Random Freemanesque Babblings II: Back to the Futile

[hucknallred]

Isn't this the Crawford gambit?

They had an endowment policy in place that would be the repayment vehicle, but Mrs. C cancelled it very early on.

[aesmith]

Isn't this the Crawford gambit?

They had an endowment policy in place that would be the repayment vehicle, but Mrs. C cancelled it very early on.

Specifically they stopped paying the interest when their mortgage reached the end of it's term.

11. On 31st August 2013 the twenty-five year mortgage term expired. However Bradford &
Bingley maintained that the mortgage loan was still outstanding to the tune of £45,000 or so.
On 27th September 2013 Mr Crawford applied to remove the charge from his property on the
basis that it had been applied illegally. He also ceased making further monthly mortgage
payments. The application to remove the charge was struck out as an abuse of process.

12. Having ceased making monthly mortgage payments, Mr and Mrs Crawford put themselves in
breach of the terms of the suspension of the original possession order made on 19th
September 2012. Bradford & Bingley sought to enforce the possession order by obtaining a
warrant for possession.

[mufc1959]

Yes, but you have to remember that the banks don't lend any real money. The "money" is created out of thin air when you sign the mortgage documents. Therefore, there is nothing to repay.

And if the mortgage is securitised, then they've been paid twice - once from your signature and once from the buyer of the mortgage book. Oh, and they claim on their indemnity insurance as well, and so they're paid three times! How could we have been so blind??!!

[Albert Haddock]

Isn't this the Crawford gambit?

They had an endowment policy in place that would be the repayment vehicle, but Mrs. C cancelled it very early on.

Specifically they stopped paying the interest when their mortgage reached the end of it's term.

11. On 31st August 2013 the twenty-five year mortgage term expired. However Bradford &
Bingley maintained that the mortgage loan was still outstanding to the tune of £45,000 or so.
On 27th September 2013 Mr Crawford applied to remove the charge from his property on the
basis that it had been applied illegally. He also ceased making further monthly mortgage
payments. The application to remove the charge was struck out as an abuse of process.

12. Having ceased making monthly mortgage payments, Mr and Mrs Crawford put themselves in
breach of the terms of the suspension of the original possession order made on 19th
September 2012. Bradford & Bingley sought to enforce the possession order by obtaining a
warrant for possession.

I thought that the basic problem was that they had stopped paying the endowment policy, so that when the mortgage became due there was nothing to pay it with?

[mufc1959]

I thought that the basic problem was that they had stopped paying the endowment policy, so that when the mortgage became due there was nothing to pay it with?

That was the initial issue, that the endowment had been cancelled by Mrs C about a year after the mortgage had been taken out, so when the mortgage reached the end of its term, there was no repayment vehicle. The Crawfords, being thick as mince, over the years somehow tricked themselves into thinking that the interest they'd been paying was enough to pay off the mortgage.

So that was their initial stance, that they thought they'd paid it off. But then they fell down the FOTL rabbit hole (easy to do in Nottingham) and after that they fully embraced the 'void' mortgage fallacy which they raised as their defence in court.

Here's the thread discussing the judgement. viewtopic.php?t=10829

[AnOwlCalledSage]

A new article on Iain Clifford Stamp

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/06/08/mat ... le/?a=1%2F

[Hercule Parrot]

That was the initial issue, that the endowment had been cancelled by Mrs C about a year after the mortgage had been taken out, so when the mortgage reached the end of its term, there was no repayment vehicle. The Crawfords, being thick as mince, over the years somehow tricked themselves into thinking that the interest they'd been paying was enough to pay off the mortgage.

So that was their initial stance, that they thought they'd paid it off. But then they fell down the FOTL rabbit hole (easy to do in Nottingham) and after that they fully embraced the 'void' mortgage fallacy which they raised as their defence in court.

Here's the thread discussing the judgement. viewtopic.php?t=10829

Crikey, how ten years flies by. Tom Crawford was the perfect storm of belligerence, greed and stupidity. He cancelled the endowment policy which was set up to pay off the capital borrowed, then he refused B&B's offer to convert the mortgage to a repayment one. And then when they asked for the loan to be repaid at the end of the mortgage, he acted like he was the victim. Such happy times. I often think of Betty, and hope she's living her best life, far away under witness protection.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Normally straight forward anti-vaxx stuff doesn't qualify for a post here, but this probably tipped it in favour of posting...

Dr McCloskey accused court officials of "fraud" by entering a plea of not guilty for her in relation to the original offences.

The defendant went on to say she had been arrested on the foot of "a fake entity" - namely the Director of Public Prosecution who she said did "not exist in law or statute".

As the defendant continued to speak, Judge McElholm muted her microphone and said she was talking "nonsense".

He said he had never met the DPP personally but was pretty sure he existed.

The judge said he had given Dr McCloskey an opportunity but she had gone off on "a diatribe".

Note: She is a GP.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn446pd25m8o