Comments can be sent to us at

This Blog is dedicated to making public some of the business activities and methods of Liam Collins, David Bone Jr and their associates. In the spring of 2010, the present authors invested in Collins & Bone (C&B), who were offering an enticing 8-10% interest on the basis of buying houses for cash, renovating them and letting them out to students. We were assured that our money was secured against houses that they owned, including their own homes and the properties held by their associated company, Castle & Gatehouse (C&G). We have emails and brochures that confirm these details, as do others who invested on this same basis at around the same time. The idea worked for us for over a year, then in November 2011 they told us they were insolvent. They refused our every request for clear accounts, which led us to suspect wrongdoing. We began an investigation and then started this Blog. We found our suspicions confirmed: other investors had lost sometimes quite large amounts to C&B and its predecessor CBS, and all requests for repayment were adamantly refused. These people use and have used so many names that we found it necessary to compress them into CoBo (for Collins & Bone) and Coboco (for the whole bunch of them – there are quite a few!) Note that there is an index in the margin at the right hand side.

Tuesday, 27 March 2012


If anyone is in any doubt as to why the background of Coboco needs thorough, authoritative scrutiny, we refer them to the following posts on this Blog:


Coboco's former headquarters—as featured in an earlier post on this Blog—is up for sale. Just under half-a-million. Interested investors can check the details at

Monday, 26 March 2012


Readers may have noticed that what the chief salesman and masked dancer puts out is all about himself. The important thing is what he thinks, what he feels, what he plans, what he does. He continues to pretend that he has the investors' interests at heart. Just how he can profess that, after having inveigled bona fide investors to part with hundreds of thousands of pounds, which he has spent without saying how, is surely a measure of what a seriously swollen little ego the law is going to have to deal with.

He has admitted that he is incompetent and that—at least—has been amply demonstrated. But now he wants his victims to trust his hopeless business abilities for another 5 years. He 'offers' thus to repay investors all of their money. One hundred percent. Is there really anyone out there who believes that? Could this be a case of setting up what amounts to a Church of Fraud, which relies on blind belief for its running expenses? Surely not. However, there is seemingly no end to this man's brazenness. Also, anyone who disagrees with his preposterous 'offer' is apparently in dreamland! Charming.

"If anyone wants to carry out an investigation into what has happened, we have no issues with this." Oh, really! Is he not aware that an investigation is being carried out and that he most certainly does have issues with it, many issues? Those are precisely what are being investigated and what he is trying to protect and conceal.

We also point out that just because Ewart Tempest and 'the Georges' are keeping weblogs on Coboco, it should not be imagined that they are alone in this. There are daily increasing numbers of us who are determined to uncover this long-running series of deceptions and to unravel its tangled accounts. We are neither amused nor impressed by his bluster and threats of prosecution, which are no more than primitive means of defence.


Question: I agree that CoBo have been careless and incompetent. They may also have been dishonest. However, if they are bankrupted, won't I just lose all my money? Doesn't an IVA  (Individual Voluntary Agreement)  make more sense for investors?

Answer: Obviously, the outcome of either process cannot be known in advance. For investors  who hold unsecured promissory notes (PNs), there is no guarantee either way. It’s true that in an IVA, a promise is made to repay a proportion of the money owed over a long period of time, but promises can be broken - in fact, the PNs that investors hold amount to nothing more than broken promises. Furthermore, if investors agree to an IVA which offers to repay a percentage of their loan—for example 50%—and the IVA fails, resulting in bankruptcy for CoBo, the IVA agreement will have reduced the amount each investor can claim by 50%!

As CoBo have consistently refused to give any proper accounts, it is impossible to know the likely outcome of bankruptcy. The main advantage is that the assets would be taken out of their hands and the finances examined by experts. CoBo claim that investors would lose everything by bankrupting them, but the authorities are bound by law to manage a bankrupt’s estate to the maximum benefit of the creditors. And unlike CoBo, the authorities have to be transparent and fully accountable.

Sunday, 25 March 2012


The best exposition we have found as to what an IVA is and how it works is here:

The article points out that 

"An IVA is a contractual arrangement with creditors and can be as flexible as an individual's own circumstances; they can therefore be based on capital, income, third party payments or a combination of these."

So far, Collins & Bone (Coboco) have not produced any form of IVA plan to show investors. They are making emotional appeals via emails and personal phone calls for support, without producing any figures. 

With an IVA, agreed payments are made to creditors at specified intervals over a period of from 5 to 7 years. Anyone who has dealt with Coboco will know that the chances of their keeping any kind of agreement on repayment for that length of time are very slim indeed. Just look at the incredible build-up of their debts! (Around £4 million!) If the repayments to creditors are not made on time, on more than one occasion, the partners would be liable to bankruptcy. In the event of the failure of an IVA, creditors would have to endure a long drawn-out process of legal wrangling, involving yet more expense to them and leading inevitably to bankruptcy. So the most  efficient way of sorting out Coboco's complex tangle of debt is bankruptcy now.

The Wikipedia article also states:

"IVAs may be popular with people who have large amounts of assets which they wish to protect." 

We have no idea what Coboco have in the way of assets and even if they were to tell creditors about them, their track record shows that their word is not to be trusted, since they say whatever they think best suits their purpose at the time. This is another way of looking at the benefits of bankruptcy: the partners will be accountable to authority and creditors will be able to see what's behind all the pressure that Coboco are applying to them.

Here are some questions that Coboco need to answer effectively before any investor should even consider supporting an IVA.

[1] What proportion of the debt would the IVA cover? 100%, 50%, 30%?

[2] Would the partners be responsible for managing the properties with an Insolvency Practitioner (IP) supervising? If so, we warn investors that the partners' record in every aspect of property management has been abysmal. We don't see how an IP would be able to insist on the business discipline that would be needed for commercial viability.

[3] An IVA normally excludes the debtors' homes from the assets. Would this apply in the present case? If so, what about all the promises made by Coboco that investors' money was secured against all their properties, including their homes? (We have these statements in writing).

[4] The article in W'pedia warns that the IP's fees may absorb much of the possible benefit to creditors. Can Coboco state clearly what the IP's charges are likely to be in the present case? (Given the extreme tangle that the partners' finances are in, they could hardly be expected to come cheap).

NOTE: An IVA is considered to be the best solution to debt problems in a high proportion of cases. However, where serious mismanagement and deceit are involved and the debtors refuse moreover to clarify their accounts, it must be perfectly obvious that bankruptcy is the only way forward.

Thursday, 22 March 2012


The latest output from Coboco is clear evidence of their fury and desperation. We suspected, but didn't know it was quite that bad. What they are resorting to now to protect themselves is quite extraordinary. They claim that our insistence on their being bankrupted is so that we can take advantage of their portfolio and start buying up 'their' houses. What a fantastic idea!

We should like to state here, quite categorically, that we have no interest whatever in any of 'their' properties or any that may be in some way connected with them. We are not interested in buying any of the properties and we do not know anyone who is or might be interested in doing so. So that allegation is actually no more than an exercise in mudslinging. We don't know if that will impress their supporters. Perhaps not.

Also, in the email mentioned by Collins, Jasmine merely requested and here requests again that they return to us the £15,000 we lent them, plus a bit of interest. 

To clarify our position about the post-bankruptcy situation: investors can vote for an independent trustee—who must be a properly qualified insolvency practitioner (IP)—to examine and manage the assets. Yes, the mortgage company would appoint an LPA receiver who would use the rents from the properties to pay the mortgage and expenses; any surplus would go to the trustee to divide among the investors pro rata. UKAR have indicated that they would be prepared to operate such a system for years if it is commercially viable.

One of the advantages of a private trustee over an IVA is that the trustee has no time limit. He can continue to administer the assets indefinitely until the debts are paid. An IVA, on the other hand, is limited to 5 or 7 years.

There is no need for the partners to get hysterical: if their plan for an IVA is acceptable, then perhaps the case will go that way. We reiterate that the partners' finances need to be held up to forensic accountancy—and the best way, perhaps the only way, for that is bankruptcy. The hysterical nature of their communications would suggest that they have a lot to hide. If that is indeed so, wouldn't it be better to come clean now rather than later?

The partners have also been spreading a rumour that we have been encouraging their student tenants not to pay rent. There is no truth in this whatsoever. What has actually happened is that one of their investors, who is absolutely beside himself with anger and grief—because he invested with them all his savings, amounting to £150,000—had the idea that he would go to some of the rented properties and ask the tenants to pay him rather than the partners. In point of fact, we have asked him not to do that, as it would not be a proper course of action.

Wednesday, 21 March 2012


Yes, the court hearing for the bankruptcy of Liam Collins has been delayed, we hear, until 9th May. This sort of delay is quite normal in Britain's overloaded justice system, which is actually a massive bureaucracy. Its ponderous deliberations do give Coboco plenty of time to try to evade the law and it also gives us plenty of work to ensure that they cannot. We'll be using this time—or at least a reasonable portion of it!—to continue gathering evidence about their years of wrongdoing and we invite everyone who can contribute verifiable instances of that to send them in. Yes, it'll be a drawn-out process, but it'll be a really worthwhile job to nab such a slippery bunch!


Today, Liam Collins and David Bone Jr (Coboco) have been forwarding emails to us from investors who support the idea of an IVA and who think the authors of this Blog are vengeful and bitter. Any intelligent reading of our Blog will dispel those ridiculous allegations very quickly. Here is our brief reply to each of Coboco's unwitting supporters:-

Greetings to A Fellow Investor!

We have seen your letter to Liam Collins. Regarding the matter of an IVA versus bankruptcy, please read the posts that follow on this Blog.
We'd like to clarify a few additional points ...

[1] We have never contacted tenants to dissuade them from paying rent. We don't even know any of C&B's current tenants. We have been contacted by some past tenants of theirs who have had their deposits withheld illegally by CoBo.

[2] We most certainly are interested in getting our money back! The sums involved are all necessarily relative and our investment means a lot to us financially.

[3] We are not interested in revenge. We think it's very likely that investors will actually get a better deal from bankruptcy than from an IVA. This is explained below.

[4] Liam Collins and David Bone Jr obtained money under false pretences and misspent investors' money. They must be made accountable for this. Bankruptcy is the way.

[5] If you need any further clarification, please contact us directly.


NB  For those unfamiliar with the terms CoBo and Coboco, we use these to stand for Collins & Bone and for Collins, Bone & Associates. There is quite a list of failed companies in their names and a much longer list of investors who have seen their money misspent.


Investors are naturally anxious that bankruptcy will adversely affect their chances of recouping any of their money. Liam Collins and David Bone Jr are playing on investors' anxiety to try to win support for an IVA. They are claiming that the mortgage company would board up all the houses and sell them off at a loss.

However, this is the view expressed yesterday by the Head of Commercial Lending at UKAR (which is now responsible for MX mortgages) about how they would handle the  situation:

“In the case of HMOs (houses in multiple occupation), we abide by any tenancy agreement. The houses would be managed by a receiver (LPA), who would collect the rent and pay the mortgage and expenses. The surplus would go to the creditors via their trustee.

It would not make business sense to sell them if they are commercially viable and UKAR would be prepared to administer them in this way for many years.”

So if, after bankruptcy, the investors appoint a trustee, the financial situation will be very similar to that of an IVA. The critical difference is that Liam Collins’s and David Bone’s finances will be scrupulously examined. And they will be completely separated from any assets which will be administered by competent personnel.

Tuesday, 20 March 2012


Some investors will today have been treated to an impassioned, cliché-ridden bluster from a longstanding (and long-suffering) crony of Coboco to vote for—guess what?—an IVA.

He claims to be "just an investor (like you)" but please note that he has seen their balance sheets, unlike the rest of us, and he has access to the contact details of all of us! This makes him a Coboco mouthpiece, with a heavy bias towards the theatrical and all the benefits that go with such a friendship. 

To repeat our earlier statement: no proper IVA proposal has ever been put to investors. If the partners had been serious about it, they would have produced one months ago and it could have been considered on its merits. It is both useless and silly to go on agonizing about one at the eleventh hour.

We don't know how many investors have studied Ewart Tempest's figures, as set forth in his blog. Those who have  looked at them will be aware that whether this case were to issue in an IVA or in a bankruptcy, there would be very little chance of anyone seeing much return of capital on the basis of Coboco's properties. The difference with bankruptcy is that the whole financial background can be scrutinised by an independent trustee. This is very important, since in 2010, Coboco took more than £1m and - as we have repeatedly pointed out - have given no explanation of what they did with it. 

Are the writers of this Blog being selfish by bringing clarity to bear on this case? When Coboco's earlier ventures collapsed, investors were told that unless they co-operated and accepted PNs, they would selfishly sabotage everyone's chances of getting their money back. What happened? Coboco drew more unsuspecting people into lending them money. Newcomers were totally unaware of the background debt and the earlier investors didn't get their money back anyway. This must not happen again. It is all very well to claim that Coboco will never deal in property again, but if that turned out to be true, wouldn't it be largely due to the work of this Blog and to that of Ewart Tempest? 

Someone said that the present writers and Coboco had two different agendas; we were happy to point out that our sole agenda is clarity.  

Don't miss Ewart's latest post on his blog, entitled, "Dear Goebbels"!


Yesterday evening (19th March) Coboco finally managed to send an updated spreadsheet to investors showing their property holdings. This information has taken almost five months to arrive and no account at all is given of the rents generated by the houses, which is very odd. Coboco have easy access to these figures, since their own letting company is managing most of the properties. There are also no figures showing what is owed to investors and creditors.

We publish below Liam Collins’s points about the implications of bankruptcy, followed by comments by David Clements, a professional in the field of insolvency and bankruptcy:

LC: For those intent on pursuing criminal allegations an IVA will not protect us from that. You can continue to do this for as long as you wish.

DC: That is correct although with an IVA, investors wouldn’t have the benefit of a trustee’s investigative powers to assist.

LC: Bankruptcy will lead to all Mortgage Express going to LPA receivers. A trustee will NOT be appointed for the estate as MX do not allow it.

DC: This is highly likely, although I am not sure what equity there is to protect.

LC: Properties are the only assets C&B own

DC: No comment.

LC: Properties will be rented out and all income will go to MX NOT to creditors.

DC: This will cover mortgage costs and LPA costs so no detriment to the creditors.

LC: Those properties which lose tenants as a result of change of management will be boarded up, NOT advertised.

DC: Who knows?

LC: We do not have money in off shore accounts which will be found and split between investors.

DC: Where is the £2.5m then?

LC: We do not have anything which can be sold to generate income for investors.

DC: See answer above.

LC: Under new bankruptcy laws as of January last year I will be permitted to live in my own personal property as will David if he is made bankrupt and a charge will be placed over the asset equivalent to the equity.

DC: They have occupational rights for a year then creditors interests prevail.

LC: In bankruptcy I will lose all debt to my name, I will be allowed to keep my home and live in it. I will lose houses which are not going to have any equity for at least 3-5 years and rental income is only now starting to pick up. I have made no money from our assets for over 3 years so I will not miss any rental income.

DC: What has he been living on then? How has he been paying the mortgage?

LC: In bankruptcy the receivers will offer a third party of ours choice to buy the assets out for a small fee meaning someone unrelated to me would be able to buy them for a tiny amount and could then gift them back to me at a later day. YES WE DO HAVE MANY CLEVER WAYS WE COULD KEEP THESE ASSETS AND INCOME FOR OURSELVES!

DC: Any trustee has an obligation to obtain the best price for his equitable interest. This can be from any third party and is NOT the choice of the bankrupt.

Saturday, 17 March 2012


When Cobo told us that they were insolvent and pressed us to sign a 5-year promissory note with no interest and no guarantee of repayment, we consulted an accountant, a lawyer, our bank and other professionals about what to do. All gave the same advice: don’t consider signing unless they give you a clear account of their assets and liabilities.

But no accounts have been given to investors! (see note below). Cobo refuse to tell us what they actually did with all the money they were given. Here is  LC’s latest explanation to Ewart Tempest on 14th March:

“We made mistakes the money has been spent.” [sic]

If Cobo had taken the idea of an IVA seriously, they would have put together a plan months ago and showed us the details. As it is, we can only conclude that their present  wish for one is nothing but a last-ditch attempt to avoid or postpone bankruptcy and consequent full accountability.

The partners make tedious and exhausting emotional appeals for support while studiously avoiding the truth about their situation. They have broken innumerable promises, caused misery, anxiety and hardship—yet incredibly still want investors to back them and to loyally support their latest brainwaves.  They confuse the issue by claiming that their plans are entirely in their victims’ self-interest. 

“The houses are for YOU! All we are doing is for You, our Dear Investors. You are the only Ones we’ve ever cared about! "

"Now, vote for our IVA, or go to hell and you won't get your money back anyway!"   (Italicised script ours)

Comedy aside, they have created a scandalous financial mess which is going to take many hours of other people’s time to clear up. They have to be stopped from  wasting any more honest peoples’ time and money.

Note: here’s one reason why investors haven’t seen any accounts:

“Our accounts are held by our old accountant who will not let go of them until we have paid him in full which we cannot.” - Liam Collins, 22nd February 2011. (He means his ‘former’ or ‘ex’ accountant, not that the man is elderly).

Afterthought: It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that CoBo could suddenly 'discover'  huge loans that they owe to family members and friends, who all enthusiastically favour the idea of an IVA. "Yes, of course. How much would you like to be owed?" The question would then be, 'Could large virtual loans be arranged retroactively?'

Friday, 16 March 2012


Having thoroughly examined all the evidence, we don't think—as we have said many times before, and indeed it should be obvious by now—that an IVA would be an effective solution to the many problems of Coboco and their investors and we would like to stress that no support should be given to any plan that allows them to avoid a complete and in-depth clarification of their accounts and business practices over the last few years. (Coboco = Collins, Bone and their business associates).

Thursday, 15 March 2012


STOP PRESS: We have heard that Collins's bankruptcy hearing has been postponed for one week, because he told the judge that he was "negotiating with Mortgage Express." The judge was impatient to get on with the process, but agreed to a week's delay on that basis. Collins will be using that period to see how he can wriggle out of responsibility; to date, he seems to think that an Individual Voluntary Agreement (IVA) would do the trick. All concerned readers of this Blog will naturally want to block that route.

Wednesday, 14 March 2012


It's rare for investors to get a circular from David Bone Jr, but one arrived this afternoon. After a great show of innocence about how he was never in when the official wanted to serve him the legal papers, he goes on to claim that this Blog repeatedly ignores positive reports about Coboco*.

We have to say that the only positive report that we have received is the recent one by Michael Bloom—and even then, we note that he has not been reimbursed or even received interest. In view of which, his character reference for Collins can't really be classified as a glowing testimonial, can it?

Considering the mess they have made and the often large sums of money they have gypped from people, how can they deserve or expect to receive positive testimonials? If we were to receive another positive testimonial about Coboco, we would feel fully justified in treating it with great caution. We guess that, behind their blustering and outbursts of self-righteousness, they feel desperately guilty and ashamed of what they have done.

* Symbol: Palm tree, with daiquiri.


Who or what is COBOCO? Well, on account of the fact that it is tedious to keep listing all the people and company names relating to their disastrous business dealings, we introduce the name Coboco which lumps together Liam Collins, David Bone Jr and their business partners! Liam Collins generally acts as Coboco's foremost spokesman, salesman and chief apologist.

Liam Collins complains in his latest letter to investors that this Blog has not published a recent letter  (from a Mr Michael Bloom) which amounts to a testimonial fulsomely describing him as having the investors' best interests at heart. Obviously we can't publish something that flies blithely against the documented facts, however well-meaning it may be. We also can't believe that anyone who has seen how Collins has actually behaved towards his investors can take it seriously. 

However, for the possible interest of our readers, here is  our reply to that letter:

"Dear Mr Bloom—

Thank you for your email outlining some of the manoeuvres of Liam Collins and David Bone Jr. We are unable to envisage any effective solution to their mounting debt problems other than bankruptcy, with the accounts being clarified by forensic accountancy. The track record of both partners leaves no doubt but that their personal interests override those of their investors.

However, as Liam Collins wrote, it was a nice gesture of yours to put in a plug for him (but see our final paragraph below) and of course we couldn't put such a thing on our blog without knowing all the background details.

There is now a large body of evidence as to the business behaviour of the partners. You might care to have a look at a recent report from just one of CoBo's investors, which certainly is worth putting on our blog:

"In March 2010, I invested £100,000 in Collins & Bone, £50,000 in my own name and £50,000 in my daughter’s name. This money was part of my redundancy payment because I had lost my job.  I got other jobs, but they were only temporary. I was assured that the money was secure and that I would receive 10% interest monthly.

In March 2011, I asked Liam Collins to secure my investment against a property, so that I would have something to back up the Promissory Notes that we held. He offered to sell me various houses that had already been renovated by Castle & Gatehouse but they were all far too expensive for me, ranging in price from £245K to £350K. I just didn’t have that amount of money. Also, when I checked the value of the houses independently, I found that Castle & Gatehouse were asking much more  for them than their market value. For example, they offered me one house in Salford for £245K and it later sold for £182K.

In April 2011, Liam Collins reassured me that his business was doing well and that he had secured a £20 million deal. When my wife heard about this, she thought it was safe to put the remainder of our savings, a further £50,000 into Collins & Bone. Immediately after she arranged this, I became very doubtful and worried and asked C&B to return the £50,000. They refused to return it.  Liam Collins reiterated that all the money was safe.

In July 2011, all interest payments stopped. I have been in severe financial difficulties ever since. I have not been able to find suitable permanent work, partly because I am nearly at retirement age and I have had to borrow, remortgage my house and ask my children for help to run my household."

In short, it would be a good thing for society if Liam Collins and David Bone were not protected from their responsibilities to their investors and that they were discouraged from further property schemes.


Part of Michael Bloom's reply:

"For my part I can only re-iterate my story. There was a way for Liam Collins to secure more for himself and he told me immediately that that was not his goal (to be honest the finance man said he was very honest but naive/stupid in his attitude and that he would be saddled with problems for years because of it).

I am unclear as to the “rules” for Blogs and obviously my contribution runs very much against the grain of your perception - but are you “supposed” to publish all genuine contributions? Call me if you need some background detail on me, my company etc etc."

And the relevant section of our reply to that:

"Good morning, Michael!

As you will have gathered, we think that only the authorities can sort this case out. Our blog is for all CoBo investors who were left completely in the dark as to what happened to their money and were unable to get any redress.

If CoBo had given us investors clear accounts when they told us that they were insolvent in November 2011, there might have been no need at all for our blog or for Ewart Tempest's related blog. I'm afraid we really can't publish your story without full details of who made the offer to Liam Collins and what that offer actually was. May there not be other reasons, apart from concern for the investors, that caused him to turn down whatever it was?

Blogs are a bit like newspapers in democracies: they are not obliged to publish anything that their editors consider unsuitable, for whatever reason. And then, there remains a very big question mark over the word 'genuine.'

We gather that you made an investment several years ago and have more or less given up any hope of getting it back. We surmise that it was not a huge outlay, as far as you were concerned. Unfortunately, many people are not in such a secure position financially and they trusted CoBo's promises. It is they who are "saddled with problems" at present; CoBo still have a very good income from their rental properties. Yes, CoBo have indeed been stupid and naive, but according to records, also extremely deceitful and dishonest.

Kind regards,


Finally, we point out that CoBo have a blog of their own, on which they can publish whatever they like. They also have an email list of all investors, so they don't really have any trouble putting out their point of view. We think that they will ultimately agree that bankruptcy is the best course for them, thus enabling the rest of us to attend to the many more interesting matters that we have to hand.

Tuesday, 6 March 2012


We hear that Liam Collins has been telling some people that the authors of this Blog unthinkingly sabotaged the £20 million deal that CoBo were just on the point of striking with Matterhorn Capital.  

If it hadn't been for us telling the truth about them, he says,  they would have signed the deal, raked in the cash, generously raised their own already ample salaries and still have had lots left to share with their delighted investors!

It falls to us to expose this silly fairytale for what it is: the proposed arrangement with Matterhorn Capital collapsed some months before this Blog first appeared. 

CoBo are all too ready, it will be noted, to blame anyone and everyone else for their complete failure in honest business and, we must add, for any crooked dealings they were forced to enter into.


Investors have been assured, on numerous occasions, that their loans are secured against all the properties owned by CoBo, including the Partners' homes. Here we append two quotations from the many that confirm this:

'The PN puts all of our houses including our homes up as security in the way that should we ever default on the note, the investor would be able to call in their full investment. If we were unable to pay this the investor could issue bankruptcy proceedings which would force us to sell the assets and payback the initial investment. It would be a long and drawn out process but our assets do act as a backbone to the guarantee together with the revenue which they generate coupled with the revenue from all other arms of our business which pour profits into the partnership. The debt ratios are covered in both equity and trading profits.' LC to JG 17.05.2010

'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. '   Newsletter of 18.03.2011

It is therefore somewhat surprising to find that the Land Registry entry for 2 Abbeycroft Close has David Bone Jr as a leaseholder while Rachael Stanley has a deed of trust on the property. Note that 2 Abbeycroft Close appears as a C&B property on their latest spreadsheet. Could it be that CoBo have sold the property to Rachael Stanley (who is Mrs Rachael Bone)? Investors will be keen to know the full story.

Friday, 2 March 2012


CoBo have consistently claimed that if they are bankrupted, all the house assets will be sold by the mortgage company at auction for well below market value and investors will lose any chance of recouping some of their money.

The majority of their mortgages were taken out with Mortgage Express, which company no longer operates and UKAR (UK Asset Resolution) is now responsible for the mortgages. We have been advised by UKAR that in the case of buy-to-let properties, when a bankruptcy occurs, all tenancy agreements are honoured and each case is examined individually. Generally, the houses should continue to operate as before, with UKAR taking the mortgage repayments and the surplus being given to the bankruptcy trustee to divide amongst the investors/creditors.

UKAR made big profits last year. It reckons it will continue to make huge profits in coming years, because it is NOT selling off assets cheaply. CoBo are wrong to assume that UKAR will sell their houses. UKAR will not sell their houses because it's not in their interests: it is more profitable to them to keep the properties on their books and take in the monthly repayments. CoBo say the opposite to try to evade bankruptcy and protect themselves from scrutiny by the bankruptcy trustee. This official will unearth the facts of the case and find out what really has happened to all the money that CoBo inveigled out of hapless investors.


In his message of last night about his non-appearance at the Court hearing on 25th January, Liam Collins writes, 

"I did not attend as I was advised by a solicitor that it was not necessary, but I should send a letter to the court letting them know I would be co-operating fully, which I did."

The Court did not receive a letter from him. (If he did write one, he should have sent it by recorded delivery.) 

Thursday, 1 March 2012


Regarding Collins's attempt to prevaricate via an Individual Voluntary Agreement (IVA), we have already pointed out that the IVA route is not feasible in this case.  Most investors simply aren't interested. Bankruptcy is obviously where this unsavoury little saga is going, and that is the way in which all the unaccounted-for CoBo accounts will get the thorough scrutiny that they need. Why should anyone resist such a wholesome eventuality?

Investors should note that in the case of bankruptcy, it is extremely likely—given the multiple ramifications of the C&B story—that an insolvency practitioner will be appointed as  trustee. It will be his or her job to ensure, through responsible management of the assets, the best possible financial outcome for the creditors.