The partners' endearing love for ex-CBS investors

From David Bone Jnr in a phone call dated 31st January 2012:

"Any legal obligation to pay the debt will be wiped by the bankruptcy, but the moral obligation to repay remains - this applies only to C&B debt, not CBS debt which was dead back in 2009"

From Liam Collins ala "Q&A document compiled with Liam Collins" blog article (if you have not previously read this article, you should):

"I believe if I was making the rules those who had not originally invested in C&B should be treated differently. We know that the FSA treats them differently but it is whether the receiver will. If he does then he will make C&B PN investors a priority which I agree should be the case. That said all this is largely irrelevant who is prioritised as there will be nothing realised from the sale of the assets and so there will be nothing to prioritise. It is now down to us and our moral obligations as to who we choose to prioritise if the law allows us to do so as I am sure you will understand I am happy to pay back those who have supported us and those who have made it difficult I have no intention of paying a penny back."

And there you have it, the partners' endearing love for ex-CBS investors! And it is very much this group that is providing support for an IVA proposal, in contrast to the vast majority of those who invested in the partnership in 2010/2011 who are anti-IVA ... and for good reason. The only reason the partners want an IVA is to protect their own hides, as they are fully aware of the:

• prohibitive costs associated with bringing independent legal action outside of a bankruptcy framework.
• plethora of charges and supporting evidence that will be laid at the bankruptcy trustee's feet.

Robert Wakefield would have you believe that allowing the partnership to go bankrupt would amount to "Collins and Bone being allowed to walk away Scott free". Quite the contrary - personally bankrupted (and all the ramifications that has), criminal records, likely jail terms, prohibited from ever handling investor monies again ... these are very substantial penalties and public safeguards.

The partners have said:

"We are offering 100% in the IVA because we feel it is right to do so. We are not stating that we believe we can repay 100% or that our properties are capable of repaying 100%. I think everyone understands this. The repayment plan is based on the market recovering and the rental income remaining strong."

This is no basis whatsoever for an IVA proposal. If the %age return is not substantial (the partners themselves said back on 1/12/2011 that an IVA was not advisable because at best you might only get 20p in the pound) and guaranteed, any IVA proposal is worthless, and the pursuance of crimninal charges is the best route forward ... and it is the facing of these criminal charges that the partners want to avoid at all cost. A number of ex-CBS investors who have either joined the anti-IVA group, or are sitting on the fence waiting to see what, if any, IVA proposal is put forward, have expressed their regret at not having done more as CBS investors to hold the former directors to account, realising that the same treatment that was meted out to them as CBS investors has now been done to C&B investors in an even more blatant manner. Their views are that the partners need to be stopped and held to account for what they have done.

And let's take a look at the above Q&A document statement from Liam Collins a bit more closely, and apply it to PNs taken out in 2010/2011:

• Were monies owed to C&B investors paid ahead of those owed to ex-CBS investors? Absolutely not!!!! In 2010/2011, some 300k GBP was paid out to ex-CBS investors, yet there are C&B investors who invested in 2010/2011, myself included, who have not received a penny in interest payments and/or our original investment.

Now consider the following statement from Liam Collions in a personal e-mail on 18/1/2012:

"Total invested in CBS which was carried over = 2.3m this will be reduced to around 2m as it includes interest as per the PN i not paid on time."

, and couple it with this niave statement Robert Wakefield made to a group of select investors in March 2012:

"Unless I am very much mistaken, it seems there is a small splinter group of investors who are determined to ruin everything for everyone by acting without having properly understood what bankruptcy for Collins & Bone will mean for us all."

What Robert Wakefield neglects to mention is that ex-CBS investors have already received a return of 15% of their original investment monies at the expense of C&B investors ... although I suspect that these monies were not evenly distributed. C&B investors have collectively received substantially less than this, and were just outright defrauded of their monies.

• Were monies owed to C&B investors who invested in 2010/2011 paid out in a pro-rata manner? Absolutely not!!! Some investors were paid monthly interest right upto and including October 2011, others stopped in July 2011, others in May 2011 ... and some never received anything at all.

• In the e-mail from Liam Collins to all investors dated 1st November 2011, he states:

"We have taken legal advice from a top practice and they have explained that we cannot now prioritise one investor over another due to the overdue PNs which have a negative effect on the solvency of the partnership. We must treat all investors (creditors) equally."

But the partners were in default of PNs in March 2011 (that's just from a C&B investors perspective) ... and I suspect that they were in default of ex-CBS investor issued PNs long before this as well, hence the need to have ex-CBS investors sign 5-year PNs in March 2011. So exactly what the condition "now" refers to, ala "cannot now prioritise", is a mystery.

So God only knows what criteria were used to determine who got paid when - and it certainly was not down to computer software bugs as Liam Collins would try and have you believe.

The monies that were raised through PNs in 2010/2011 were almost certainly being used from the outset in a "ponzi/"borrowing from Peter to pay Paul" manner - in the case of the investor whose story is covered in the blog article "The true Liam Collins" there is absolutely no question that this is what happened. The ex-CBS investors, who received 300k GBP post 2009, well these monies I am sure also largely came out of these newly issued PNs ... this, in total violation of what the majority of the C&B investors were told their monies were going to be used for. I am sure a full investigation of the books by the bankruptcy trustee will bear these statements out.

The Editor

240 Great Clowes Street part 2

In the May/June 2011 newsletter from "the Board", Robert Wakefield stated:

"If you would like to earn generous commissions from referring or introducing investors to the new-look Collins & Bone, where the investment is 100% protected, please contact one of us. You can also earn very good commissions from sourcing properties. You will be paid by St. Giles Asset Management Limited, not Collins and Bone."

So let me share with you some additional information that I did not have when I compiled the "240 Great Clowes Street" blog article, partly because the Land Registry does still insist on doing some things via ordinary snail-mail and cheques. The sale history behind this property is as follows:

Purchased 9/5/2011 by Dereham Investments Limited for 182k GBP, with Castle & Gatehouse Ltd slated to do the renovation work.

Purchased 7/10/2008 by Robert Charles George Wakefield & Clare Patricia Maria Wakefield for 165k GBP. The house was subsequently let by the likes of Moffat & Collins (ala Nasser Moffat & Patrick Collins) and Patrick Properties Limited (ala Patrick Collins).

Purchased 3/8/2005 by Mazepak Ltd (company # 05457525) for 230k GBP.

So here is Robert Wakefield trying to sell/offload a property he owns to be done up as part of a JV with Castle & Gatehouse Ltd. to C&B  investors whose PNs were already in default just so that he could profit/recoup some of his own investment losses! I don't view this as having investors interests at heart. I sincerely hope that:

• Commissions were not paid from PN monies raised in 2011 (see "The true Liam Collins" blog article).
  
• That no commission was paid in the case of 240 Great Clowes Street given that Castle & Gatehouse was not able to find a buyer for the property within the JV term.

The Editor

The true Liam Collins

On 18/3/2010, an investor took out two very large PNs, each X GBP - both PNs were for a 1 year term, with interest paid monthly. The PNs were signed by Liam Collins, and witnessed by Balbir Singh & Mish Liyanage. This investor/his family are by far the largest investors in C&B PNs issued in 2010/2011 to my knowledge to date. Suffice to say, the usual fore-play from Liam Collins prior to these PNs being taken out:

"All of our personal assets including 74 personal student properties and our own homes is held in the partnership. This promissory Note ensures that if in the event that we ever defaulted on the agreement i.e. did not pay interest to you or did not pay the capital back you could in a court of law ensure that we sell adequate properties to realise the capital to repay you.  This is why the investment is 100% guaranteed."

The investor-base would love to know the addresses of those 74 assets and what has happened to them ... but that will have to wait for the bankruptcy trustee to investigate.

For the first two months interest was paid on time, but thereafter the investor had to chase up C&B for the interest monies to be paid, which they were. In October 2010, this investor along with a number, and I suspect all, C&B PN holders who had invested in 2010, were sent an e-mail of the following form:

Dear <investor>,

I hope you are well. I have attached a statement showing you have earned <amount>  so far in interest with us accurate as of <date>. We are still offering the same interest rate if you are interested in adding to this. We will be sending you these statements quarterly for your records.

Our news here is that we have just signed off a £20m contract and have another £7m in the pipeline so we are all very busy sourcing enough stock. The good thing is there is a lot of discounted stock at present and due to unemployment there are a lot of people looking for work in construction also so our model seems to be well insulated from the market conditions which is good.

Kind Regards,

Liam Collins

Why October? Well we know that the FSA prohibitted the partners from advertising for further PN monies in Q3 2010, and given that the mortgage market was very tight/dead, the only thing they could do was try and milk existing PN holders for more cash. So it is likely that in October 2010 C&B were running very low on monies to keep the charade going.

At the end of October, the investor notified Liam Collins of his intentons to invest in property in Nottingham where both his daughters live, and that he would be cashing in his existing PNs at the end of the 1 year term i.e. 18/3/2011. The investor again reminded Liam Collins of his intention to cash-in his PNs in February 2011 by phone.

Come the maturation date, 18th March 2011, the PN was not honoured ... but there is an e-mail from Liam Collins about the recent open day in which he stated that there were "two very precise reasons for late payments in interest and nothing to be concerned about":

• let down on the sales of many of our assets at the back end through our outsourcing sales arm. Many of our buyers had to pull out of deals in the last 8 weeks due to mortgage and planning restrictions as well as for some a change in circumstances.

• Our in house IT system which even when cash flow has been good has let us down due to several coding problems which we are now fixing.

And he goes on ... :

Your capital is safe and both David and I have our own homes as collateral to protect your assets as well as 27 other assets and the trading inside our sister company (Castle & Gatehouse) also acts as security with future contracts worth in excess of £3m at present. So we have both cash profits from trading, real bricks and mortar as well as rental income from the portfolio to secure your investment. I know on the day there were a few of you who had concerns over the liquidity of the company and rightly so as many property companies have had severe problems in the recession. As explained we have an excellent product built to not only survive a recession but built to thrive in it.

.

.

We are still accepting investments, however, we realise for many of you at present you need to see interest payments consistent for a while yet before you entertain the idea of further investment and this I can understand entirely.

Apologies once again but, as I say, nothing to be concerned about as we are all excited about the future of both C&B and C&G.

And this is then followed with the e-mail on 23rd March 2011 from "the board" for ex-CBS investors to sign 5-year PNs (See post Ex-CBS investors asked to sign 5 year PNs 22/3/2011) ... of course this e-mail was only sent to ex-CBS investors, not to PN holders who invested in 2010/2011.

On 24th March 2011 the investor is offered to buy 240 Great Clowes Street (see separate blog entry on this property) by Liam Collins, one of a number of such properties subsequently offered to him over the forthcoming months. This was a house that was going to be renovated as part of a JV by Dereham Investments Limited. Quite why Liam Collins, and later Joe Sinagoga/Robert Wakefield, ever sent JV properties to the investor is a puzzle, because the partnership did not have two pennies to rub together at this stage, and any investor with an ounce of common sense would only have proceeded with such a purchase if their existing toxic PNs were offset against the purchase price.

In April 2011, the investor received a phone call from Liam Collins in which he enquired whether the investor would be interested in investing additional PN monies ... the investor was told that the business was in good shape and doing well. Given this, and the fact that interest had been paid on his previous two PNs without too much prodding, the investor decided to renew the matured PNs for another year, and to invest a further X GBP. These monies constituted the family's life savings. The investor had no knowledge of the current situation with ex-CBS investors and the liability that they posed. The interest payments on the investor's PNs continued up to and including June 2011, and then stopped.

When the investor was asked to sign the 5-year PN in November 2011, and refused to do so, the retort from Liam Collins was:

[Liam] You will need to sign the 5 year PN which has been sent to you. If you do not we will be forced to bankrupt ourselves. If you sign it we can get on with business so long as 100% of investors sign this. You do not have much of a choice here so do us and yourself a favour and sign and scan this back please or appoint a solicitor and take legal action.

So here in an investor, almost certainly the largest PN investor in 2010/2011, who has lost his family's entire life savings and is really struggling to make ends meet, and being treated in the above manner. Of the X GBP that was invested in April 2011, the family has only received (X / 15) GBP of it back in the form of interest payments on the 3 PNs before all such payments stopped. How, with any sense of moral fiber or social responsibility, can you, Liam Collins, solicit monies from an investor as late as April 2011 claiming that the business is doing well, and then cease all interest payments to this investor 2 months later? And where, Liam Collins, did the other (14X / 15) GBP go? Clearly, Liam Collins, you defrauded the investor.

The investor sent me the pertinent pieces of correspondence between himself and C&B. The two renewed PNs, as well as the 3rd PN taken out in April 2011, had been witnessed by Mish Liyanage whose company MCC Accountants had provided book-keeping support for C&G and C&B up until the end of December 2010. What business did Mish Liyanage have witnessing PNs issued in 2011? So, with the investor's approval, I forwarded the 3rd PN to Mish Liyanage and asked him to confirm whether or not this was his signature, and whether he had indeed witnessed this PN. He had not - his signature had been forged. So it appears that a new criminal offence, one of forgery, can now be added to the growing list of criminal charges that will be laid at the doors of the partners once the bankruptcy is forced.

The Editor

Hopeless ... opeless ... Operus

"The board" that was formed in March 2011 was intended to have 4 members - only 3 ever joined. John Chart only attended the first meeting of "the board", and thereafter had nothing further to do with it. A fourth person was approached, but declined to join. So "the board" only ever really comprised of two people, Joe Sinagoga & Robert Wakefield, with the latter very much the front man. In "the board"'s initial March 2011 newsletter, they introduced their raison d'etre as being:

"To 'manage' creditors so that everyone gets repaid. The board members will ensure fair play and reliable repayments to all investors."

For starters, "all investors" meant ex-CBS investors, so they were most certainly NOT representing all investors. And what was meant by "manage"? The real purpose of "the board" was to keep disgruntled C&B disinvestors in-line and to prevent them from taking legal action against the partners so that they could continue with business. And that's not supposition, that's fact. An integral part of this "manage"ment was to try and sell 5-year PNs to all ex-CBS investors who held toxic PNs, an exercise in which they of course failed - a number of ex-CBS investors refused to sign, and some went on to take legal action. Hence the ongoing bankruptcy of Liam Collins & David Bone Jnr by Alistair MacLean... and if it were not by Alistair, there are plenty of others waiting in the wings to force the same outcome.

Joe Sinagoga & Robert Wakefield are merely mouthpieces of Liam Collins. In an e-mail to Richard Paris on 15/1/2011, Robert Wakefield states:

"I have never persuaded anyone to invest in Collins & Bone or any other business - not even in stocks & shares or managed funds. I merely shared my own experiences with you. Any decision as to what to do with your money was always yours of course. Please also remember that I was always only 'another investor', not an employee, director or even commission agent."

Contrast this with texts lifted from "the board"'s newsletters:

Now is a great time to start investing in this market.

If you would like to earn generous commissions from referring or introducing investors to the new-look Collins & Bone, where the investment is 100% protected, please contact one of us. You can also earn very good commissions from sourcing properties. You will be paid by St. Giles Asset Management Limited, not Collins and Bone.

Robert Wakefield has a sizeable investment in C&B, and has every interest in making sure that C&B is kept afloat, no matter how that is achieved. It was for this reason that "the board" members were actively trying to recruit investors to the po-IVA camp in the form of e-mails and phone calls, even though they had no legitimate right to be using investor data in this way ... clearly, this was not their role as investors, but as Liam Collins's proteges. And I suspect that they have received/are recieving preferential treatments wrt paybacks in one shape or form or another ... again, something that we will be asking the bankruptcy trustee to investigate.

And it is worthwhile taking a look at St. Giles Asset Management, and the other company that shares the same address - Operus Limited, Unit 4, 36 Queens Rd., Newbury, RG14 7NE. Operus Limited is a new company incorporated 10th November 2011 with 3 of its' 4 directors as follows:

Joe Sinagoga
Robert Wakefield
Richard Anthony Hawthorne, who on LinkedIn decribes himself as "property developer and investment manager", and was previously a sales manager at Castle & Gatehouse Ltd.

On the wysi website there is the following statement:

"Operus investments Ltd. specialise in property development in the private residential sector of the Uk, offering housing solutions to a number of Government Agencies. Their investment clients can capitalise on a bespoke guaranteed rental income from day one with a property investment which has been designed for high performance, whilst minimising risk."

The website is http://www.operus.co.uk and is still under construction.

So if Liam Collins wants to believe in conspiracy theories, that there is a company waiting in the wings to pick-up/take over C&B assets on the cheap, then Operus Limited could be a candidate. But there again, I'm not going to dwell on trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

To the directors of Operus Limited I say be careful ... you are being watched!

The Editor

240 Great Clowes Street part 1

Since Q1 2011, a number of houses have been pushed/offered up to investors by Liam Collins, Joe Sinagoga & Robert Wakefield. If you were offered a house, please send me the details (date offered, address, price, and the advertising material that was sent to you) so that the property can be checked out.

This article was previously entitled "Dereham Investments Ltd - 240 Great Clowes Street", and has been updated following information provided by Warren Kaye, director of property services at O'Neill Patient Solicitors LLP, and who acts on behalf of Dereham Investments Ltd. It is the story of one such property that was offered to a large PN investor in Q1 2011:

240 Great Clowes Street,
Salford, Manchester, M7 2DY

This property was on sale for 245k GBP with the contact details specified as:

contact number: 0845 556 1257
contact name: Liam Collins
website: www.castleandgatehouse.com
address: eastern villa, station road north, forest hall, newcastle upon tyne, NE12 9AE

The property was described as:

• Fully decorated to high specification
• Brand new kitchen with high gloss
• Bathroom with limestone effect tiles
• Newly plastered throughout
• Re-wired
• New boiler
• New windows
• Fully furnished throughout
• White goods included
• etc.

i.e. the property was advertised as having been already fully renovated. Fortunately, the investor that this property was offered to (likely one of a number) declined, and it was subsequently sold for 182k GBP on May 11th. That this sale occurred not even 2 months after it was offered to the investor for 245k GBP was suspicious to say the least. So I checked the Land Registry:

Title Number :LA231053
Address of Property :240 Great Clowes Street, Salford (M7 2DY)
Price Stated :£182,000
Registered Owner(s) :DEREHAM INVESTMENTS LIMITED (incorporated in Isle of Man)(UK Regn. No. 45471) of Aston House, 19 Peel Road, Douglas, Isle of Man IM1 4LS and care of O'Neill Patient Solicitors LLP (Ref: WK), Chester House, 2 Chester Road, Hazel Grove, Stockport SK7 5NT.
Lender(s) :Castle & Gatehouse Limited

Note the lender - Castle & Gatehouse Ltd.

When I checked the Isle of Man equivalent of Companies House (http://www.gov.im/ded/companies/companiesregistry.xml) records for Dereham Investments Ltd, their records confirm Castle & Gatehouse Ltd as the lender and describes the transaction as follows:

Date of charge: 9th May 2011
Description: Legal charge
Amount secured by the Mortgage or Charge: All obligations owed to the Lender by the Borrower contained in a joint venture agreement dated 31st March 2011.

Warren Kaye explained the situation as follows. When Dereham Investments Ltd purchased the property it had most certainly not been renovated, hence the lower purchase price - it reflected the value of the property on the open market at the time of purchase. Castle & Gatehouse Ltd had sourced the property and were responsible for renovating it and finding a buyer for it afterwards. As part of the JV arrangement, Dereham Investments Ltd footed the bill for all the renovations. The charge on the property in Castle & Gatehouse Ltd's favour to the tune of 182k GBP was for their share of the profits in the JV once the property had been renovated and sold. However, Castle & Gatehouse Ltd failed to sell the property within the first 6 months of the JV and so are no longer entitled to any share in the profits when the property is subsequently sold and, as such, the charge is in the process of being removed.

So there is nothing suspicious in this transaction. And I suspect that the other properties that have so far come to light since this blog entry was originally posted will prove to be the same kind of arrangement. Evidently the sales team in Castle & Gatehouse Ltd/Collins & Bone Partnership were resolved to milk the investor base for all they could get.

It does of course leave two questions remaining for the partners to answer:

• Why would the likes of Liam Collins and "the board" members be trying to sell JV based properties to holders of PNs that the partners were already in default of? Toxic PNs could not be used to offset the purchase, in whole or in part, of such properties as that would constitute preferential payment of PNs. So the only possibility is that they expected investors to do a JV with them, and for the partnership's share of the profits to be offset against the toxic PNs.

• Why was Liam Collins pushing a property owned by Castle & Gatehouse Ltd, a company that he has for many many months now tried to distance the Collins & Bone Partnership from?

The Editor

Data Protection Act 1998 violations

Many of you will have received e-mails and/or phone calls over the past 10 days from the partners and their cohorts expressing the views of other investors/getting you to see their point of view.

march 21st 2012 to the partners and their cohorts (Joe S. & Robert W.)
[ewart]: OK guys, this is getting rediculous. I have been out of the office much of the day and return home to find my inbox stuffed full with the opinions of other investors that I don't care much for reading, just as they don't care to read my blog. This is a total mis-use of e-mail addresses that investors have registered with you for the purposes of being more readily informed of the state of their investments - they are not there to be used to push the views of other investors. If you want to advertise the views of investors, you already have a blog set up which you have used for this very purpose in the past and which works just fine. So use it before this issue gets out of hand.

march 22nd 2012 response from Liam Collins
[Liam]: Just block my address if you do not wish to read them. It is very simple. All news you need you will find on The George’s Blog apparently.

Liam Collins, of course, in his reply totally missed the point. In order to wage this war, the partners and their cohorts are leveraging personal data that investors supplied to them when they took out their investment - this is your data! What they fail to realise is that the data they are leveraging, and the processing they are performing on it, are clear violations of the Data Protection Act 1998 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents), the appropriate portions of which I have cut-and-pasted below.

I have sent an e-mail to the partners and their cohorts today 25/03/2012 (see below) on behalf of all investors making them fully aware that what they are doing is a clear breach of the Data Protection Act, and that it is to stop now - I have given them a grace period of 1 week to comply (i.e. until end April 1st, April Fools Day). People like Joe Sinagoga and Robert Wakefield should not even have access to your personal data unless you have given your express permission for them to have it ... and this is clearly not the case for a good number of investors.

Unless I get a positive acknowledgment from them that this behaviour will stop forthwith, I would suggest that investors who want to be left in peace make a formalised request (and keep a copy in your records) that clearly specifies the grace period (a few days should be quite sufficient) for the partners and their cohorts to purge all knowledge of your e-mail address(es) and/or phone number(s) from their systems. After the grace period has elapsed, configure a filter on your e-mail browser to auto-delete all e-mails you receive from them. It is appreciated that this will cause extra work for the partners and their cohorts as all pertinent correspondence they will now have to convey to you via other means (e.g. post, web-site),  but it will be a situation that they consciously brought upon themselves by not being able to act responsibly.

If after doing this you are still being pestered, let me know the details along with a copy of your formalised request and I will track all such violations so that when this partnership goes into bankruptcy, all the cases of violation of the Data Protection Act, even after they have been warned, can be formally reported.

The Editor

=======================================

Pertinent sections of the Data Protection Act 1998

Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress.

(1)Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons—

(a)the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

(b)that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

(2)Subsection (1) does not apply—

(a)in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2 is met, or

(b)in such other cases as may be prescribed by the [F1 Secretary of State] by order.

SCHEDULE 2
Conditions relevant for purposes of the first principle processing of any personal data

1The data subject has given his consent to the processing.
2The processing is necessary—

(a)for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or
(b)for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract.

3The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract.
4The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject.
5The processing is necessary—

(a)for the administration of justice,
[F1(aa)for the exercise of any functions of either House of Parliament,]
(b)for the exercise of any functions conferred on any person by or under any enactment,
(c)for the exercise of any functions of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department, or
(d)for the exercise of any other functions of a public nature exercised in the public interest by any person.

=======================================

From: ewart tempest <ewart.tempest@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:07 AM
Subject: Data Protection Act violations
To: Liam Collins <liam@collinsandbone.com>, joe@sgaml.co.uk, robert@wysi.co.uk, Robert Wakefield <robert.wakefield@wysi.co.uk>, davidbone@castleandgatehouse.co.uk, Rachael <rachael@collinsandbone.com>, Rachael Bone <rachaelbone@castleandgatehouse.com>
Cc: ewart tempest <ewart.tempest@gmail.com>

Data Protection Act 1998

I will give you a grace period up until the end of April 1st 2012 to comply with the texts below, and to confirm in writing.

Rachael/Liam - relay to David Bone Jnr as his Castle & Gatehouse e-mail address no longer works.

This is to notify you that the activities that you have been performing wrt using personal investor data for propaganda purposes, with the proliferous sending of e-mails and phone calls expressing the views of other investors who share your views, is a violation of this act and total mis-use of investor data, and can in no way be construed as as "reasonable processing" by the act (I have cut-and-pasted the pertinent sections of the act at the end of this e-mail). On behalf of all investors, you are told to refrain from using investor data for this kind of processing unless investors have specifically registered with you for it ... in the interim you can use http://collinsboneinvestment.blogspot.ca as your propaganda vehicle.

Joe Sinagoga and Robert Wakefield, you should only have access to investor personal data for investors who have specifically given their permission for you to have it ... and this is clearly not the case for a good number of investors. So, Joe Sinagoga & Robert Wakefield, you are hereby told to delete all investor personal details in your possession other than for those investors who have given you express written permission to have it.

More information can be found at www.collins-and-bone.blogspot.com "Data Protection Act 1998 violations" article (to be posted end of 25/3/2012).

Ewart

Pertinent sections of the Data Protection Act 1998

Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress.

(1)Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons—

(a)the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

(b)that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

(2)Subsection (1) does not apply—

(a)in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2 is met, or

(b)in such other cases as may be prescribed by the [F1 Secretary of State] by order.

SCHEDULE 2
Conditions relevant for purposes of the first principle processing of any personal data

1) The data subject has given his consent to the processing.
2) The processing is necessary—

(a) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or
(b) for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract.

3) The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract.
4) The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject.
5) The processing is necessary—

(a) for the administration of justice,
[F1(aa) for the exercise of any functions of either House of Parliament,]
(b) for the exercise of any functions conferred on any person by or under any enactment,
(c) for the exercise of any functions of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department, or
(d) for the exercise of any other functions of a public nature exercised in the public interest by any person.

Dear Goebbels

Dear Goebbels,

The blogs may have started out as a small group of investors, but that is most certainly not the case now, so to continually be targetting "the Georges" doesn't reflect reality. One of the key purposes of the blogs is to hold the partners to account. Have you not read any of the blog entries??? Once bankruptcy has been declared, a good number of investors will be following through with criminal charges - the partners will most certainly not be getting away "Scott free" as you put it.

As you are so supportive of the partners, and optimisitc of the returns via an IVA yet with no factual basis for being so, may I suggest that in the 2-3 days left you try to articulate the factual basis for your optimism in an IVA approach, the publishing of rental data, and explain what happened to the following properties:

    2 abbeycroft close
    24 carnarvon
    56 beckford court
    30 peacock avenue

In March 2010, the following texts were sent by Liam Collins to an investor as part of the fore-play to a major PN investment made by that investor:

[Liam]: The promissory note acts as a legal personal guarantee from myself and the Collins Bone Partnership including all partners for your investment. All of our personal assets including 74 personal student properties and our own homes is held in the partnership.

So whilst you do some digging around the above 4 properties, can you also investigate these 74 properties and explain to investors where the (74 - 24) properties have also gone!

Making public to 3rd-parties investment particulars without their permission is a violation of the Data Protection Act. ... I have warned you about this before. Moreover, how much the Georges invested is completely irrelevant - what is relevant is the GBP value of the debt owed to anti-IVA group members, which obviously you now have a handle on otherwise you would not be sending out the e-mail below.

The Editor

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Robert Wakefield <robert@wysi.co.uk>
To: <investor>
Sent: <20th March 2012>
Subject: Collins & Bone

Dear fellow investor,

I understand you are either undecided or against Liam Collins & David Bone being allowed to enter into an IVA regarding their current debt to investors of about £4 million.

As I see it, bankruptcy will result in only one thing: the debt being wiped, none of us ever seeing a penny of our money again and Collins and Bone being allowed to walk away Scott free. Have I got the wrong end of the stick? Am I missing something?

Surely, an IVA gives us all (the creditors) a chance of seeing some of our money back one day - even if that day might not be today? Even if there is no chance right now of ever getting our money back, are we not better to wait till property values increase and see what the portfolio of houses might fetch in 2-5 years?

Unless I am very much mistaken, it seems there is a small splinter group of investors who are determined to ruin everything for everyone by acting without having properly understood what bankruptcy for Collins & Bone will mean for us all. Actually, I find it very selfish. Maybe you do too?

I have heard it mooted recently that an IVA would only allow Liam Collins and David Bone to "carry on exactly as before" (whatever that is supposed to mean); this is absolutely incorrect. The whole point of entering into an IVA is that the IVA practitioner (rather like the role of an administrator in an insolvency matter) takes full financial control of the assets, income and liabilities of the debtors.

I have personally seen the balance sheets, and I've seen the mortgage debt on the properties: please let me reassure you that there is not a hope in Hell of any of us seeing a single penny of our money back if Collins & Bone are forced into bankruptcy.

May I ask you this: if (quite understandably) you are sick and tired of the whole C&B meleé, and you would rather have closure, would you please consider your fellow investors, some of whom stand to lose their entire life savings in the event of C&B bankruptcy. Is this what you really want? If not, please help your fellow investors and vote 'YES' to an IVA today.

If, again totally understandably, you even hate the sound of 'Collins' or 'Bone', do you really want to let these two off the hook for good? If so, vote against the IVA and for bankruptcy, because that is exactly what your vote will do. They can then stick two fingers up at us all and walk off into the sunset. Is that fair? I don't think so. Nor is it what Collins & Bone want to do either, I might add.

If you know something that I don't, would you please tell me? I am just an investor (like you), but one who has always believed that working with them and not against them is our smartest choice. Supporting any petition for bankruptcy might give you some satisfaction, but it certainly isn't smart, and you will not see a penny from it. Mark my words.

I would like to end this email by pointing out that the two misguided women who have been so determined to ruin our chances are (together) owed £15,000 (out of a total £4 MILLION). Perhaps they can afford to wave goodbye to £15,000? I wonder if they would have behaved in the same way if they were owed the whole £4 million (as collectively we all are)?

Kind regards,

Robert Wakefield