The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[Pox]

I know Sue stated in the past that they have inherited their mums house so i wonder if they have paid inheritance tax on the estate(depending on if the estate is worth more than £325,000).

Regarding the potential for a charge on the inherited house is this something that UKAR could definitely do or would they have to bill the Crawford's and then go down the debt collection route being as the shortfall will be added costs(security ect) and not the original owed amount.

Regarding IHT, the tax man always has the first bite of the cherry - probate won't be granted until they have had their bit.
If Sue's parents were still together at the time of her father's death both allowances of £325k are added together giving a total IHT relief of £650k.

For some reason(?) I doubt if the estate would be worth that much and doubt if it is worth the £325k that would attract IHT if Sue's mum was worth that when she died (if she was regarded as a single entity at the time).

Even then IHT is 40 percent of estate over £325k or £650k (after allowable deductions) so any IHT bill is very unlikely IMO.

[Colin123]

The latest offering


Tom Crawford‎Eviction the fraud of the bank
1 hr ·
Hi All
I am still curious about the selling on of property gained from Unlawful evictions however lets assume for the purpose of this debate that the party that has acquired our home is innocent in all this and unaware they have purchased a stolen property and as we like to carry out our business lawfully and leaving out the possibility that it may be some scumbag indirectly that we know and that has been known to happen to others before, and apart from the Bankster's and the legal advisor's etc and the auctioneers who else do you think may profit (ie) If a company/firm runs a competition arn't the terms and conditions such that an employee or family member/s are not allowed to enter that competition due to conflict of interests etc, so what regulations are there set in place to cover this black hole to protect folks from these profit makers working within individual companies ? And would someone who was involved work wise or other in the eviction process be necessarily sympathetic with someone who is or have had their home stolen unlawfully ?
Tom
Like Comment
7 people like this.

Michelle Hall Was Mooney Where I work friends and family can't enter any comps
1 hr · Like · 1

Michelle Hall Was Mooney Bless you Tom xx
1 hr · Like · 2

Nona Noigel I get the feeling that the dots have indeed been connected.
1 hr · Like · 3

Colin Baker Tom, The Police operation probably cost more than they got for your house. What is going on?
1 hr · Like · 2

Bambos Charalambous you need to listen to this

http://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/less-legal-torture

Less 'legal torture' and more happiness in leasehold, says Sir Peter Bottomley -...
LEASEHOLDKNOWLEDGE.COM|BY ADMIN
1 hr · Like

Sue Freeman You mean... da da daaa: the theft of by Baaliffs (spelling intended); aiding & abetting of the theft of by police & handling of your stolen home by avaricious agents is yet another "inside job"? Tragically I would have to say that it appears this is *business as usual* for a system "gone rogue" ie the criminals are in charge & honesty; truth & justice are to be stamped on at every opportunity.
1 hr · Like · 4

Amanda Pike all i know is that the person buying it should have done all the necessary checks and it is infact his solicitor and the people who sold it who they would have to take it up with. id litrally have no sympathy a simply google of the address would bring up all they need to know and who doesn't use the Internet when checking property out so i do not think for one solitary second that it is an innocent party! not to mention it being sold and exhanged within 29 days!
48 mins · Like · 3

Claire Booker I agree with Amanda Pike it was way too publicised for anyone not to know. I can only summise it ain't what you know but who you know as it is at government level due to UKAR been involved it's bound to be a bent sale. I would have spys out to see if there were any comings and goings to the property. Checking to see if any social housing contracters go in to do any work. Most buy to let buyers have advertisements on their vehicles. Something will give you a big clue at some point if it hasn't already x
9 mins · Like

[ArthurWankspittle]

I have for a long time seriously doubted Tom's literacy and that post supports my theory. It reads like a chav selling something on Ebay or Gumtree.
Regarding Sue's Mum's House (henceforth SMH) we would need to know a whole lot of things before we can see how this could work out, e.g.
Was mum married?
Value of house?
Significant debts or assets?
Will or no will?
Beneficiaries or relatives?

[letissier14]

Latest bizarre ramblings on EFOTB

Rachel Beynon Davies Kept it cheap as they can't abide the thought of actually returning monies to Tom towards fighting against them. I myself initially thought I would make them eat their words and return it to "land sale" by burning the bungalow down, hence another reason they stripped it whilst still up. The bulldozers will be in next, so by even doing this it'd be seen as a favour on their part. Sad to say!
2 hrs · Like

Rob Metcalfe Mark is totally right, by standing up to state owned bank UKAR we are classed as a threat to the UK Economy as that bank earned the government 6.8BILLION last year.
If we were fighting a private bank the situation would have been outed as an enormous scandal long ago.
1 hr · Like · 1

Colin Baker Most of us will be dead in the next 5-10 years, Agenda 21, New World order. They don't care.
1 hr · Like · 1

Stella Ridgway Sealed bids are received, then opened on closing date - usually cash sales, or you have a mortgage to go on a given date. Preferred method by buy to let landlords
18 mins · Like

[YiamCross]

Marshmallows. Check.
Toasting fork. Check.

Okay, I'm ready.

[PeanutGallery]

From what Tom is saying it suggests to me that he's already gotten the final bill, or at least some part of the accounting. Certainly he's been told how much the cabin went for, as he is now complaining that it was not enough (it was a very low price, but as others have pointed out both before, during and after the sale it was always going to be a low ball offer because of what Tom and co had been doing).

Of course they don't see how their 'help' caused 'harm' they don't want to think that they are part of the problem and that they have done a lot more damage to the Crawford family than UKAR had achieved. In fact I doubt that UKAR wanted to cause harm to the Crawfords at all, quite often banks will try to avoid eviction and will only take action as a last resort. I doubt they wanted Tom to lose his equity and do not think that they wanted to incur the additional costs related to the eviction.

In regard to Tom's posting, Tom knows the bank had to achieve the best price, however he won't accept that his 'help' drove that price down, he will argue that the property should have sold for somewhere around the £140-150k mark (which I think would be roughly in line with it's market value today). Tom could have achieved that price if he had decided to market the property before the bank got an eviction order and would have incurred much lower costs. If the bank had gotten a plain and simple eviction and then auctioned the property (as is the norm) I would guesstimate (based on a cursory analysis of Savill's auction house sales figures for the Nottingham area it achieving between £110-125k - the reserve would likely be placed lower and if unsold at auction I'd suggest an offer of £95k would be enough to turn UKAR's head).

But what Tom did was to make the property notorious. They couldn't have open days, this lowers the price of a property considerably. It puts off a lot of potential buyers (those looking for a house or a single investment property as they are being asked to risk a very large amount of money on something sight unseen). The pictures that were taken weren't the best for marketing the property, it showed security fencing, that would have put other buyers off. These two factors, both of which would have considerably lowered the price was a reasonable reaction to the Crawfords antics, in fact they were both proven to have been justified because, as we know, protesters supporting the Crawfords occupied the roof of the bungalow for a period of time. Had the security not been their it is likely the occupation would have been longer or that other protests (or even Tom himself) would have further hampered the property's sale.

The point is that Tom was his own worst enemy, his actions sabotaged the sale of his property and now he seems to be turning around and complaining that because he (and his friends) sabotaged the banks attempt to sell his house, that the price they got when they did sell it was below market value. The reason it was below market value Tom was because of you. Developers monitor a number of sources for information about property that may be considered a bargain. They also have good relationships with agents and auction houses who might give them an idea of what would be considered an acceptable offer. It's not done under the table, because it doesn't need to be under the table, it's open and above board (admittedly getting to the table to be involved in the deal can involve a few hoops but it's not impossible).

Tom is looking for a conspiracy and the truth about conspiracies is that most of them only exist in theory.

Here is a thought however, let us speculate that Sue (and Tom) were the sole inheritors of Sue's late mother's estate, let us further assume that UKAR plan to come after Tom (and Sue) for the additional costs due to Tom trying to avoid eviction from Fearn Chase, if UKAR bring a bankruptcy petition against Tom (and Sue) then this could force the Crawfords to again be evicted from another property, if this happens will we see the same mob's on the street, have the same shenanigans involving re-roofing the property.

[Jeffrey]

So Amanda Pike says:

all i know is that the person buying it should have done all the necessary checks and it is infact his solicitor and the people who sold it who they would have to take it up with. id litrally have no sympathy a simply google of the address would bring up all they need to know

Which hm, let's edit it slightly:

all i know is that TOM should have done all the necessary checks ON THE STATUS OF HIS MORTGAGEand it is infact GUY TAYLOR AND EBERT who they would have to take it up with. id literally have no sympathy a simple google search FOR THE DEFINITION OF ENDOWMENT MORTGAGE would bring up all they need to know

[Bungle]

I just made the following post on Ceylon's thread. Enjoy!!

I thought that I would just have a little peep before bedtime on the Cause List for the Royal Courts of Justice for hearings for tomorrow and I see that the Gillard v Haining case is indeed listed to be heard in Court 37 after 2pm. But what a small world.....look at who just so happens to be in the same court, on the same day, and before the same Judge.


INTERIM APPLICATIONS COURT
COURT 37
Before MR JUSTICE PHILLIPS
Thursday, 3rd September 2015
At 10 o’clock
UNROBED
APPLICATIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Not before half past 10
APPLICATION NOTICES
IHQ/15/0503 Crawford v Bradford & Bingley Plc
IHQ/15/0521 Same v Same

Not before half past 11
APPLICATION NOTICE
IHQ/15/0515 Utopia Food Ltd v Bakers Food & Allied Workers Union

At 2 o’clock
APPLICATIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Not before 2 o’clock
APPLICATION NOTICE
IHQ/15/0507 Gillard v Haining

[NG3]

IHQ/15/0503 Crawford v Bradford & Bingley Plc

Shouldn't it be UKAR?

Bradford & Bingley is no more and Santander has the rights to the name and they had nothing to do with Tom's house.

[Skeleton]

Marshmallows. Check.
Toasting fork. Check.

Okay, I'm ready.

Grabs popcorn.

This has another Crawford train wreck written all over it.

Tom and Amanda are already sailing dangerously close to the wind with their remarks about the new owners, they carry this on I can see them back in court and it will not be through personal choice.

[Footloose52]

It, in my mind, begs the question of how Tom, if he is as badly off as some make out, funding all this. Is it his 'multi-millionaire' son Craig (by the way the registration on the car in his facebook header is false or 'doctored') bankrolling him.

[AndyPandy]

It, in my mind, begs the question of how Tom, if he is as badly off as some make out, funding all this. Is it his 'multi-millionaire' son Craig (by the way the registration on the car in his facebook header is false or 'doctored') bankrolling him.

You can get a fee exemption for Court fees if on low income or benefits.

[Normal Wisdom]

IHQ/15/0503 Crawford v Bradford & Bingley Plc

Shouldn't it be UKAR?

Bradford & Bingley is no more and Santander has the rights to the name and they had nothing to do with Tom's house.

UKAR is the holding company established by the government to manage the rump businesses of Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock (NRAM). However, both organisations are still legal entities and so Tom's action (such as it is) will still be against B&B.

[Bungle]

It, in my mind, begs the question of how Tom, if he is as badly off as some make out, funding all this. Is it his 'multi-millionaire' son Craig (by the way the registration on the car in his facebook header is false or 'doctored') bankrolling him.

If he is short of a few pennies he could cut the cost of the long journey from Nottingham into London by having a 'car share' with his mates Gillard or Ceylon. With both hearings before the same Judge they can also share the same 'conspiracy' theories on the homeward journey.

Both hearings are open to the public at the RCJ and if I had known sooner, I would have travelled to the court. Could be good entertainment.

[Skeleton]

Apologies if this has been covered but why is Tom in court this time?

[AndyPandy]

Apologies if this has been covered but why is Tom in court this time?

He's kept it quiet, (Bungle found it last night looking up Gilliards case) looks like he's made two Without Notice applications, probably injunctions, against B&B.

[Skeleton]

Apologies if this has been covered but why is Tom in court this time?

He's kept it quiet, (Bungle found it last night looking up Gilliards case) looks like he's made two Without Notice applications, probably injunctions, against B&B.

Cheers for the info, looks like i am going to need a bigger bag of popcorn.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Here is a thought however, let us speculate that Sue (and Tom) were the sole inheritors of Sue's late mother's estate, let us further assume that UKAR plan to come after Tom (and Sue) for the additional costs due to Tom trying to avoid eviction from Fearn Chase, if UKAR bring a bankruptcy petition against Tom (and Sue) then this could force the Crawfords to again be evicted from another property, if this happens will we see the same mob's on the street, have the same shenanigans involving re-roofing the property.

This in my mind is the short odds possibility.
I'll just make one other point. I don't think the Crawfords place would ever be worth £140k-£150k, those are the 3 bed bungalows in the street. Plus Tom's place was dated and allegedly had not got full central heating. I'd put the normal market value at £115k-£125k, with an auction figure around £100k.

[Skeleton]

Here is a thought however, let us speculate that Sue (and Tom) were the sole inheritors of Sue's late mother's estate, let us further assume that UKAR plan to come after Tom (and Sue) for the additional costs due to Tom trying to avoid eviction from Fearn Chase, if UKAR bring a bankruptcy petition against Tom (and Sue) then this could force the Crawfords to again be evicted from another property, if this happens will we see the same mob's on the street, have the same shenanigans involving re-roofing the property.

This in my mind is the short odds possibility.
I'll just make one other point. I don't think the Crawfords place would ever be worth £140k-£150k, those are the 3 bed bungalows in the street. Plus Tom's place was dated and allegedly had not got full central heating. I'd put the normal market value at £115k-£125k, with an auction figure around £100k.

UKAR would seriously consider evicting them from another property? Wow, I am going to need a lorry load of popcorn!

[bagman]

Apologies if this has been covered but why is Tom in court this time?

He is dropping off his application form for the positions of "court jester" HE HAS BROUGHT SO MUCH LAUGHTER TO THE QUATLOOS PAGES,,,,he wants to go full-time.