Exposed: Security Trustee Arrangements in William Jackson Loan Note Companies Show Concerning Weaknesses

Loan note holders often invest believing a security trustee will safeguard their position, an independent party holding security over assets and stepping in if the issuer defaults. On paper, this offers protection. In reality, when trustees fail to act, that safeguard collapses.

This question lies at the heart of the investment networks connected to William (Billy) Jackson. The man behind Platinum Assets & Developments, Genesis One, Southbrook Gas, Northumberland Living and now WH2022 Ltd trading as Aventurine Climate/Verdant Global.

Castle Trust & Management Services Ltd: Repeated Failures to Protect Investors

In Jackson’s earlier ventures, such as Platinum Assets & Developments Ltd, the trustee role was filled by Castle Trust & Management Services Ltd (CTMS). According to creditor accounts and public filings, CTMS took no effective enforcement steps when defaults occurred. Even as interest payments stopped, redemption dates passed, and investor communications ceased.

Castle Trust & Management Services Ltd, now in liquidation, also acted as trustee in other collapsed schemes, including High Street GRP, Ridgemere Developments, and The 79th Group. In each case, creditors saw no meaningful intervention. This inaction allowed failing schemes to continue far beyond the point of default, often deepening losses for loan note holders.

As Insolvency & Law has previously observed:
“CTMS acted as security trustee in multiple failed schemes where loan note holders were misled. Its collapse marks the end of a long, disastrous trail of failed investor protections.”

For loan note holders, the message is stark. A security trustee’s name on a brochure is no guarantee of action when things go wrong. If the pattern seen with CTMS repeats in William Jackson’s current ventures, investors could be facing the same cycle of delay, inaction, and irreversible loss. The question is no longer whether safeguards exist, it’s whether they will ever be used.

Enter Alpha Trustee Services Ltd: Same Playbook, New Branding?

With CTMS gone, William Jackson’s latest ventures have been replaced with Alpha Trustee Services Ltd. Operated by Mark Kidd and formerly Tony Insall, Alpha’s appointment suggests more than just a change of name. It points to a continuation of the same network of relationships that have surrounded several loan note schemes.

Mark Kidd is ex-High Street GRP, a company name synonymous with catastrophic loan note holder losses and prolonged silence when accountability was needed most. He is not a solicitor, not FCA-regulated, and his history includes direct links to one of the most infamous loan note collapses of the past five years.

Kidd’s partner, Sonali Craddock, has also been a shareholder of Alpha Trustee Services. According to press releases, Sonali held various marketing roles within High Street Group before becoming Marketing Director for Billy Jackson’s Platinum companies. More recently, she appears to be connected with Ashbrookes Group, where she is listed as the Property & Marketing Specialist and witnesses loan note deeds under the title of Managing Director. 

Alongside Kidd, Alpha Trustee Services was also operated by Tony Insall. According to Companies House, Insall previously held a directorial role in Alpha. Placing him in a position of influence over how loan note holders’ funds were supposedly protected.

Insall’s background raises serious questions about oversight. In November 2023, The Northern Echo reported that he received a suspended prison sentence after pleading guilty to possessing indecent images of children. Despite this criminal conviction, he had previously been entrusted with oversight of complex financial products. Acting in a fiduciary role meant to safeguard the interests of thousands of retail loan note holders.

Red Flags:

• Trustee not FCA-regulated
• Direct links to prior high-profile loan note collapses
• Past leadership involving a director with a serious criminal conviction

For loan note holders, the concern is simple: if those tasked with protecting your funds do not inspire confidence, can you rely on the safeguard at all? In the next section, we examine whether Alpha Trustee Services has taken any visible steps to enforce security on behalf of loan note holders, and whether history is already repeating itself.

Alpha Trustee Services: The Promise vs. the Practice

Security trustees in unregulated investment schemes are marketed as the safety net, the independent party holding valuable assets “in trust” for loan note holders, ready to enforce if an issuer defaults. On its website, Alpha Trustee Services Ltd makes confident promises of robust protection, independent oversight, and acting in loan note holders’ best interests.

But the Companies House filings for Alpha’s charges, including those relating to WH2022 Ltd (linked to Billy Jackson’s Northumberland Living Alnwick care home project and Aventurine Climate), tell a different story.

The Marketing vs. The Reality

“We work with lenders to ensure that security interests are correctly created and registered… We monitor these securities and provide reports upon request.”

In reality: The WH2022 Ltd charges cover just one leasehold property (a gas peaking facility in Sudbrook, Caldicot) and a floating charge over the company’s undertaking. There is no public evidence of detailed monitoring, independent valuations, or routine reporting to loan note holders.

“We specialise in security enforcement… to efficiently manage and enforce security interests.”

In reality: The charge documents do not specify clear enforcement triggers or timelines. All decisions are at Alpha’s discretion, leaving loan note holders reliant on the trustee’s willingness to act.

“We act as an independent third-party trustee… ensuring that the borrowers comply with their obligations.”

In reality: The filings show no evidence of structured compliance checks or monitoring mechanisms to ensure borrower obligations are met.

“The Trustee plays a critical role by ensuring that the financial instrument is issued and managed in complete compliance with the loan agreement.”

In reality: The charges indicate narrow asset coverage and no visible steps to confirm compliance beyond the initial paperwork.

““The security trustee assists in the correct administration of security by conducting audits and providing reports to the lender on the status and provision of security.”

In reality: No such audit obligations are visible in the filings. Without a contractual requirement to audit and report, this assurance risks being just marketing language.

The Core Issue

The gap between Alpha’s claims and what appears in official filings should concern any loan note holder. If the trustee’s powers and actions are discretionary, asset coverage is minimal, and there is no evidence of proactive enforcement, the “safety net” may be little more than a legal formality.

The Gap Between Promise and Reality

Alpha Trustee Services markets itself as an active, expert, and independent guardian of investor security. But the WH2022 Ltd filings at Companies House tell another story. Instead of a robust safety net, the documents reveal:

• Narrow asset coverage- in one case, a single leasehold property
• Vague enforcement provisions with no clear triggers
• No built-in audit or reporting requirements
• Complete reliance on Alpha’s own discretion to act

For loan note holders, that gap is critical. When a borrower defaults, the value of “security” is only as strong as the trustee’s willingness to use it.

Why This Matters

The strength of any security arrangement comes down to three things:

1. The quality and value of the assets under charge
2. Clear and enforceable rights written into the legal documents
3. The trustee’s readiness to act promptly when terms are breached

If the assets are thin and the enforcement terms imprecise, even a trustee with the best intentions will struggle to deliver meaningful protection.

A Case in Point: Ashbrookes Group Loan Notes

Alpha also acts as Security Trustee for loan note products issued by Ashbrookes Group Limited. As detailed in our separate blog here a former client was introduced to these products by convicted fraudster James Baird of New Capital Link. The same introducing company linked to  Rachel Buscall. Over the last year, we have had complaints from loan note holders about reported missed payments from Ashbrookes.

The charge document for Ashbrookes is structurally similar to that of WH2022 Ltd: broad floating charges and negative pledges. However, no embedded provisions for monitoring, valuation, or proactive enforcement.

This structural weakness leaves loan note holders exposed. Despite payment defaults being reported, there is no public evidence of Alpha taking enforcement action. For investors, this isn’t just a historic concern, it’s a reminder that unless the underlying security arrangements are stronger and more transparent, the same vulnerabilities can surface in any future scheme where Alpha holds the trustee role.

Loan Note Holders: Key Takeaways

On the surface, a registered charge and the appointment of a security trustee may look like a solid safety net. But the reality in William Jackson–linked schemes shows how easily that net can have holes.

Before you invest, or if you’re already invested, you should:

• Read the actual charge documents, not just the trustee’s marketing claims
• Identify exactly which assets are secured, and whether they realistically match or exceed the value of your investment
• Investigate the trustee’s track record, have they acted quickly in past defaults, or stood by while deadlines were missed?

Ask yourself:

• If the issuer defaulted today, what is the real value of the security?
• Are the enforcement powers clearly defined and ready to use, or hidden in vague legal wording?
• Has the trustee ever fought for loan note holders in practice, or are they just a name on the paperwork?

Why This Matters Now

In high-risk, unregulated loan note investments, a security trustee is supposed to be your final line of defence. But Insolvency & Law continues to receive reports from loan note holders in William Jackson–linked schemes who are left chasing overdue payments while their trustees remain silent.

A security trustee that will not act when needed is no safeguard at all. It is an unlocked door in a storm. Do not mistake the appearance of protection for reality. Weak assets, vague enforcement powers, or an inactive trustee can leave you exposed when it matters most.

Disclaimer:

Logos used in this post are for identification and commentary purposes only. Insolvency & Law Ltd is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of any company named. Use is permitted under fair dealing provisions for reporting, criticism, and matters of public interest.

Disclaimer: Insolvency & Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors or licensed insolvency practitioners and does not provide legal advice, investment advice, or any regulated services under the Legal Services Act 2007 or the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. All content published by I&L relating to William Jackson related companies, including blogs and podcasts, is provided free of charge for general information and educational purposes only and must not be relied upon as professional advice.

Where appropriate, I&L may take legal assignment of loan notes issued by William Jackson related companies in its own name, for the purpose of enforcement and recovery. In such cases, I&L bears all associated costs and risks, and the original Loan Note Holders are fully insulated from legal expense and liability.