The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[exiledscouser]

In the UK that would be called "going equipped", that only applies to committing a burglary, theft or "cheat" (obtaining property by deception). For a generic tool (and not one specifically made or adapted for the event), such as a hammer, it's easy to cast doubt on unless there's other supporting evidence.

I understood there were a few other elements which would concur with your information. I heard of a situation years back where someone was arrested for several burglary and related offences, one of which was "going equipped" as he was found in possession of a screwdriver. Now, if several burglaries were done by someone prising windows open with a screwdriver or similar tool, and the possessor of said screwdriver has no legitimate reason for having one (let alone in this case being unlikely to be able to spell screwdriver) then you can make out a case for "going equipped". If you are a carpet fitter, being found with a hammer and a Stanley knife in your van isn't going to convince anyone that beyond reasonable doubt you are conspiring to commit burglary.
Edit to add : freaky jinx double post.

'Going equipped' isn't the issue here. If you were charged with (say) a conspiracy to commit criminal damage and you had in your possession - at the time of committing said damage or in order to enable you to do so - (say) a hammer then you would fall foul of S3(a) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/3

Possessing anything with intent to destroy or damage property.

A person who has anything in his custody or under his control intending without lawful excuse to use it or cause or permit another to use it—
(a)to destroy or damage any property belonging to some other person; or
(b)to destroy or damage his own or the user’s property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of some other person;shall be guilty of an offence.

As regards the yet to be resolved court case, well it's a side show really as it has had the effect of cooling off the knob-heads, imposing conditions on them to prevent re-occurrence and has served as a valuable demonstration to other supporters that the game is finally up. I'll bet the police couldn't really give a toss about the outcome as to their mind its job done finally and they can devote their resources to something more worthwhile.

What is a bit worrying is that some idiot is misusing their access to Land Registry and releasing compromising material. No doubt released with a view to inciting grief towards the prospective conveyancer and their client. There is a facility to monitor properties within the Land Registry but it isn't a feature that Joe Public would have ready access to.

Since Land Reg monitor access of this type the Crawford's informant is at risk of a tug under the Computer Misuse Act or at best a sacking for gross misconduct.

[YiamCross]

.....

What is a bit worrying is that some idiot is misusing their access to Land Registry and releasing compromising material. No doubt released with a view to inciting grief towards the prospective conveyancer and their client. There is a facility to monitor properties within the Land Registry but it isn't a feature that Joe Public would have ready access to.

Since Land Reg monitor access of this type the Crawford's informant is at risk of a tug under the Computer Misuse Act or at best a sacking for gross misconduct.

Would be terrible bad luck for them if they were daft enough to leave a customer reference which might identify them.

Customer reference: AJ/MC/STE00126 Nevins
Land Registry reference: T096KMN

Oops.

[NG3]

As regards the yet to be resolved court case, well it's a side show really as it has had the effect of cooling off the knob-heads, imposing conditions on them to prevent re-occurrence and has served as a valuable demonstration to other supporters that the game is finally up. I'll bet the police couldn't really give a toss about the outcome as to their mind its job done finally and they can devote their resources to something more worthwhile.

Which is why, had it been me (not that I'd have been stupid enough to get in that position in the first place) I'd have called my brief in, taken the most sensible route, and it would have been over for me by now.

Some people on the other hand...

What is a bit worrying is that some idiot is misusing their access to Land Registry and releasing compromising material. No doubt released with a view to inciting grief towards the prospective conveyancer and their client. There is a facility to monitor properties within the Land Registry but it isn't a feature that Joe Public would have ready access to.

Since Land Reg monitor access of this type the Crawford's informant is at risk of a tug under the Computer Misuse Act or at best a sacking for gross misconduct.

They do it to themselves...

Btw. For anyone, I assume no-contact bail conditions extend to social media?

[ArthurWankspittle]

Btw. For anyone, I assume no-contact bail conditions extend to social media?

I would assume they would too, which is why I'm trying to be careful about what is said on here unlike some Facebook groups.....

[ArthurWankspittle]

A person who has anything in his custody or under his control intending without lawful excuse to use it or cause or permit another to use it—
(a)to destroy or damage any property belonging to some other person;

Which rather leaves the decision about the possibility of lawful excuse in the hands of case law and the jury. Further, the excuse of thinking about considering doing some burglary, maybe, goes out of the window.

[Jeffrey]

Refresh my memory but weren't they citing the land registry as proof that Papa Crawford still owned the house?

[Bones]

Refresh my memory but weren't they citing the land registry as proof that Papa Crawford still owned the house?

Yes their argument is based on the title deeds for the property showing Tommy as the proprietor of the legal estate. Of course this argument only works when your completely ignore that he lost the court case and was evicted

Hint Tommy ask your legal team about the bank being in possession

[slowsmile]

Refresh my memory but weren't they citing the land registry as proof that Papa Crawford still owned the house?

Yes - as recently as yesterday O'Dearme was citing it in on his rogue male website.

http://roguemale.org/2015/08/11/notting ... ng-events/

[AndyPandy]

Refresh my memory but weren't they citing the land registry as proof that Papa Crawford still owned the house?

Yes - as recently as yesterday O'Dearme was citing it in on his rogue male website.

http://roguemale.org/2015/08/11/notting ... ng-events/

I have to admire anyone brave enough to wade through that drivel !

[YiamCross]

These are the kind of people the Crawfords encourage.

Doin Tym
4 hrs
just a quickie....a friend has tv licence summons in her name, should she attend court and deny owning a working tv or ignore it???
Like Comment

Andrew Peppin ... short answer is yes, attend the hearing ... otherwise they will fine you in your absence ... and the fine will not take into account any vulnerability, employment etc (means tested fine). Join the BBB group for more assistance: https://www.facebook.com/groups/beatthe ... dthebanks/
4 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

Andrew Peppin ... the longer answer is to call TV Licence legal team ... and offer to pay the full licence (plus a £15 admin fee) ... and see if they will drop the case. Then you could wait for 6 months to pass by ... cancel the licence ... and get a refund.
3 hrs · Edited · Like

Andrew Peppin ... the even long

So far no one has thought to ask whether the friend has a TV, they all assume the answer would be yes and all they want to do is get out of paying their dues.

Plus ce change.

[ArthurWankspittle]

So far no one has thought to ask whether the friend has a TV...

Establishing facts would be a precedent they don't want to start making.

[guilty]

Refresh my memory but weren't they citing the land registry as proof that Papa Crawford still owned the house?

And any attempt to claim that Tom Crawford "gave his permission" will create 'Joinder' for Tom to be charged with conspiracy, too.

[Bungle]

Look at the "winners" and "losers":
B&B owed £45k plus interest, charges and insurance for 2 years £5k? legal costs £20k?
Plus security costs £20k
Plus removals and storage, bits and pieces, £5k?

Tom and Sue's house sold for what? £55k-£60k?

We don't know if Sue's mum made a will nor do we know how many siblings she has who may also inherit. Big assumptions but let's say Sue is the only offspring but mum didn't make a will. Say mum's house is worth £100k-£120k.

So, final account from B&B/ARUK says Tom and Sue owe them £40k. They can force the sale of the house and or petition for bankruptcy for both of them.
Forced sale of Sue's mum's house at £100k, minus some expenses, Tom and Sue come out with £55k-£60k.

A really good mate of mine has a security business and we were talking a few days ago about the security costs for the 'Crawford' property and it would seem that the actual costs would be closer to the following:

There was supposedly between 6 and 10 men there at any one time and a few dog teams. Security like this usually charge out at around £15 per hour. The dog teams would be something like £25 an hour. Given that they were there for approx 32 days you could be looking at well over £100k for that alone.

Average 8 security at £15 per hour is £2880 per day. 32 days is £92,160

Say 2 dog teams at £25 per hour is £1200 per day. 32 days is £38,400

CCTV costs? I’ve no idea but it must be £2000 for hire, fitment and all the recording etc.

That alone is £132,560 and that doesn’t include any subsistence etc.

Then there is the other costs of the initial Cooksons removal and storage. The clean-up contractors and their storage. The delivery back to the Crawfords.

This is potentially a £150,000 plus job.

Then add the £44,000 still owed to B&B and the Crawfords could be looking at a bill of well over £200,000. I haven’t even added in the legal costs which will clearly be huge given the pointless arguments the Crawford dragged them through.

They Crawford family could well be looking at a final bill of around £250,000!!

I do hope Ma Crawford’s property is worth enough to cover it! Or maybe the ‘Nottingham’ 6 can chip in.

[NYGman]

And I think that accounting was what the Crawfords really wanted the bank to do before they took the house, so that the bank would "realize" it would have to shell out much more than they would ever recover through an eviction and fire sale. I think Tom really thought the more this will cost them, the less likely they are to try to take his house. After all, Spending 150k in protecting a house that owes you 45k makes no business sense. It is like the 3 letter ploy, while it has no basis in law, debt companies will sometimes take the letter as a sign that this will be uncollectable and write it off. While a debt company can afford to write off some debts, a bank mortgage is a whole other story. I doubt any bank would want to set a precedent and write off Tom's loan, because it will actually cost them more to enforce, as with his notoriety, it would send the completely wrong signals to the Wackadoodle community, and more people will try to mimic Tom's success.

Unfortunately for Tom, the bank or actually the government in this case, has deep pockets, and Tom has just caused them to spend way more, of what ultimately is the taxpayers money. I doubt the Crawford clan will ever have sufficient assets to repay the full debt and expenses from this. This was an exercise in ego, by Tom, and in this game of chicken, the bank won, (Sorry Betty)

[littleFred]

They Crawford family could well be looking at a final bill of around £250,000!!

From that sum, we should deduct whatever the house sells/sold for (less selling expenses).

A couple of years ago, he had about £80k equity. Not a great position to be in, but not bad either. If he ends up £200k in the red, it will have been a remarkably expensive couple of years.

[wanglepin]

A couple of years ago, he had about £80k equity. Not a great position to be in, but not bad either. If he ends up £200k in the red, it will have been a remarkably expensive couple of years.

Crawford has still got , O'Berkacia, and Eberk and that berk Guy Taylor to defend him against any claims for money owed against him. And now Mark Haining Ceylon has had some experience in actualy 'working ' with courts , I am sure he would be able to add some invalid assistance given the vast wealth of a few days experience he's had cowering from the judge.
What a team.

[Bungle]

They Crawford family could well be looking at a final bill of around £250,000!!

From that sum, we should deduct whatever the house sells/sold for (less selling expenses).

A couple of years ago, he had about £80k equity. Not a great position to be in, but not bad either. If he ends up £200k in the red, it will have been a remarkably expensive couple of years.

We must not loose sight of the fact that whatever the eventual cost, it is entirely the fault of Tom Crawford, his daughter; Amanda Pike and the son, Craig. It is these three who have been whipping up the momentum which ultimately led to the entire trashing of the property.

However, unlike, O'Berk, Eberk and Guy Taylor, the Crawford's appear to have another property/or share in another property (Sue's mothers house) and I would expect that any value in this asset is at serious risk.

[littleFred]

Tom is trying to emulate one of his advisers, Michael O'Dearme. Why get thrown out of one house when you can get thrown out of two?

[AndyPandy]

They Crawford family could well be looking at a final bill of around £250,000!!

From that sum, we should deduct whatever the house sells/sold for (less selling expenses).

A couple of years ago, he had about £80k equity. Not a great position to be in, but not bad either. If he ends up £200k in the red, it will have been a remarkably expensive couple of years.

We must not loose sight of the fact that whatever the eventual cost, it is entirely the fault of Tom Crawford, his daughter; Amanda Pike and the son, Craig. It is these three who have been whipping up the momentum which ultimately led to the entire trashing of the property.

However, unlike, O'Berk, Eberk and Guy Taylor, the Crawford's appear to have another property/or share in another property (Sue's mothers house) and I would expect that any value in this asset is at serious risk.

A fine (GOODF) example of how to turn a bad situation into an unmitigated disaster, without ever taking personal responsibility for the idiotic decisions make !

[Skeleton]

I know the tax payer foots the bill for the Police operation, but forgive the stupid question is it normal for the evicted owner to foot the bill for any security after he has been evicted? Not defending him far from it, just want to be sure before i crow a little more.