Des wanted the bank to admit it had not lent him “real money”, that the loan and security agreements he had signed constituted a “financial instrument”, and that this financial instrument had been monetised and then securitised. The letter contained fingerprints in red ink.
Des asked the bank to supply him with its internal records and information about the funding of its loans under the Privacy Act 2020. He also tried to persuade the bank to accept theories about fractional reserve banking, securitisation of loans and “Correct Sentence Structure Communication Parse Syntax Grammar”.
The bank gave him information about his loan and copies of the loan and security documents. It declined to give him its internal records about how it funded the loan. It also declined to discuss the theories he advocated.
Des complained to us that the bank had not lent him “real money” and so he did not have to repay the loan. He also purported to revoke the power-of-attorney clause in the mortgage document. Des suggested lenders used such clauses to create financial instruments, and this “money” was “lent” to other mortgage borrowers. He argued that no actual money had been lent. Rather, there was only a fake debt created out of thin air using the power of attorney the borrower had given to create a promissory note. There was, therefore, no actual mortgage debt and no money to be repaid.
We explained to Des that there was no legal basis to these arguments. We pointed out that no court had ruled that a loan agreement or mortgage was invalid on the basis of the arguments he was putting forward. We also explained that the information he was seeking from the bank about its funding arrangements was not personal information about him, and thus the bank had not breached the Privacy Act 2020 when it declined to give it to him.
We exercised our discretion to decline to look into his complaint on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.Print this page