexatious claim. I want the one thousand and eight hundred back
David - Yes
Mary - as I was already in those two cases, I can’t withdraw the cases because they’ll make me pay costs, and they’ll say it’s wasting the courts time, they’ve already put this, so all I need, something that just says,
“the cheque to, Hubbard, Pegman and Whitney on that day”
David - I’ll just say Ms Moss, I, can’t provide that, I do apologies and you spoke to my colleague Ellie, earlier on today
Mary - Yesterday
David - Oh yesterday, I do beg your pardon, you are after some sort of refund letter, yes, we do have refund letters but they’re only stock letters they don’t go into any sort of detail
Mary - No problem, it’s not a problem David, anything you can provide me that has got NatWest on it,
David - Yep
Mary - Is fine
David - Yep, they all just say we investigated the disputed cheque, and if you want more than that Ms Moss,
Mary - No, I don’t
David - Then it would have to be bespoke
Mary - Honestly David, I want nothing more than what you’ve already done for me, my family are so grateful, you have no idea, my sister, I mean she is so much better because of all of this, so it’s done absolute wonders for her really. I want nothing more than something small and official that doesn’t go into any details that just says we accept the cheque is a forgery, saying what, day and who's it to.
David - Yes, what I can do is send you our standard refund letter, again I’ve got your email address, marymossboss@outlook.com
Mary - Yep, yeah
David - Of course the letter will be sent to your brother but it will be sent to your email because with stock letters that’s just how they appear, with the address.
Mary - Who's it to, sorry, who's it addressed to?
David - It would be addressed to Mr Moss
Mary - My dad?
David - Your dad, Ms Moss yes.
Mary - Absolutely fine. No problem at all David.
David - Sorry, did I say, your brother, I do apologies, I meant, I meant your father, I’m sorry.
Mary - Yeah, my brother’s got the same name but no, that will put an end to it because what I need to do now is I’ve got so much other work to get on with and this is tiring me out
David - Okay, okay
Mary - I can’t be bothered with it,
David - Yeah
Mary - So, that’d be great
David - I’ll send that today. Ms Moss, how can I put it, if it’s no good, if you’d like a custom to made, we can raise a complaint and we can get a printed letter.
Mary - No David, I think it will be absolutely fine, these people just need to know something's official, if they know it’s official, okay you know what there like, a bit dodgy, they may try something else
David - Yes
Mary - But at this stage all I need is to get them off my case, they’re are like a hole in the head to me, and they are very bullying
David - Oh dear
Mary - and they never turn around and say, they never turn around and say, “oh really, what, oh it’s a forgery"
David - No
Mary - They never say that, so they’re so complicit
David - They won’t, they won’t admit to it, so that’s why they don’t
Mary - Yeah, yeah so, something that just says na, na, na, na, na, here you are, that will do me nicely.
David - Yeah, well, I’ll send you, what we have, Ms Moss
Mary - Thank you so much David, you’re such a kind gentleman thank you
David - No, you’re welcome, take care
Mary - Take care, bye
David - bye
Mary - Happy Christmas bye
David - You take care. END CALL
So, I finish by saying this, fraud in the execution makes everything that comes from it, void.
Laws and a list here of facts that are now needed in law to show a lead up to fraud.
1. 24.11.22 Mr Moss died
2. 25.11.22 HPW solicitors get paid for a will
3. 23.12.22 Daughter Mary registers Mr Moss’s death at the death notification service
4. 14.01.23 Mary records her brother he is abusive and congratulatory on the fraud
5. 14.01.23 Banks statement shows illegal funeral paid £13k, not the pre-paid co-op
6. 14.01.23 Also shows £1,080 paid out 25.11.22 after death, cheque copy requested
7. 14.01.23 Administration of estate including, water, council tax, DWP paid/closed
8. 14.01.23 All remaining monies transferred to a probate account
9. 24.01.23 A second fraudulent cheque was not honoured by the bank
10. 01.02.23 Mary applies for an injunction against Patrick Moss and his wife
11. 09.02.23 First contact by HPW solicitors, with 1% inheritance for 4 out of 7 children
12. 09.02.23 Larke v Nugus request made by oldest sibling Geraldine, £1,800 paid out
13. 12.02.23 Caveat lodged, probate by Elena and Geraldine, now a permanent caveat
14. 14.02.23 Bank says they can refund if the forger is prosecuted. It’s a civil matter.
15. 04.05.23 Larke v Nugus sent as a scan by email with no hard photocopy sent
16. 05.05.23 Mary puts HPW solicitors on, civil, notice, citing the fraudulent cheque
17. 20.05.23 Missing enclosures requested with a hard copy to analyse for more fraud
18. 06.09.23 Late reply dated 10.2.23 sent re injunction, refused as without notice
19. 28.09.23 Final pieces of the Larke v Nugus sent to Geraldine on behalf of siblings
20. 2023-24 Lots of back and forth of evidence between Geraldine, SRA and solicitors
21. 09.06.24 Geraldine gets cancer, has urgent surgery and chemo, can’t reply to SRA
22. 26.06.24 Mary checks the £1.5m family home to find there are six people renting it
23. 10.10.24 Mary applies for injunction on forged cheque, judge suggests money claim
24. 31.10.24 Money claim for £1,080 fraud in execution with 11/09/24 forgery analysis
25. 18.11.24 Bank pays back the £1,080 after their own investigation in the fraud team
26. 27.05.25 Set aside for the default judgment and warrant granted as bank paid Mary
27. 07.07.25 Set aside of the instrument, the Larke v Nugus as void ab initio, fraudulent execution, from the beginning, making the instrument as if it never existed so cannot be analysed for merit, cannot be paid for, therefore it needs to be refunded.
28. Laws are, Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose (1903) 30. I.A 114. Also, Prem Singh & Ors vs Birbal & Ors on 2 May, 2006. When a minor sold a property in both cases, therefore it’s fraudulent execution from the beginning, deemed, void ab initio.
29. Sutter v. U.S. Nat'l Bank, No. 10-1656 (6th Cir. 2012). This was a case of mortgage fraud therefore the mortgage could not exist as it was fraudulently executed, from the beginning and could not be sold on as deemed, void ab initio.
30. Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 764 at 769 Fry L.J. Also similarly in that case a mistrial, Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions. The first was a case where the initial judgment of trying two people together for the same crime, was later deemed as wrong in law, from the beginning, so all judgements from that, were therefore in law wiped out as if they never existed, this was a case of void ab initio.
31. Fry v. Moore (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 395 Lindley, L.J. and also Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen Craig v Kanssen [1943] 1 KB 256 that was deemed to have had no service of claim, so also void ab initio. The first was a case where there was a substituted service of the claim, to someone else entirely, so a claim that was never served to the correct person, was never allowed to progress, as the defendant had a right to be served, from the beginning of the claim, so this was a case of void ab initio.
32. Firman v Ellis [1978] 3 WLR 1. There was a delay due to the disablement of the respondent. This was a non-fair trial, from the beginning as the respondent could not possibly be expected, in their traumatised circumstances, to respond without appropriate capacity, so the persons disablement or complete traumatised inability to respond, from the beginning, was deemed, void ab initio.
33. Smurthwaite v Hannay [1894] A.C. 494. Where there were two separate causes of action, not one cause of action, making it a joint cause of action, so this was wrong from the beginning, as a joint cause of action deemed it void ab initio
34. Peacock v Bell and Kendal [1667] 85 E.R. 81, pp.87:88. This was a case where the person defended the wrong injury, therefore it was wrong from the beginning, deeming it, void ab initio
35. Isaacs v Robertson (1984) 43 W.I.R. PC at 128-130 this was a case where there was an excessive use of constitutive jurisdiction, making things a nonsense, for lacking common sense, from the beginning and therefore it was deemed, void ab initio
36. MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961] 3 All ER - This is where a Higher courts verdict founded on lower courts wrong verdict, made it wrong from the beginning, so the higher courts verdict, was, as if it did not exist, void ab initio
37. Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. In this case there was a rent demand that was completely unjustified and unreasonable, therefore any consequential actions or consequences based, from the beginning, of the unreasonable demand, were deemed as if they never existed, as void ab initio.
38. Craig v Kanssen [1943], in many cases a process is followed in proceedings and in this case there was a failure to serve, the process, where process was required, so the court as a result, did not have discretion to refuse to set aside and no time limitation applied, as nothing has been followed properly from the beginning, making the whole process and case non-existent, as deemed as, void ab initoi
39. Wiseman v Wiseman [1953] This was a divorce case on the one hand and it was on one ground, then it became about another ground, which was something, from the beginning of the marriage, that was whole heartedly wrong in law about the marriage, so when the court heard the beginning actions of the marriage, it made the divorce case, an innocent 3rd party case and it was not now required because in the first place, from the beginning the marriage was non-existent as if it never happened so the court declared the marriage, void ab initio
40. R v. Clarke and McDaid [2008] UKHL8 In this case it was that when appealing the person was omitting provisions on appeal, making the appeal void ab initio
41. Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21 Historical same sex marriage void ab initio
So, on the nature of void a plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgment at all. A void order does not have to be obeyed because, for example, in Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [1921] it was stated that if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the Court. It’s difficult to draw the exact line between nullity and irregularity. If a procedure is irregular it can be waived by the defendant but if it is null it cannot be waived and all that is done afterwards is void. A void order or instrument as a results from a ‘fundamental defect’ in proceedings or payment, are ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act, which is any act which a Court did not have power to do (Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [1978]). If irregular, as in this case of paying for a Larke v Nugus, where it was, void ab initio, from the beginning was if it did not exist, so the will cannot be even judged for merit, as payment was refunded, from fraudulent execution, it can be set aside by the Court and a person affected by the irregular order, or that bill of £1,800 has a right –ex debito justitiae – to have it set aside and refunded.
My part claimed, in the 2nd contract for the LvN, is ‘void’, so a refund is needed.
If I could of have had on 07/07/25 my day in court, these facts, I would have relied upon.
Including if I had of been allowed like the defendant a supplementary bundle, it was this:
The firm admitted Mary Moss had locus standi here above, and previously in 2023 and equally they asked Geraldine to reply to them that she was representing, herself Mrs Geraldine Whiley and all siblings, Mary Moss, John-Paul Moss, Dorothy Makin, nee Moss and Elena Moss.
They got the cheque according to their late attendance notes at 4.31pm 24th Nov 2022.
Above you can see it’s illegally cashed the day after and according to law debts die with you.
The solicitors also admitted they too are a pecuniary beneficiary. How can Pascale the secretary then be a witness to the alleged execution of the will and signing of LPA’s. Which were also never paid for by the deceased. However fraud in the execution died a court jurisdiction to even look at the merit and the cheque is void ab initio, so is this instrument.
They don’t mention she could not reply to the SRA due to cancer and having major surgery.
This is retrospective ‘fraud in the execution’ and makes the contract with solicitors;
“void ab initoi”
As if the contract ‘never existed’.
The first of four standards of “void ab initoi” is ‘fraud in the execution’.
So void ab initoi is proved as it’s fraud in the execution, fraud from the start.
If the solicitors were given payment, that has been refunded by the bank, all falls.
I had claimed a refund for a service given, based on a contract that’s never existed.
In legal disputes, if a party tries to enforce terms from a contract declared void ab initio, the court will typically dismiss these claims on the basis that there was never a valid contract to enforce.
A contract entered into based on fraudulent misrepresentations is void ab initio.
Forgery is considered fraud in the execution.
Fraud in the execution voids the contract so that there is no valid contract.
- common law / public policy: It’s in the interests of society as a whole that certain types of contracts aren’t enforced. They include for example, contracts which involve:
- criminal conduct: such as to conceal a crime, criminal conspiracies, misbehaviour in public office and receiving compensation for a crime over and above the loss or injury suffered as a result of it
- moral
turpitude: That’s serious
immorality.
For example, contracts to commit a fraud are illegal, such as: - fraud over shareholders of a company or a business
- bribery in all of its forms
- intention to commit a tort
- use of land or other property for an unlawful purpose
· The law relating to illegality follows from pre-eminent decision of Lord Mansfield in Holman v Johnson (1775) which encapsulates the maxim (in italics):
· The
principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No court
will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an
illegal act.
List of events that show serious illegality
Assessment
Mr Moss met the solicitors allegedly on the 21st Oct 2022 -
Mary Moss had this to say at the court on 07/07/25 but was prevented from saying anything since the courts made an administrative error, which was then not jurisprudence.
Apologies for the lack of full stops and paragraphing, this was her notes for summing up;
“Between the alleged visit of our father to the HPW solicitors, (only known about in May 2023, after paying for the Larke v Nugus ) as the solicitors, only made formal contact with their alleged testators children, 75 days after his death, begging the question, so what was the point of the solicitors, they allegedly went ahead completely unpaid, and without a signed client care letter, which they allege to have sent to their client on the 25th Oct 2022, and claim, even though the post takes a day, that he did not get those letters, which they call, ‘Your proposed new will’ dated after his death, in April 2023. So from the 21st Oct 22 given no clarification, apart from a ‘proposed new will’, undelivered letter, which was a re-cap of alleged conversation of the 21st Oct 22 where they say that Mr Moss does not want anyone, of his children as executors, and with or indeed no acknowledgement of receiving anything and since he was in hospital a day later, after the 26th Oct 2022, when the post should have arrived. Not having eaten for a week, which also begs the question, apart from talking in a whisper, since he had no voice, was he complaining that he had stopped eating on the 20th Oct 2022, the day before, the alleged meeting, on the 21st Oct 2022 and so between that day, if we are to believe this, the alleged solicitors did not see him again, except to sign a will, on the 3rd November 2022 at the hospital, and with substantial amounts of work having gone into this will, plus an executor which was opposed to their alleged initial instruction, in this will and with themselves as a pecuniary benefactor, so how could the secretary be the witness, and if he hadn’t given his ID, then who was he anyway, and why would they have done so much work, changing crucial alleged parts, when they had never been instructed, given clarification, so that they could after 7 days, imply at the very least, as stated in their own terms and conditions, that we only had sight of in March 2025, suggesting that they maybe had never existed, when they were never paid and how could they then take payment on the day he died, not questioning, ever, if the cheque was really from him.
However, the third party, potentially, has information, that the client is now dying as Patrick has been informed by a call from the home and so instead of going to the dad he goes to the solicitor and bearing in mind potentially if they, can get this exactly right, bearing in mind, the cheque is a forgery, they can cash it, when he is dead and who would know, since it’s dated 21st Nov 2022 and no one would get access to the fathers bank account, or Patrick may not have done the cheque in his own handwriting, so confident they all potentially were and if not, then should they not show a duty of care and check with their client, or who was their client at that stage, all attendance notes are with the son!!
Also, the will writer after checking with only the son, on the 2nd Nov 2022, then allegedly wrote the will, saying she had clarified, (with the son) but her emails suggest she could only have that clarification email with the son on the morning of the 3rd Nov 2022, the same day as they claim, without any time slip, to have executed the alleged will but also during a time when he was noted to be in another meeting.
This claimant would like not to be deprived of remedy in the face of fraud as a common law and a statue just because the defendant, then on the 23rd Jan 2023, took instruction from the son, to renounce their position as an alleged joint executor, making him, in their alleged will, now void, by moral turpi causa, making their instrument, void, where this court will not assist, to recover a benefit from wrong doing and since it’s been proved as told to the solicitors in May 2023, to mm@hpw email, to put their insurers on notice of the fraud, so this is the first date of a dispute, as before that was just a request and a contract forced to be entered into, to obtain information, that came, in a horrendous, inexcusable drip, drip, effect by a litigator at the firm, employed by the son, to ‘treat them as strangers’ not the will writer, causing serious health injury through stress and having to constantly fight with them to get even basics due, under the Larke v Nugus and not all was ever forth coming until, our sister was knocked out of the picture, through ill health, when she worked tirelessly on this.
That first rise to a civil claim was in May 2023. Prevarication, avoidance and not addressing the fraud of the cheque, that paid them the day after death and in our brothers handwriting.
Unlawful conduct is contrary to the terms of a contract. The nature gives rise to remedy and damages. Paying £1800 would mean they profit from illegality. Up to and including applied for costs and potential imprisonment, with unfounded accusations of alleging that this claimant signed a ‘false’ truth statement, when she has only ever used ‘void ab initio, backed up with required facts, she has cited, in the history, of what led to, ‘fraud in the execution’.
There are many potential illegalities, or breaches that the judge can judge, in these facts.
Not signing terms and condition with ID and payment.
Not taking clarification before writing a will.
Not having a medical witness, at execution.
Taking instructions from a 3rd party.
Taking a cheque from a third party.
The main one however is fraud in the execution. Illegality at formation, stemming from the potentially illegal in contract actions, undertaken by the solicitors, there was potentially, and that’s for the court to see, an ‘intention’ to perform an illegal act, from the outset, and that’s as in contract a breach, this in accordance to their own attendance notes. They had knowledge of the contracts illegality, breaches or unlawfulness and even if, your honour finds with their own holes in their own story, proving this undoubtedly, and for a fool to see, then, at the very least, even when a contract is capable of lawful performance, if the agreed, purpose, is to do something unlawful, ‘ignorance of illegality’, does not excuse it from the illegality, intended, to deprive a whole family bar one, of their rightful inheritance in 2022.
The contract is void, due to fraud in the execution, at common law and at statue because it became clear from the testator’s bank, when the fraud team refunded the £1,080 that their client, did not pay for the contract. Documents our father, may or may not, have signed, would be requiring independent witness proof, that he signed, (given the already, visual resource, provided but not relied on, of the American handwriting expert, that this claimant paid hundreds of pounds to, do, from the scanned will only, the report, a visual tool and aide, a small resource guidance for the court) and if it wasn’t but for the bank, who kindly re-opened the case and investigated themselves, concluding with a refund, no less, for ‘fraud of the cheque’, we would have due to the May 2025 law commission suggesting, require the person suspected of fraudulent calumny, ‘to prove’ that the will, was not a complete and utterly made up instrument, as we have no way of knowing, since there were no witnesses.
In another bizarre attendance note, 21st October 2022, (alleged to be on the same day as the testator met the firm but we aren’t put in the picture of any contact beforehand of the will writer or the firm and the son), about LPA’s and that is another remedy, that your honour would need to address, in case of a ‘trust’, which could not follow, either, a void contract, as seen here:
Witnesses here could have been better known to the testator but were kept out of the picture, as far as HPW have admitted since, they had no contact with HPW solicitors at all.
In contract, both the solicitors and the son, would be complicit, whether one party knew about the fraud or not, since they were then alerted May 23. So, the contract would be seen in contract law as ‘developed, from May 2023’, as now having, ‘illegal purpose’, between them both, ‘mid-stream’, after the contract was made, so that a will, made allegedly, while the person was alive, which then was seen as an alert to possible fraud, in May 2023 and proved then to be, by the bank in Nov 2024, now made the will writers contract illegal, with illegal purpose, people benefitting from its illegality, to the HPW solicitors, to now their client, and abandoning their deceased clients, ‘lack of instruction’, anyway, and ‘lack of a formal contract’, lack of a ‘medical witness’ or now ‘lack of payment’, illegal, so void.
We are entitled to remedy by the courts to tell the firm to go away, leaving us alone and for the courts to set aside the instrument void ab initio, as it didn’t exist from the beginning, cannot be judged for merit, making the Larke v Nugus bill refundable as if it did not exist, as how can you pay for sight of a will that is, void ab initio, from illegality “from the beginning”.
There is a seriousness to this illegality and how it relates to the main contract, not the second one, we had to pay for but the one that tried to disinherit us all, so what defence could be possible, for this type of seriousness? Can the illegality be removed? I say no, my father did not pay, as the cheque was forged and that illegality ‘taints’ the whole alleged contract, if like in this case, it cannot be removed, as he cannot from death pay and did not when alive so there is no severance, the bill is not paid, only the bank has paid twice, due to the type of fraud, forgery. That is seen as ex turpi causa and the defendant has known for some time now and has therefore participated in the illegality.
Public policy says in law that fraud will not be tolerated so then no defence is available.
Business contracts have to abide by common law and common law takes account of statue and when we assess the illegality even by a regulatory body, a court ultimately has finality.
It will conclusively decide, whether this contract is illegal and what type of illegal contract it is. If it’s statutory or common law or both. Is the illegality offends primary legislation, delegated legislation or is it doing something outlawed by statue. If common law and public policy, is, this case, in the ‘interest of society’, that certain kinds of contracts aren’t enforced.
For example, criminal conduct. Moral turpitude, serious immorality:
Contract to commit fraud are illegal and to use the estate for unlawful purpose, so that must be investigated by this court as how was the trust operating without probate, how was their client able to operate a HMO, with six people renting the house, how were taxes not paid, how was another house bought with a £200k deposit, does this defendant, have a stake? Where are the accounts, where are the keys, chattels, the accounts and the transparency?
Wasn’t giving ID in the terms and conditions and not having payment from a ‘third party’, to prevent money laundering? Jumping from one potential void contract to another void one, did that pay for conveyancing or the bought house? Is there mortgage fraud, to live or rent?
These questions need answering, for us, to know how far things has been allowed to progress? Or we could find that the order of void, and setting aside the instrument, does not stop immediately all that may be currently flowing from the illegality, in the ‘trust’.
Then there was some strange untouchable vibe from their client, him joining a club a few yards from his door that he claimed gave him an untouchable status, some form of club?
Potentially, interference with the ‘administration of justice’ in the claim, 583MC106;
It was taken off-line and this defendant was given 56 days to respond to the money claim, instead of the required 21 days, or 28 days as the call centre said when asking them, why it was off-line? The lady said, “I don’t know how they’ve done that”. I then discontinued in the face of this on the 5/12/24. Although that was another waste of my time and money as I had to pay £80 to get the claim transparently back on-line through the MCOL but that was worth it as it was not behind the scenes but it did put me further away from today’s hearing.
My second claim also, set aside as I got the new offices of HPW solicitors, address wrong and the bank had refunded Nov 2024 but this defendant continued, unavowed by that strict proof gained, of ‘fraudulent’ proof against their client, and instead threatened costs, if I did not withdraw my claim. The judge awarded no costs, just the £119 cost of the set aside application, stating rightly, without merit, as I got refunded by the bank during the claim.
‘Private’ contracts can be affected by ‘public’ policy and where a contract has contravened ‘public interest’, there can be no contractual rights;
Lord Mansfield said in 1775, in the case of Holman v Johnson, which is encapsulated in the. Maxium, Ex dolo malo non oritur action
“no court will lend it’s aid to a man, who founds his cause of action upon an immoral act”
In this case, my claim, put forth just the once, unlike the last case, with its reasoned, three applications, but refunded by the fraud team at the bank, this case, cause of action says;
Solicitors, Hubbard, Pegman
& Whitney, acted in a probate case with no authorisation
either by a signed and dated client care letter or by payment. The payment they did get was from a forged
cheque made out for £1,080 and illegally cashed after death.
A scanned copy that was scant in legible dates (the will writer then admitted writing in all the dates for the alleged testator) and the handwriting for one of the witnesses, has also been analysed (costing hundreds and is interesting but it’s not added to the claimants costs as this was a visual resource, and a single joint expert this claimant is aware would be required, had, illegality not already been proved during the course of this case, making the contract void, illegal, so, an expert isn’t now required), and the signatures of the will writer, as well as her name underneath that doesn’t seem to be in her handwriting (result of the expert, not me) judging by her sworn statement but like the cheque, bears the exact same handwriting, seemingly. The Larke v Nugus was charged £1800 for, so we claim it here.
Can I add other remedies and damages, as the court sees fit, and on an indemnity basis, to be applied, so as, not to ‘undermine the law’ of illegality, of ‘fraud in the execution’ making the contract void ab initio.
I add to this as full reply to the supplementary bundle, that the judge said he had read and I make this within 34-pages as the courts have asked me to serve as an e-bundle as required.
I have today received the supplementary bundle 14/7/25 referred to, that the Judge said he got 13th June and 26th June, neither of which were sent to me and I add this to my set aside.
1. The defendants first point is there is no index to my March 27th 2025 bundle and witness statement. Where unlike their own bundle, mine is fit for a small claims court and as such has in total about 9 paragraphs, of explanation, in my witness statement and 4 relevant documents, in a numbered 20-page bundle. Therefore, an index, is just not necessary and it has to be said, the defendant repeats the witness Statement of Anna Gonzalez 4 times at least in their bundle without an index, making absolutely no sense with no explanations. This was clearly thrown together to produce more costs and make a mockery of the small claim court, not arguing anything about the fraudulent cheque, that made their contract void, by fraud in the execution, by their second client in this scenario, not their first but the second whom they’re defending. It’s a very big conflict don’t you think? The second one begging the question who is their client, or whoever was? What is their duty to the deceased if illegality was there? Are they now part of this? Do they care as long as they make money? Shouldn’t they care, isn’t that now becoming more and more of a mistake for the firm? How much money is enough for their own professional complicity in illegality? Why don’t they drop the person who gave them the cheque that’s been refunded?
2. The defendants second point about providing the court with a certified copy, (whilst not numbering their points, if we are to follow the rules of bundles to the letter and this makes the paragraphs unable to be referenced), of the will, is ironic, as that forms part of my claim, that firstly the contract was void ab initio, due to the forged cheque making the contract fraud in the execution, by illegality, and secondly since the void contract, was not even a certified copy, we could not even analyse it, with a single joint expert, despite repeatedly asking for a very simple exact photocopy. It was two good reasons to get a refund, Larke v Nugus will, was not a certified copy.
3. Four copies at least of Ana Gonzalez’s witness statement was in their 261 pages, bundle, sent without an index, in March 2025, so what is the point here of saying, that a certificate of service was sent on 4th June 2025, that’s a slip up.
4. The defendant then adds a supplementary bundle, well, this claimant would have loved to do that! I held onto my legal arguments and extra documents that I would have loved to give the courts, except that the judge said, it all had to be in by the 27th and even then, he made a point about getting permission for expert reports, and when I said, it was a visual resource, he said, ‘you can’t do that’ but it’s fine for the defendant to put a supplementary bundle reading only that, in full, it’s imperfect!
5. Then the defendant says as if it’s a probate matter that the son is to be, an executor but he is not, and that’s irrelevant as it has not gone to probate but has a sealed caveat on it.
6. Then some nonsensical wording ‘was’ the father of, not, is the father of, the claimant.
7. Irrelevant about the expert as I only had a scan of the will in the £1800 Larke v Nugus and the expert was a visual resource for me as I knew it wasn’t my father’s writing and so did all know, who saw the cheque, exactly whose writing it was. I at the time of making the claim for the cheque to be refunded, had not conclusively proved fraud, so these reports which I did not claim for in costs, helped me, in the proving of ‘fraud in the execution’ of the contract, through illegality, namely forgery, making the contract void and the bank had not yet, refunded, so I showed the expert report anyway to the courts, as a visual resource, since the defendant, needed to see them, with the extra visuals the expert had concluded to find, albeit, none I was having to rely on and I used the phrase ‘seemingly’, deliberately, not to be accusatory, just quite surprised and intrigued. I wanted to get the curiosity of the court, as I was.
8. This statement about the SRA is completely inaccurate the complaint was made to the SRA and Ms Pegman had to respond and before completion the complainant got cancer undergoing surgery so that is a. reasonable adjustment and when she is well. She will come back to the SRA and now this seems to be a defence that has been submitted not a supplementary bundle at all. This is not jurisprudence at all. This has all been seen by the claimant and is not as suggested confidential in the least. However, it’s very relevant to show areas of concern, to the making of this contract.
9. Mr Cunningham fails to see that the evidence letter from the bank about the refund of the professional fees for the contract, is very relevant. The contract is void in the execution by illegality of the payment from the 3rd party, the cashing of the payment after death and the complete refusal to accept this has happened to the contract, that it’s completely void. This defendant needs to wake up to forgery and illegality. Maybe they should take some legal advice with their insurers? I just want a refund. It’s an easy get out of jail card for them and does not much else to their client. If the cheque has been refunded, in law, everything else falls, the Larke v Nugus doesn’t exists nor does the contract because its fraud in the execution, they should know that.
10. Charlotte Pegman is a litigator, employed by Patrick the son, she should not have done the Larke v Nugus that was for Ana Gonzalez, to do as with all LvN requests.
11. They say that I was not involved in the process that is a lie, I paid my part and the litigator time and time asked us by email, over and over again, were we acting together. £1800 with the time delayed, was preventing us from getting answers.
12. Client care matters, were only mentioned since the client care letter was disclosed for the very first time, ever, in their bundle, which was alarming and unbelievable.
13. The illegibility of the Larke v Nugus as a product, paid for was relevant to the claim.
14. No one has ever said that the will writer forged the will that is an obscenity.
15. David at the defendant’s bank has said it was not APP push fraud, no one said it was.
16. It was good that Ana Gonzalez was at the court and can address the issues involved in why there was no client care letter in the Larke v Nugus and why terms were signed with a non-executor, since the contract is void and the payment came from him. If there is a sealed caveat regarding the will then he simply is no one currently. Also, the terms had no ID and were not witnessed being signed by the firm or in the presence of a witness, the forms were handed to the son and not to the client. No terms were signed and no clarification took place between the firm and the client.
17. The defendant abuses the claimant always, stating abuse of process, no merit, to be struck out, misconceived as wrongly stated or planned but this case, like so many in a small claims court, however simple or said with few words, like forgery, void, and. refund has much merit, we. Are not judging an A-level this is a small claims court with a big intention, and with Jackson law on costs, to give teeth to hear and see litigants in person and to give parties more opportunity to settle, without costs being an abuse of the cases, and I have not been afforded either process and that would become evident, if abuses of process like not having a bundle in a court case in front of a judge but having these June 2025, one of them a week before a case hearing, being submitted, supplementary bundles being added abusing process like what has happened in this case didn’t take place. If you can’t defend it without abusing process and putting words in the claimant’s mouth about fraud not fraud in the execution making your contract as if it never existed, due to illegality then, it’s because you can’t face the fraud in the execution, which makes the defendants position quite complicit. Which is illegal in contract too. It has consequences. So far in this claim a claim has been made, a direction questionnaire has been filled in that also states, that the defendant served the N9B after proof of the refund was sent to them, and that HPW defended a claim and asked for strict proof, which I got, MOSSZ2219192-PDF NATWEST Fraud Department 18/12/2024. The cheque HPW claim to have been paid with, is now ‘strict proof’ as has now been refunded.
18. The string of repeated claims, referred to are, one claim for the cheque, being an abuse of administrative justice, which is crime, the second claim was the wrong address, the third was to avoid a long and protracted trial about the wrong address. This was had anyway at the defendants set aside hearing, happily the judge mentions the fraud department had by that set aside hearing, paid this claimant, so the third with the correct address was discontinued. Small admin errors verses fraud as stated.
19. Vexatious litigant is not correct, firstly it’s for a void contract which is not vexatious. I am a claimant, as litigant in person, I made a rightful claim and this is now totally abusive. Liverpool Victoria Insurance company v Zafar is about an expert, not a lay person, making a lawful claim and as such, so that others are not attempted to be intimidated in this way, I have made contact with Amnesty International to keep an eye on abuse, like this. My statement of truth concerns a void contract from illegality and no amount of twisting it, to put words in my mouth then amounts to vexatious. This defendant should face no indemnity against liability, due to my lawful, conduct.
20. A civil restraint order is actually bordering on violence from this defendant, this may become a criminal matter, as I now feel intimidated by the viciousness and I can’t expect to have to put up with this, if you can’t get away with this online, why would this defendant be so exaggerated for to commit such violence. I think the restraint should be on them and not me. I’m not the one acting for someone illegal. It’s shocking, and I will take ‘criminal’ advice on this, there is no civility in this at all.
21. I think defendant mistakes what Judge Piperdy ruled, she said that claiming for the now bank, as they had refunded, during the case, was totally without merit.
22. There is now, a pointless rant about claimants and the defendant is vexatious.
23. The defendant cannot bring themselves to even address the letter from the bank and so defers to abusive, accusations and the court has to just put them on the spot and ask, why they do not accept the refund from the bank, as fraud, from the fraud department. It’s a lot of jumping about but with no real defence and I hope as the bank said to me, that the court sees common sense. It was a pity there was no hearing. Denying fraud in the face of a letter and refund is just not evidenced enough.
24. I did not, as asserted again by this defendant and I always wonder what the insinuation is, claim £1080 ‘in my own name’, I claimed it for the estate and it was refunded to me for the estate. It’s a nonsensical point to make.
25. Another point made, which is stretching another non-point with no inference of anything being alleged. I made a claim for the refund of the cheque because it was not in the handwriting or signature of the client, to ratify the contract by remuneration. That I would say is normal. I wanted a joint single expert and was willing to pay one myself beforehand to show that it was visual, to an expert and not just accusatory. I was satisfied with this report so much so that I managed to get NatWest who had only offered prosecution, despite complaints that it was civil, to open an investigation and that meant re-opening the account. The fraud department made their own findings saying, it looked nothing like their clients handwriting or signature and that due to the account now being closed, they would like my details. As I have stated there is no executor and there is now due to the refund a void contract as it’s now fraud in the execution and the defendants should know it.
26. There is a transcript from the bank that states that the refund was given to their client, Patrick J Moss not to be confused with the same named son Patrick J Moss. Lots of the emails and attendance notes seem to not make that clear also and this defendant can like here misrepresent whom is who as a matter of course throughout.
27. There is nothing ‘lawful’ about Patrick J Moss being an alleged executor, as within the clarification, in the terms of contract, it would have been expressed by the deceased and it was the absolute opposite according to their own attendance notes, where it was alleged to have been said, he expressly didn’t want his children or friends. If the defendant can prove that the NatWest addressed the refund to the so called without probate in a void contract of 'fraud in the execution', fine, otherwise it’s another clutch at a straw, not addressing void, from the beginning, forgery and illegality.
28. As for possession there was no such thing as possession as it was an email PDF. Patrick is illegally renting the family home and it’s not his dwelling without probate.
29. If the courts were minded to see the claimant as vexatious needing the permission of the court to make two small claims albeit with a few minor administrative errors, I would imagine that would be something the courts would have picked up on by now.
30. Indemnity is reserved for serious claims and they are not of the nature put forward.
31. This defendant should be told by the courts that this is not a national lottery system.
32 . All circumstances are plain, claim, directive, cancelled case due to vacation of defendant, no hearing at the hearing not either party’s fault and order suggested by this defendant with this out of time, deadline being 27th March for everything relied on, added bundle, which I have only been sent today 14th July 2025, upon request since the judge relied on it, in the hearing, non-hearing. No allegation of fraud about this defendant can be seen in the claim form, I mention only the forged cheque. Doubts about the will and its validity have not been particularised, as I don’t require it, as the contract is void ab initio. As if it never existed. Therefore, I need a refund for my part and then I make you face the truth and not go around with the void instrument. The contract does not exist and no amount of violent behaviour and threats will make it legal.
This facts in this skeleton I believe to be true.
Signed Mary Moss
Dated 07/07/25
Dear Ms Moss
I write to attach our letter to you dated 06/10/25, receipt of which kindly acknowledge.
Thank you.
With kind regards.
John Cunningham
Chartered Legal Executive
See Attached Order
Letter from 31st Oct 2025?
Mary Moss
Attached
In summary
Mary Moss
Owner
One Percent 4 ART
Sent: 17 November 2025 08:31
To: Mary Moss <MaryMossBoss@outlook.com>
Subject: RE: L1QZ86AN
Dear Mary
This is not for the Commercial Court.
The web page below will provide the contact information:
Find a court or tribunal - GOV.UK
Regards
Michael Tame
Senior Listing Officer
Commercial & Admiralty Court and Technology & Construction Court
The Business and Property Courts of England & Wales | HMCTS | 7 Rolls Building, Fetter Lane | London | EC4A 1NL
Phone: 020 7947 7921
[http://How%20to%20use%20the%20HMCTS%20E-Filing%20service%20-%20GOV.UK%20(www.gov.uk)]Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Here is how HMCTS uses personal data about you
From: Mary Moss <MaryMossBoss@outlook.com>
Sent: 15 November 2025 16:22
To: Commercial Court Listing <comct.listing@Justice.gov.uk>
Subject: L1QZ86AN
Dear Listings,
The case L1QZ86AN was discontinued on 8th Oct 2025 with the N279 form.
Please vacate the 24th Nov 2025 trial hearing date at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch.
Could you kindly let me know when that is done as the defendant wishes to attend.
Kind regards
Mary Moss
Owner
One Percent 4 ART
Mary Moss
Owner
One Percent 4 ART
Sent: 27 March 2025 21:59
To: Clerkenwell & Shoreditch, Enquiries <enquiries.clerkenwellandshoreditch.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>; John Cunningham <jc@hpwsolicitors.co.uk>
Subject: Page 172 - L1QZ86AN
Mary Moss
Owner
One Percent 4 ART
Sent: 29 September 2025 11:54
To: enquiries.clerkenwellandshoreditch.countycourt@justice.gov.uk <enquiries.clerkenwellandshoreditch.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>; jc@hpwsolicitors.co.uk <jc@hpwsolicitors.co.uk>
Subject: L1QZ86AN - FAO Judge Lightman & the Appeal Court
- Case Name: Mary Moss v Hubbard Pegman & Whitney LLP
- Case Number: L1QZ86AN
- Court/Tribunal: Small Claims Track
- Parties Involved:
- Applicant/Claimant: Mary Moss
- Respondent: Hubbard Pegman & Whitney LLP
- Fraud in the Execution (Void Ab Initio): The central argument is that the contract for will-writing services is void from the beginning because it was founded on a forged cheque. This principle is supported by common law, which holds that a contract is void ab initio if it is based on a fundamental defect, such as fraud.
- The "Golden Rule": This is a best-practice guideline for solicitors dealing with vulnerable testators, as established in Kenward v Adams (1975). It advises that a will made by an elderly or ill person should be witnessed by a medical professional to confirm their mental capacity. The claimant alleges that this rule was not followed, which could cast doubt on the will's validity.
- Ex Dolo Malo Non Oritur Actio: This Latin maxim, established in Holman v Johnson (1775), means "from a bad cause no action arises." The claimant argues that the defendant cannot seek costs or enforce an agreement that is founded upon an illegal act, namely the forged cheque.
- Civil Procedure Rules (CPR): The case is governed by the CPR, particularly Part 44, which gives the court discretion over costs. The claimant's argument that the defendant's request for indemnity costs is disproportionate is a direct reference to these rules. The defendant's accusation of the claimant being a "vexatious litigant" also falls under the court's power to issue a Civil Restraint Order.
- Privity of Contract: As the payment for the Larke v Nugus request was made by the claimant's sister, Geraldine Whiley, the claimant must establish her legal standing to bring the claim. This is addressed by Geraldine's witness statement, which gives the claimant full consent to act on her behalf.
- A cheque for £1,080 was given to HPW for will-writing services. The claimant alleges this cheque was a forgery, not signed by her deceased father but in the handwriting of her brother, Patrick Moss Jr.
- The cheque was cashed after the father's death.
- NatWest Bank's fraud department investigated the matter and, on December 18, 2024, refunded the £1,080 to the estate, confirming the forgery.
- The claimant and her sister paid a further £1,800 for a Larke v Nugus file. The claimant is seeking a refund of a portion of this payment (£360), arguing that since the initial contract was void due to fraud, the subsequent Larke v Nugus request is also invalid.
- Forensic reports from ForenSIX, LLC, provide independent evidence supporting the claimant's claims. A report on the cheque confirms the forgery, and a second report suggests that the will-writer's signature on the will itself also appears to be a forgery, resembling Patrick Moss Jr.'s handwriting.
- The defendant is seeking indemnity costs and has accused the claimant of being a "vexatious litigant." The claimant denies these accusations, stating her previous claims were affected by administrative errors and that the defendant's costs are disproportionate.
- Is the contract void ab initio? The central issue is whether the fraudulent cheque makes the entire will-writing contract void from the outset. The claimant has provided significant evidence, including the bank's refund and a forensic report, to support her claim. If the contract is void, the subsequent Larke v Nugus request should also be considered invalid, and the money should be refunded.
- Are the defendant's costs reasonable? The defendant is seeking indemnity costs, which are typically only awarded for unreasonable litigation conduct. The claimant's position is that these costs are unwarranted and disproportionate for a small claims case. The court will need to assess the conduct of both parties throughout the litigation to determine who should bear the costs.
- Was the claimant's conduct "vexatious"? The court will need to consider the claimant's explanation for her previous claims. The claimant argues that the bank's refund of the forged cheque was a "material change" that necessitated a new claim and that any administrative errors were not made with malicious intent.
- Mary Moss's central claim is that because the cheque used to pay for the will was a forgery, the will-writing contract is void from the beginning. This is a concept known as "fraud in the execution," where a party is tricked into signing a document that is fundamentally different from what they believed it to be. In such a case, the contract is treated as if it never existed, or is "void ab initio".
- Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose (1903) and Prem Singh & Ors vs Birbal & Ors (2006): These cases are cited to support the principle that a contract executed by a minor, who is legally incompetent to enter into a contract, is void ab initio. This is analogous to a contract based on fraud or forgery, which is considered a fundamental defect.
- Sutter v. U.S. Nat'l Bank (2012): This case involved mortgage fraud, and the court found that because the mortgage was fraudulently executed, it was void ab initio and could not be sold. This directly relates to the claimant's argument that the fraudulent cheque makes the entire will-writing process and the resulting will void.
- Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) and Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions (1921): These cases deal with court orders or proceedings that are considered fundamentally wrong from the start, such that they are null and do not have to be obeyed. This is used to argue that if the contract is void ab initio, the will itself is "no real order of the court".
- Firman v Ellis (1978): This case established that an order made by a court without jurisdiction is a "fundamental defect" and an "ultra vires act" that is void ab initio. Mary Moss uses this to justify her right to a refund, claiming that the will-writing contract was without jurisdiction due to its fraudulent execution.
- Undue Influence and Fraudulent Calumny: The claimant notes that the will has been disputed on the grounds of "fraudulent calumny" and "undue influence". While not explicitly cited as case law, these are established legal grounds for challenging a will, often involving a dominant party coercing a vulnerable testator or "poisoning their mind" with false information to change the will in their favour.
- The "Golden Rule": The claimant's sister, Geraldine Whiley, mentions the "golden rule" attributed to Kenwood v Adams (1975), which states that a will made by an elderly or ill testator should be approved and witnessed by a medical professional to confirm testamentary capacity. This rule was allegedly not followed in her father's case.
- Ex dolo malo non oritur actio: The claimant quotes the maxim "no court will lend its aid to a man, who founds his cause of action upon an immoral act" from the case of Holman v Johnson (1775). This principle, derived from contract law, states that a person cannot bring a cause of action that is based on their own wrongdoing. The claimant uses this to argue that the defendant cannot seek costs when their contract is based on an illegal act (fraud).
- Part 6 (Service of Documents): This part is crucial, as the claimant argues there were errors in the defendant's service of documents. CPR Part 6 outlines the methods, timing, and addresses for serving legal documents, as well as the rules for "deemed service".
- Part 12 (Default Judgment): The claimant mentions a previous case where a default judgment was set aside. CPR Part 12 details the circumstances under which a claimant can obtain a judgment against a defendant who fails to file an acknowledgment of service or a defence. It also covers how such judgments can be set aside.
- Part 44 (General Rules about Costs): The dispute over costs is a central theme in the documents. CPR Part 44 provides the court with discretion on who pays costs, how much they should be, and when they are paid. It also distinguishes between costs assessed on the standard basis (which must be proportionate) and the indemnity basis (where the court resolves any doubt in favour of the receiving party). The claimant's argument that the defendant's costs are "disproportionate" and "unreasonable" is directly linked to these rules.
- Vexatious Litigants: While not formally defined in the CPR, the court has the power to issue a Civil Restraint Order (CRO) against a person who repeatedly brings claims that are "totally without merit". The defendant's accusation that Mary Moss is a vexatious litigant would fall under this area of law. A CRO restricts an individual from making further claims or applications without court permission.
- Witness Statements: These documents lay out all the facts, including the timeline of events, the discovery of the fraudulent cheque, and the bank's investigation. They also include the transcripts of phone calls with the NatWest fraud team.
- Geraldine's Witness Statement: This is crucial for proving the right to bring this claim. It states that she paid the money and gives me her consent to act on her behalf.
- The Forensic Reports: The forensic document reports from ForenSIX, LLC, are a key part of the evidence. They show that the signature the father's cheque was a forgery and that the will writer's signature also appears to be forged.
- NatWest's Refund Letter: This is the official letter from the bank that confirms they investigated the cheque and refunded the money. It is undeniable proof of the fraud.
- The Larke v Nugus File: This is the document itself that it is being argued is void. There is a need to show the judge that it was obtained unlawfully.
- Court Forms: The N215 form to show that all the documents have been served to the defendant and the court.
- Indemnity Costs: They are claiming a large amount of money for their legal costs, totalling over £7,000 with VAT. This is very high for a small claims case.
- Vexatious Litigant: They have forwarded an accusation of the claimant being a "vexatious litigant" because of previous claims. There may be a need to explain that the previous claims were legitimate and were only discontinued because of the bank's refund and other administrative issues.
- Disproportionate Costs: There is a charge for three solicitors to attend a hearing that didn't happen. There may be a need to argue that a reasonable cost would be much lower, as a standard solicitor's fee is about £200 an hour.
- Elderly or frail.
- Seriously ill or suffering from a medical condition like dementia.
- Making a decision that seems "unwise" or out of character, such as disinheriting a close family member without a clear reason.
- There is a concern about undue influence from another person.
- The client is having difficulty understanding or retaining information about the decision.
Mary Moss
Owner
One Percent 4 ART
Mary Moss
OwnerOne Percent 4 ART
Mary Moss
Owner
One Percent 4 ART
Sent: 14 November 2025 12:57
To: Clerkenwell & Shoreditch, Enquiries <enquiries.clerkenwellandshoreditch.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>; Clerkenwell & Shoreditch, Enquiries <enquiries.clerkenwellandshoreditch.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>
Subject: Judicial Misconduct
Mary Moss
Owner
One Percent 4 ART
Mary Moss
Owner
One Percent 4 ART
Sent: 31 October 2025 13:24
To: Clerkenwell & Shoreditch, Enquiries <enquiries.clerkenwellandshoreditch.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>
Subject: L1QZ86AN
Mary Moss
Owner
One Percent 4 ART
Mary Moss
Owner
One Percent 4 ART
Sent: 14 November 2025 16:25
To: 'Mary Moss' <MaryMossBoss@outlook.com>
Subject: RE: Judicial Misconduct - Discontinued case - Police Matter by Tuesday
Do you have the case number please?
From: Mary Moss <MaryMossBoss@outlook.com>
Sent: 14 November 2025 15:38
To:
Clerkenwell & Shoreditch, Enquiries
<enquiries.clerkenwellandshoreditch.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>;
KB Issue & Enquiries <KBEnquiries@Justice.gov.uk>; JCIO
General Enquiries <general.enquiries@judicialconduct.gov.uk>
Subject: Judicial Misconduct - Discontinued case - Police Matter by Tuesday
Dear Complaints,
I want to address several issues I have with a case I recently discontinued.
They are;
- No bundles non-hearing
- Costs award without a trail
- No trial on 24th Nov being used for costs and misconduct
- No set aside applied for
- No court application
- Hearing 24th Nov not vacated
- Backdated letter being used
- Judicial misconduct amounting to possible criminal acts
- Judge not regulated
- Policing matter with photographic evidence of crimes
Kind regards
Mary Moss
Owner
One Percent 4 ART
- No bundles non-hearing
- Costs award without a trail
- No trial on 24th Nov being used for costs and misconduct
- No set aside applied for
- No court application
- Hearing 24th Nov not vacated
- Backdated letter being used
- Judicial misconduct amounting to possible criminal acts
- Judge not regulated
- Policing matter with photographic evidence of crimes
Mary Moss
Owner
One Percent 4 ART
Referred from Action Fraud 4th September for a charging decision, for the CPS
Mary Moss
Owner
One Percent 4 ART
14/11/2025
Mary Moss
Action Fraud referred my case to the London Met police for a charging decision for the CPS
What followed was absolute nonsense.
PC Singfield of the Met took 3 months before I had to contact him as he did nothing.
He worse than nothing, then explained to me after calling me late at night, and ghosted the call, however I knew it would be him, so I emailed him and sure enough he said it was and then wants to informally ‘chat’ where he makes a case for domestic violence instead of of ‘fraud by misrepresentation’, fraud by forgery, which would be simple and the CPS could press ahead.
I having been then contacted again, instead of arresting my brother, which he says he has not, wants me, instead to attend a station. This seems ridiculous and so much so that I make a complaint.
PC Gerald O’Casney tells me he will contact the officer’s manager, Chris Rogan who drops the entire investigation, 8 full minutes later!
This not without telling me that the officer is dealing with murder cases, and that the document I added to provide a handwriting, expert, is not good enough, yet he has a full refund letter, from the fraud department of the bank.
All this happens from November to Jan 2025/2026.
I get back to the 8-minute wonder investigating complaints handler and state in full, the reasons why, this needs to be expedited, as it’s already investigated and just needs a charging decision, with the theft act and he starts arguing with me about the theft act!!
January comes no reply but I appreciate it’s a busy time of year, then Ellie Walsh, sends me my own complaint, in a link without a link, offers me to change it, if I need to and tells me she has sent this to her senior, like who cares what people do, what is the outcome, is there an outcome or are we here to play with 28 day replies or inside and out of schedule 3’s and reviews and get paid for that tinkering about. Now I just want a charging decision and I need it now. Thanks
Mary Moss
04/02/2025
Complaint Resolution Unit
40-42 Newlands Park,
London
SE26 5NF
Email: Feedback@met.police.uk
Your reference:
Our Reference: PC/12582/25
Date: 04/02/2026
Dear Mary Moss,
I am Police Constable Ellie Walsh from the Directorate of Professional Standards and I have been asked to review the allegations that you have made which are highlighted below.
Your complaint has been recorded under schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 – and handled proportionately, otherwise than by investigation. The Appropriate Authority for this complaint is Detective Inspector Sharpe.
I have referred to the following legislation and publication during the complaint handling process:
https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/publications/statutory-guidance-2020 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/schedule/3
I am sorry that you had cause to complain about the service that you received from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). I realise that making a complaint against the police, is for most people, a last resort when they have tried other ways of getting answers about an incident that has affected their lives. I am sorry for any distress or upset that your experience has caused you.
You made a complaint on 17th November 2025 and it was previously being handled by PC Ocansey. It was reallocated to me to progress on 22nd January 2026 and I emailed you to introduce myself and confirm your head of complaint. I emailed you on the 22nd January with one complaint heading and you responded on the 23rd neither agreeing or disagreeing but providing what I deemed your revised head of complaint to be.
I will now seek to answer this complaint below.
Concern 1: I am unhappy about the lack of criminal investigation in the case of theft by fraud and the criminal incompetence in not charging after the referral by action fraud to do so – THE SERVICE PROVIDED WAS ACCEPTABLE
As part of my complaint handling, I have reviewed all readily available material which has included the CONNECT investigation reference. This matter was reported on CONNECT CONNECT 01/7937490/25 and the officer in charge of this investigation is DC Singfield and his supervisor is DS Rogan.
I can see that PC Ocansey had previously tried to resolve your complaint informally by requesting that DS Rogan review the investigation report and make contact with you to discuss your concerns. I have sight of DS Rogan’s email to you, and I can also see that you emailed PC Ocansey on the 19th January 2026 highlighting your dissatisfaction with the response from DS Rogan, and as such the matter was formally recorded.
I have reviewed the CONNECT investigation which is classified as domestic abuse fraud. I can see that the report was closed on 13th December 2025 and that you were informed of this.
Probing DS Rogan’s email to you, he has stated:
“I can see that DC Singfield has requested you to attend a police station and provide a statement in relation to this matter – a statement is required in order to provide continuity for the material that you have provided to police. When DC Singfield requested this, you did not respond and demanded that this be sent to the CPS and that you would make a complaint to the IOPC.
DC Singfield is correct in that he is managing several cases, and this is prioritised in terms of risk. The officer currently holds crimes ranging from breaches of court orders to attempted murder so sadly this matter does not require as immediate a response as some of these other matters.
I have reviewed this crime report and from an objective review of the evidence currently available, I cannot see that this would meet an evidential threshold of meeting a charging decision. The handwriting report provided is merely an indication and is not verifiable or usable in a court. The document appears to originate from a company in the USA but there is no provenance or credentials associated. It is unlikely that the expert who provided the report would attend a UK Court.
For these reasons I do not believe that this matter has any prospect of conviction in this matter and will be closed.
I believe that you are best placed to provide these documents to your solicitor who may be able to assist with this as part of a civil/probate issue.
I appreciate that this may be disappointing to you but the evidential threshold in these matters is inherently and necessarily very high.”
I cannot find any fault with the way in which this matter has been investigated, I believe that both DC Singfield and DS Rogan have correctly applied the DARA risk assessment, THRIVE+
risk assessment and considered the crime assessment principles when deciding whether secondary investigation is required. At this time, it would seem as if you are unwilling to provide a statement which may have offered the necessary continuity required to progress this investigation.
I am aware that this matter is particularly emotive as it concerns your late Father, and with that in mind, I would like to apologise for any distress or upset that has been caused.
Your right to a review
If you are unhappy with the way your complaint was handled, or with the final outcome, you can apply for a review.
Reviews are dealt with by either the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) or the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) and we have listed the relevant review body for your complaint below.
You do not have a right of review with the IOPC. MOPAC is the relevant review body because none of the conditions (listed at Reg. 32 of The Police Complaints and Misconduct Regulations 2020) are met.
The deadline to apply for a review is 28 days, commencing the day after the date of this letter. The review will not reinvestigate the complaint but will consider whether the handling of your complaint was reasonable and proportionate.
Please note an application for review must be in writing and state:
-
a) The details of the complaint.
-
b) The date on which your complaint was made.
-
c) The name of the force or local policing body whose decision is the subject of the
allegation, and
-
d) The date on which you were provided with the details about your right of review
at the conclusion of the investigation or other handling of your complaint.
MOPAC
-
Email - ComplaintReviews@mopac.london.gov.uk
-
Online Form – Via MOPAC’s website using the following link:
https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/mayors-office-policing-and-crime- mopac/about-mayors-office-policing-and-crime-mopac/mopac- complaints/application-complaint-outcome-review
• By post - Police Complaint Reviews Team, The Mayor's Office For Policing And Crime (MOPAC), 169 Union Street, London, SE1 0LL
Yours sincerely,
PC Ellie Walsh
Complaint Handler
Complaints Resolution Unit
GDPR - Any personal data submitted in the course of making a complaint will be processed and used to provide an outcome to that complaint. Any right to Review will mean that the MPS will provide that data to the Relevant Review Body for the purpose of conducting that review.
Re: IOPC Reference: 2025/017947
Mary Moss
Sent: 02 March 2026 08:49
To: !enquiries <enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk>; MOPAC-MOPAC Enquiries <Enquiries@mopac.london.gov.uk>
Subject: Fw: Result of complaint PC/12582/25
Dear IOPC,
I believe my complaint falls with the 32 regulations.
1. No charge was made from an action fraud referral.
2. The delays have significantly impacted me financially to the tune of over £170,000.
Therefore please investigate.
Mary Moss
05/03/2026
RE: Result of complaint PC/12582/25
Good morning.
Thank you for CC’ing MOPAC into your email to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).
Where you are requesting the IOPC investigate your complaint, we have been made aware by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) that we are the review body for your complaint, as named in their attached outcome report.
As this is the case, MOPAC would be the body to conduct a review of your complaint. To explain, a review is an independent assessment of whether the MPS handling of a complaint was reasonable and proportionate. It will not encompass a re-investigation of the original allegations. The review process is designed to ensure that all complaints are handled in a fair, consistent, and transparent manner.
We do not extend to reconsidering your complaint or providing any comment on the findings of any criminal investigation and how it may have been carried out.
Further information on the complaints process, as well as the MOPAC Complaint Reviews team can be found on our website here: MOPAC complaints | London City Hall
We would ask on this basis to please reply to this email confirming from the below that you are happy for MOPAC to review your complaint.
I look forward to your response.
Kind regards,
Michael Casey | Police Complaint Reviews Assessor | Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime | Email ComplaintReviews@mopac.london.gov.uk
06/03/2026
Good afternoon.
Thank you for your further email.
To answer your query, when a complaint is made to a police service in England and Wales, they follow statutory guidance set by the IOPC. This guidance states:
“Who is the ‘relevant review body’?
18.5 The appropriate authority should decide who the relevant review body is, and this must be communicated to the complainant (see paragraph 17.73). Depending on the circumstances of the complaint, the application for a review will be considered either by the local policing body or the IOPC.
18.6 The IOPC is the relevant review body where:
i. the appropriate authority is a local policing body
ii. the complaint is about the conduct of a senior officer (an officer holding a rank above chief superintendent)
iii. the appropriate authority is unable to satisfy itself, from the complaint alone, that the conduct complained of (if it were proved) would not justify the bringing of criminal or disciplinary proceedings or would not involve an infringement of a person’s rights under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (see glossary)
iv. the complaint has been, or must be, referred to the IOPC
v. the IOPC is treating the complaint as having been referred (also known as the ‘power of initiative’, see paragraphs 9.36 – 9.39) vi. the complaint arises from the same incident as a complaint falling within ii-v
vii. any part of the complaint falls within ii-vi
18.7 In any other case the relevant review body is the local policing body.”
I would further highlight that the MPS response advises the following:
“You do not have a right of review with the IOPC. MOPAC
is the relevant review body because none of the conditions (listed at
Reg. 32 of The Police Complaints and Misconduct Regulations 2020) are
met.”
On this basis, MOPAC would be the review body for your complaint.
I hope this clarifies matters. Should you wish for a review of your complaint to go ahead, please let us know.
Kind regards,
Michael Casey | Police Complaint Reviews Assessor | Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime | Email ComplaintReviews@mopac.london.gov.uk
09/03/2026
- Have been adversely affected by the conduct or matter complained about – this means that the actions of the police have indirectly affected you, for example you have suffered any form of loss, damage, distress or inconvenience as a result of the matter complained about, or you have been put in danger or otherwise put at risk of being adversely affected.
- Referring your case to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS is responsible for
- Reflective Practice Review Process.
- Legislation in relation to police complaints has changed from 1 February 2020 with the implementation of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020. This allows for police complaints to be dealt with in a reasonable and proportionate manner and at the appropriate level. This supports both the efficiency and fairness of the complaints system.
- The IOPC Statutory Guidance https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/statutoryguidance /2020_statutory_guidance_english.pdf
- Police Reform Action 2002
- Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020
Mary Moss
13/03/2026 16.31
Mary Moss
Good afternoon.
Thank you for your further email. I apologise for the wait in our response.
As previously advised, at this time we believe we are the correct review body for your complaint based on the information we have seen. I understand you have also raised your concerns directly to the IOPC, as they have forwarded your application on to us and advised we are the Relevant Review Body for your complaint.
It may help to explain that at this time, we have not seen all the relevant information for your complaint. Once we start our process, we contact the MPS who supply us with the information they used to reach their complaint decision.
In reviewing this, if we feel we are not the correct review body, we raise this with the MPS, as they make the decision as to who reviews your complaint, as explained in my previous email to you.
Whilst
I cannot guarantee that this may change from us to the IOPC, at this
time you have requested a review of your complaint and MOPAC
are the named Review Body. We will look to start our process, unless
you reply to this email and advise us not to. If this is the case, we
will take no further action and close our files at this time.
Kind regards,
Michael Casey | Police Complaint Reviews Assessor | Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime | Email ComplaintReviews@mopac.london.gov.uk
- Challenge the Charge: Defendants can contest the validity of the charges in court.
- Legal Representation: It is advisable to seek legal counsel to navigate the complexities of the case.
- Dismissal of the Case: The court may dismiss the charges entirely.
- Not Guilty Verdict: If the case goes to trial, a jury may find the defendant not guilty based on the evidence presented.
- Undermined Legal Process: A wrongful charge can compromise the fairness of the trial.
- Impact on Future Cases: Such instances can affect the credibility of law enforcement in future prosecutions.
Mary Moss
Sent: 15th Oct 2025
From: marymossboss@outlook.com
Dear Weightman solicitors acting for Chief Constable of the Met Police Sir Mark Rowley,
Thank you for putting the current matters in front of the chief constable for actioning.
I appreciate this and that Sir Mark may not be abreast of matters in his senior position.
June 23rd 2024 - I inspected the family home still in probate. After an incident with
one of six strangers illegally occupying, I called 999. 01/938136/24
July 22nd 2024 - Solicitors, paid only once with a forged cheque allege by email,
criminal damage stating matter is in the hands of police.
Arrested/Battery/False Imprisonment/No Further Actioned.
When interviewed my solicitor made counter allegation statement re the fraudulent
cheque.
July 25th 2024 - I made a 101, crime related report of solicitor’s misrepresentation of
deceased by way of theft by a fraudulent cheque.
CAD/5693/31
Sept 11th 2024 - I commissioned forensic evidence that the cheque was not written
or signed by the deceased but by my brother.
Sept 11th 2024 - The handwriting expert drew my attention to another of their
findings, in pursuit of the cheque evidence, re the will allegedly being a forgery.
Nov 18th 2024 - Fraud at NatWest refunded the cheque saying that neither the
signature nor the handwriting, were in the hand of their customer. Z2219192.
Sept 4th 2025 - Action Fraud disseminated the evidence, of cheque fraud and passed
the matter to the Metropolitan police for actioning.
NFRC250807564841
Oct 11th 2025 - I attended Hammersmith police station. I later after speaking to 101
got a crime reference number, so I could discontinue my civil case to a criminal one.
Crime Reference Number. CCR-26261-25-0100-000
The following are charges that can be related to the above if actioned:
Theft Act 1968 Sec 1 (1)
“A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to
another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”. The terms in
this basic definition are amplified in Sections 2-6 of the Theft Act.2
General Rule: One crime for each victim.
NFIB15 HM Revenue and Customs Fraud (HMRC)
Classification (1 of 1)
53/40(pt) Fraud by False Representation
53/46 Obtaining services dishonestly.
(V) Fraud Act 2006 Sec 2.(V) Fraud Act 2))6 Sec 11
53/56 Cheating the Public Revenue.
(S) Common Law.
Definition – Legal: Fraud by False Representation
Fraud Act 2006 Sec 2
“…. Dishonestly makes a false representation, and intends, by making the
representation to make a gain for himself or another, or to cause loss to another or
to expose another to risk of loss. “
Definition - Legal: Obtaining Services Dishonestly
Fraud Act 2006 Sec 11
“… if he obtains services for himself or another by a dishonest act and the services
were made on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for or in
respect of them or he obtains them without payment having been made for or in
respect of them or without payment having been made in full, and when he obtains
them, he knows they are being made available on the basis that payment will be
made for them….”
NFIB19 Fraud by Abuse of Position
Classification (1 of 1)
53/42 Fraud by abuse of position
(V) Fraud Act 2006 Sec 4
Definition - Legal: Fraud by Abuse of Position
Fraud Act 2006 Sec 4
“…occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the
financial interests of another person, dishonestly abuses that position and intends,
by means of the abuse of that position to make a gain for himself or another or to
cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss…”.3
A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct
consisted of an omission rather than an act.
NFIB19 Fraud by Abuse of Position
Counting Rules (1 of 1)
General Rule: One crime for each specific, intended or identifiable victim.
Example 1: A person employed to care for the elderly takes advantage of his position
of access to an account of a victim in order to remove money from that account.
One crime (class NFIB19).
Where other NFIB frauds are apparent in addition to an offence of abuse of position
of trust, only one crime should be recorded under the specific NFIB crime type and
not an offence of abuse of position of trust.
. The other NFIB crime still stands in relation to the other offenders. If the only
charge relating to an investigation is in relation to abuse of position, then only the
abuse of position offence can be assigned outcome type A. The alternative detection
offence rule does not apply.
Application of the Rule
Example 1: A solicitor is arrested for assisting a client obtain five mortgages on a
number of properties by false representation. He and his client are both jointly
charged with Mortgage Fraud and the solicitor is also charged with an offence of
abuse of a position.
Five crimes (class NFIB5C)
Example 2: Following an investigation into a number of mortgages from the same
lender that have resulted in charges in relation to Mortgage Fraud, the conveyancing
solicitor is arrested and charged with one offence of abuse of position of trust only.
One crime (class NFIB19)
Example 3: Following an investigation into three mortgages from different lenders
that have resulted in charges in relation to Mortgage Fraud, the conveyancing
solicitor is arrested and charged with one offence of abuse of position of trust only.
Three crimes (class NFIB19) There are three victims.
53/46 (pt) Obtaining Services Dishonestly
(V) Fraud Act 2006 Sec 11
NFIB18 Fraud by Failing to Disclose Information
Counting Rules (1 of 1)
General Rule: One crime for each specific, intended or identifiable victim.4
Example 1: A solicitor fails to share vital information with a client within the context
of their work relationship, in order to make a gain for another client.
One crime (class NFIB 18).
NFIB17 Other Regulatory Fraud
Counting Rules (1 of 1)
General Rule: One crime for each victim.
Office of the public guardian in connect with alleged LPA’s.
NF1B17
53/15 Suppression etc of documents
(V) Theft Act 1968 Sec 20 (1).
In not coming forward to the descendants, not explaining they had renounced their
position for reasons they may have avoided liability.
Making us pay for documents we were entitled to see.
53/46 Obtaining Services dishonestly
(V) Fraud Act 2006 Sec 11
I would appreciate someone contacting me to update me with any action being taken?
I have been told that due to the nature and amount being defrauded that this would be a
matter for CID.
Kind regards
Ms Mary Moss
Mary Moss
Sent: 11 May 2026 18:52
To: !enquiries <enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk>; MOPAC Enquiries <Enquiries@mopac.london.gov.uk>
Subject: Fw: IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ - AUTOMATED RESPONSE INCLUDES IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Mary Moss
Mary Moss
Dear Mary Moss,
Thank you for contacting the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). We acknowledge receipt of your emails dated 13 March 2026 - 11 April 2026. The case reference is 2025/017947 which you should quote in all future correspondence regarding this matter.
We are completely independent of the police service and are responsible for making sure that the police complaints system in England and Wales works effectively and fairly. However, each police force is responsible for considering complaints made against them.
Please note, the IOPC is not a law enforcement body and have no remit over criminal matters. For example, we cannot instruct the police to investigate a crime or refer it to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Regarding your complaint against the police, police reference PC/12582/25, you have been offered a right of review to the Mayor’s Office for Policing And Crime (MOPAC) should remain dissatisfied.
Under the Policing and Crime Act 2017, the relevant review body (RRB) is decided by the police force concerned. They are obliged to look at the nature of the complaint that has been made. They then apply a legal test under Regulation 32 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020 to determine which organisation is the RRB. The IOPC cannot usually change the decision that the force has made.
As my colleague previously outlined on 13 March 2026, to avoid any delay in your review being dealt with we have forwarded it to the MOPAC.
Kind regards
Ellie
Customer Contact Advisor
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
Sent: 11 May 2026 18:44
To: keir.starmer.constituency@parliament.uk <keir.starmer.constituency@parliament.uk>
Subject: Fw: I haven't heard back from IOPC re my complaint nor MOPAC who does what?
Mary Moss
14/05/2026 19:59