In regulated disputes, clarity of correspondence is not optional. A party must be able to know exactly where to send communications. Yet in August 2025, TLT Solicitors issued two contradictory sets of instructions on where mortgage dispute correspondence should be directed.
Both addresses are live and maintained by TLT. Both were described in official letters as the only correct point of contact. This cannot be dismissed as clerical error. It represents a deliberate act of engineered ambiguity, one that undermines confidence in the profession and obstructs accountability.
The Evidence
15 August 2025 — First Instruction
From: mortgage.dispute@tlt.com
Subject: Instruction to use this address
Date: 15 August 2025
“Your letter of 15 August 2025 from mortgage.dispute@tlt.com requested sending all emails to mortgage.dispute@tlt.com.”
22 August 2025 — Second Instruction
From: complaint-officer@tlt.com
Subject: Instruction to use this address
Date: 22 August 2025
“Your letter of 22 August 2025 (from complaint-officer@tlt.com) instructed me to send all emails to mortgage.disputes@tlt.com.”
Response Sent to Both Addresses (22 August 2025)
From: info@propertycorruption.com
Subject: Site update
Date: Aug 22 2025, 1:12 pm
To: mortgage.dispute@tlt.com, mortgage.disputes@tlt.com
“The Editor’s Story has been updated:
https://propertycorruption.com/editors-story-june-19-2025/
Please also note: you appear to have given the wrong correspondence address. Your 15 Aug letter used mortgage.dispute@tlt.com (singular), while your 22 Aug letter referred to mortgage.disputes@tlt.com (plural). I’ve sent this email to both addresses to understand whether both are live.”
Bounce-Back Control Test
To confirm whether invalid TLT addresses generate bounce-backs, the following was sent:
From: info@propertycorruption.com
Subject: Check whether tlt uses bounce backs
Date: Aug 22 2025, 1:39 pm
To: Wrongemailaddresstest@tlt.com
Result:
“550 Invalid Recipient.”
This proves that TLT’s system does reject invalid addresses. The fact that both mortgage.dispute@tlt.com and mortgage.disputes@tlt.com accept mail demonstrates that both are deliberately maintained inboxes.
Why This Matters
- Contradiction in writing: TLT formally instructed two different “only valid” addresses in letters one week apart.
- Both live: Tests confirm both addresses are active, proving this is not a typographical slip.
- Engineered ambiguity: The setup enables TLT to argue, at any future point, that the wrong address was used.
- Professional misconduct: Under the SRA Principles, solicitors must act with integrity, maintain public trust, and avoid misleading others. This conduct undermines all three.
Possible Breaches of SRA Principles
Based on the evidence, TLT’s conduct may amount to breaches of:
- Principle 2: Act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession.
- Principle 4: Act with honesty.
- Principle 5: Act with integrity.
- Principle 7: Act in the best interests of each client.
Issuing contradictory instructions while maintaining both email addresses undermines trust, creates confusion, and risks prejudicing fair correspondence in regulated disputes.
Conclusion
We give TLT until the end of 26 August 2025 to provide their comment on this article. If no comment is received, the record will stand as published.
Note: As of 22 August 2025, TLT Risk & Compliance instructed staff to block or ignore communications and mis-stated our privacy policy. By doing so, they have lost their ability to validate or challenge articles such as this one. Their silence is not neutrality — it is complicity.
The record is now fixed. The evidence is undeniable. TLT must answer for it.
And the most chilling question of all: how many other residents have been tricked this way? Especially the elderly, the vulnerable, and those without the resources to detect the deception. For them, this tactic is not just obstruction — it is exploitation.
Jon Green TLT’s Director of Risk
UPDATE: Even more chilling, I sent this article to both email addresses: mortgage.dispute@tlt.com and mortgage.disputes@tlt.com but now mortgage.disputes@tlt.com bounces back. So they had it live then took it down after the 1.12pm emails. If this hadn’t been the case, there would have been two bounce backs.
UPDATE 2 (23/8/2025): Did TLT find a way out of this problem, force a bounce back to give two bounce backs and restore their 1.6 out of 5 trust pilot reputation? Somehow the bounce back test (see above) bounced back the same minute it was sent but their magic bounce back email took over 8 hours. It might almost be funny—if it weren’t tied to what appears to be a blatant cover-up of attempted murder.
From: Mail Delivery System MAILER-DAEMON@smtp-out.flockmail.com
Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
Date: Aug 22 2025, at 9:32 pm
To: info info@propertycorruption.com
———- Forwarded message ———
From: info@propertycorruption.com
Subject: Site update
Date: Aug 22 2025, at 1:12 pm
To: Mortgage.Dispute@TLT.com <mortgage.dispute@tlt.com>, mortgage.disputes@tlt.com
Update 3: To give TLT every opportunity to explain themselves — and to demonstrate, if this truly was a simple mistake, that nothing improper occurred — the following email has now been sent:
From: info@propertycorruption.com
Subject: Preservation and Disclosure of Email Metadata and Audit Logs – 22 August 2025
Date: Aug 23 2025, at 6:31 am
To: les.henderson@tlt.com
Cc: john.wood@tlt.com, helen.hodgkinson@tlt.com, mark.routley@tlt.com, rebecca.shalom@tlt.com, Mortgage.Dispute@TLT.com <mortgage.dispute@tlt.com>
Subject: Preservation and Disclosure of Email Metadata and Audit Logs – 22 August 2025
Dear TLT,
On 22 August 2025, I sent correspondence to both mortgage.dispute@tlt.com and mortgage.disputes@tlt.com at 13:12 BST from info@propertycorruption.com. Both addresses accepted mail at the time of sending. Later, at 21:32 BST, I received a 8 hour delayed bounce message in respect of one of those addresses.
Given the regulatory significance of this discrepancy, I require TLT to preserve and disclose the following, limited strictly (in the first instance) to 22 August 2025 (00:00–23:59 BST):
1. Message Acceptance and Routing
- Whether the 13:12 BST email was accepted by your MX servers for both
mortgage.dispute@tlt.comandmortgage.disputes@tlt.com. - The server hostnames/IP addresses, SMTP response codes, and timestamps of first acceptance.
- If accepted, the exact mailbox or alias object to which the message was deposited, and the timestamp of deposit.
2. Bounce / DSN Records
- The full Delivery Status Notification (DSN/NDN) generated at 21:32 BST, including:
- Creation timestamp.
- Final-Recipient, Action, Status, and Diagnostic-Code fields.
- All “Received” headers in the DSN.
- Confirmation of whether this DSN was generated automatically by your system at the time of delivery attempt, or later as a result of mailbox reconfiguration.
3. System Configuration and Changes
- The configuration status of both addresses (
mortgage.dispute@tlt.com,mortgage.disputes@tlt.com) at 13:00 BST and at 22:00 BST on 22 August:- Whether each address existed as a mailbox, alias, or forwarding rule.
- Any changes applied between those times (e.g. enable/disable, forwarding removed, alias deleted).
- The audit log entries recording those changes (e.g. in Microsoft 365 / Exchange Admin Center), including user ID, action, and timestamp.
4. Message Trace Exports
- A Message Trace export (CSV or equivalent) from your Microsoft 365 or Exchange system for messages sent to the two addresses between 12:00–22:00 BST on 22 August 2025. This should include:
- Message ID.
- Original client IP.
- Delivery status.
- Event timestamps.
- Routing details.
This request is narrow, specific, and proportionate to the evidence required to explore the question of whether one of your addresses was live and later disabled on 22 August 2025. There may be further requests related to this matter.
Please confirm receipt of this request by end of the 25 August and provide the requested metadata by end of the 28 August.
Yours faithfully,
Update 4:
Interesting behavior around not opening the above email (as at 23/8/2025 7.00pm)..
The above shows emails opened before and after the preservation request but no one opened the request.
Update 5: 7:41am no one has opened the preservation request email. To ensure more visibility, sent to:
From: info@propertycorruption.com
Subject: Fwd: Preservation and Disclosure of Email Metadata and Audit Logs – 22 August 2025
Date: Aug 23 2025, at 7:40 am
To: complaint-officer@tlt.com, GDPR@tlt.com, generalenquiries@tlt.com
Dear TLT Complaints and TLT GDPR Team and TLT General Enquiries team,
Please assist with the below request (see email below).
It’s related to:
Please acknowledge receipt of this email by end of August 25th.
Regards
(…and then the full preservation request email is below)
Update 6
9:17am: Read by all 3 addresses in the email in Update 5. Unfortunately , none of them acknowledged receipts. Instead another email address (that it wasn’t sent to – so it impacts audit trail) sent automated email (which also impacts audit trail and you can’t have automated receipt to email you didn’t send to, so it was probably created rather than real auto reply):
From: Risk and Compliance <RiskandCompliance@TLT.com>
Subject: Automatic reply: Preservation and Disclosure of Email Metadata and Audit Logs – 22 August 2025
Date: Aug 23 2025, at 8:19 am
To: info@propertycorruption.com
Thank you for your email. We have received your query and we will be in touch in the next 3 working days. This mailbox is monitored throughout the day and any urgent queries will be prioritised.
TLT. For what comes next.
… meaning while the original email is still unopened:
Update 7
From: info@propertycorruption.com
Subject: Request for Metadata on Risk & Compliance Autoreply – 23 August 2025
Date: Aug 23 2025, at 9:31 am
To: complaint-officer@tlt.com, GDPR@tlt.com <gdpr@tlt.com>, generalenquiries@tlt.com
Dear TLT,
On 23 August 2025 at 08:19 BST, I received an “automatic reply” from RiskandCompliance@tlt.com. My original emails eg 631am (to Les Henderson etc), 740am (to complaint-officer@tlt.com, GDPR@tlt.com, generalenquiries@tlt.com), were not addressed to this mailbox.
Please explain:
- By what mechanism an autoreply was generated from an address that was not in the recipient list.
- Whether this response was produced by an existing system rule or created after-the-fact.
- The audit log entries confirming how and when this autoreply was triggered.
- Are you going to acknowledge the 6:31am email not via wrong address auto reply?
Please confirm receipt by 25 August 2025 and provide the information by 28 August 2025.
Yours faithfully,
Update 8
Article live:
Preview: Non-Executive Directors and Oversight
Rebecca Shalom – TLT Solicitors
In September, PropertyCorruption.com will publish a feature on the role of Non-Executive Directors (NEDs). These positions carry important duties under the Companies Act 2006 — including the duty to exercise independent judgment (s173) and the duty of care, skill and diligence (s174).
As TLT’s only Non-Executive Director, Rebecca Shalom was copied into and read each update of the correspondence (about the Editors Story) documented here:
TLT’s Contradictory Email Addresses: A Case of Deliberate Obstruction
Given her independent role, Ms Shalom is uniquely placed to provide oversight of how these issues are being handled. Her perspective would add valuable clarity to a situation that raises significant questions of governance.
This publication is made in the public interest, to examine governance and oversight at senior levels. If you believe any part of the linked article above is factually inaccurate, please email corrections to info@propertycorruption.com and they will be considered for update.
Update 8
TLT Reply (with our comments added).
TLT Reply: here. Aug 27 2025.
Where they say: “We confirm receipt of your 2 emails which reference requests to data and will respond to these in line with our obligations under GDPR. ” – so they refuse all our detailed investigation requests.
Update 9
Earlier in this article we stated:
“Note: As of 22 August 2025, TLT Risk & Compliance instructed staff to block or ignore communications and mis-stated our privacy policy. By doing so, they have lost their ability to validate or challenge articles such as this one. Their silence is not neutrality — it is complicity.”
..on August 27 in their email they repeated their misunderstanding: “You must remove references to our staff from your website, in line with your privacy policy”