The Crawfords Keep Looking For A Unicorn

[Hercule Parrot]

The developers made a tidy sum on that place

Sales history , Sold prices provided by Land Registry
Jun 2017 Sold £174,500
Nov 2015 Sold £93,500
Jul 2015 Sold £55,000

Tom will be kicking himself. And rightly so.

Wow, that's pretty stark - £119,500 gain. Assume they spent £30k on refurbishment, so £90,000 profit to the developers. TC could probably have sold the house himself in early 2015, paid off the £50k mortgage and walked away with £90,000.

And this is why he'll never give up the heroic victim routine. Because to admit the utter folly of his own vain stupidity would be too painful to bear, and so he must deny, deny, deny that realisation.

[YiamCross]

The developers made a tidy sum on that place

Sales history , Sold prices provided by Land Registry
Jun 2017 Sold £174,500
Nov 2015 Sold £93,500
Jul 2015 Sold £55,000

Tom will be kicking himself. And rightly so.

Wow, that's pretty stark - £119,500 gain. Assume they spent £30k on refurbishment, so £90,000 profit to the developers. TC could probably have sold the house himself in early 2015, paid off the £50k mortgage and walked away with £90,000.

And this is why he'll never give up the heroic victim routine. Because to admit the utter folly of his own vain stupidity would be too painful to bear, and so he must deny, deny, deny that realisation.

Not sure I follow your logic here.

Whoever bought it from the bank got the best deal I think. They flipped it after a few months having done nothing to the property and made a clear £38,500. Well, less any interest the capital could have earned in those few months which would likely have been about sixpence given rock bottom interest rates at the time.

TC might have been able to argue that the bank had sold it for much less than the market value to his detriment if not for two things.

First the campaign of hate against the auctioneers from his supposed supporters which caused them to withdraw it from auction where it could have been expected to make more.

Second the fact that his ridiculous shennanigans in court incurred costs which would have swallowed up any extra raised from the sale and still left him owing.

The second buyer did quite a lot of work and guessing how much profit was in it is next to impossible but I'd be surprised if it were as much as half of the £81k uplift in value over purchase price. I doubt TC or any of his progeny would have the skill or nouse to develop it themselves.

The saddest thing about the whole affair is that TC could be living there now if he had carried on paying the interest on his loan. Not ideal but far less than the rental value of the house. Or he could have sold it himself and likely moved to a cheaper area or downsized with no mortgage. Instead he has chosen to become a martyr to a false cause sacrificing his home and any inheritance he might have passed on to his children. Thwn again, the way they've enabled his delusion makes you think that maybe there's something to the whole karma thing they're so fond of invoking.

[Interobang]

IIRC the Evening Post article stated that the son of the new owner was going to live there?

I would suggest there was no profit made?

?!

[doublelong]

Interesting how he is now blaming the lack of support on his continuing battle, on trolls and agents, agents employed by the government on less.
I just want to know when he is going to use this unequivocal evidence that proves he was correct all along and get him back in his house. Maybe he is waiting for the new owners to pop on a dormer conversion before he takes it back.

[Interobang]

Maybe he is waiting for the new owners to pop on a dormer conversion before he takes it back.

There are two dormers there already according to the planning request. I think he may of missed that boat

?!

[YiamCross]

.....
I just want to know when he is going to use this unequivocal evidence that proves he was correct all along and get him back in his house. Maybe he is waiting for the new owners to pop on a dormer conversion before he takes it back.

He is completely unable to grasp the concept of discovery, preferring to wait until the day of the trial to reveal his killer evidence. Apparently it's good practice not to let your opponents know what you're going to say otherwise they might be able to refute it. With me it was that all my screenshots of their harassment were made up in photoshop. Yet at no point in the preceeding 2 years had he challenged any of it.

I think that may have been one of the reasons the judge found that TC had not told the truth to the court. She actually said that, which was pretty impressive. The odd thing was that the court didn't seem inclined to do anything about it, which I found very disturbing.

[radcliffewreck]

What about Craig the self proclaimed dot-com millionaire?

https://suite.endole.co.uk/insight/comp ... dy-limited
but wait there's more


https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... ng-history

10 Apr 2018
First Gazette notice for compulsory strike-off

[grixit]

So he paid 100 pounds to paint a corporate logo on his treehouse. For 35 he could've had a coat of arms.

[hucknallred]

Casterbuddy looks to be an enterprise prior to the teeth veneers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wBeUuvDBNQ

[YiamCross]

....
but wait there's more


https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... ng-history

10 Apr 2018
First Gazette notice for compulsory strike-off

Hmmm. Probably late filing of accounts, penalty starts at £150 and quickly goes up. Compulsory strike-off proceedings suggests more than one month late so could be one of £375, £750 or £1500. There's pretty much no grounds for appealing those fines either. There's more to having a company than buying one off the shelf and calling yourself a director.

Edit.
Boo. Only failure to file confirmation statement, there's no penalty for that. It is a criminal offence not to file but I doubt there will be any action taken beyond striking the company off. Could make it awkward accessing the millions in the corporate coffers though. I believe any assets from a company which is struck off go to the Chancellor.

[ArthurWankspittle]

....
but wait there's more


https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... ng-history

10 Apr 2018
First Gazette notice for compulsory strike-off

Hmmm. Probably late filing of accounts, penalty starts at £150 and quickly goes up. Compulsory strike-off proceedings suggests more than one month late so could be one of £375, £750 or £1500. There's pretty much no grounds for appealing those fines either. There's more to having a company than buying one off the shelf and calling yourself a director.

Edit.
Boo. Only failure to file confirmation statement, there's no penalty for that. It is a criminal offence not to file but I doubt there will be any action taken beyond striking the company off. Could make it awkward accessing the millions in the corporate coffers though. I believe any assets from a company which is struck off go to the Chancellor.

It's a failure to file a statement like you said. He has until October I think to file the accounts. After that, yes it will be fines and striking off.

[Wakeman52]

The property being used as the RO address looks like a millionaire's pad to me.

https://www.zoopla.co.uk/property-histo ... j/34547749

FFS he appears to be renting it...

[radcliffewreck]

This couple remind me of someone we know...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mortga ... -home.html

[Burnaby49]

There is that little nitpicking difference that this couple have fully met the mortgage terms, have not missed a payment, and are willing to try to meet new mortgage terms. Tom and Sue just decided they'd paid enough and stopped all payments without having put a penny towards the actual borrowed principal.

Having said that this couple seems screwed too except that they will at least have some remaining capital at the end of it. Those interest-only mortgages were a disasterously bad idea. What you're seeing today is the entirely forseeable outcome. People in their fifties who could only afford the interest are still in the same position a quarter of a century down the road but are too old to cope with the results.

[ArthurWankspittle]

This couple remind me of someone we know...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mortga ... -home.html

This is usually because lenders failed to check how they would repay the debt — or because the investments the borrower made have failed to grow quickly enough.

That's a bit disingenuous to lenders. Most of them checked how people were going to repay the capital when it became obvious that this was going to be a problem for some borrowers. Tom turned B&B down when approached.
This couple look like they are just too much in debt, are too old and have too little equity for the average lender to be interested. But I also take issue with

Len, a former accountant,......

Really? Someone's been kicking the can down the road for a while then.

[Hercule Parrot]

But I also take issue with

Len, a former accountant,......

Really? Someone's been kicking the can down the road for a while then.

Agree. He must've known about this continuing obligation to repay capital, he must've decided not to save towards it.

And there's something fishy about the numbers. Their two-bedroomed house is now worth £260,000, so it seems unlikely that they paid £180,000 for it 15yrs ago. Most homes have increased in value much more (Zoopla says that mine has quadrupled in the 18yrs since we bought it). For a throwaway approximation, their purchase price can't have been much more than £80-100,000. If so, they've subsequently taken further loans against the home or they've accrued more debt through arrears.

[Burnaby49]

They did put in a second bathroom for only two of them.

[aesmith]

Reportedly some lenders were happy to accept that the debt would be paid by selling the property and downsizing. During times of rapid property price rises and high inflation this was a much less important issue. For example a house that cost £3K in 1960 might have been worth £100K in 1985.

[Burnaby49]

Zoopla says that mine has quadrupled in the 18yrs since we bought it.

Try living in Vancouver for capital appreciation. It's insane. We've lived in our house about twice as long as you have, 40 years this August, and it's value has increased by a factor of about thirty. Our house is worth, literally, absolutely nothing, just a teardown, the value is all in the lot. We bought the house as a starter just after we were married and then never got around to moving to something better. It's an absolutely serviceable house, we obviously like it, but the word "teardown" has a different context in Vancouver than elsewhere. Condominiums have taking over. There's a row of large almost new houses a few blocks away that have been packaged for teardown and re-development as condos.

[longdog]

And there's something fishy about the numbers. Their two-bedroomed house is now worth £260,000, so it seems unlikely that they paid £180,000 for it 15yrs ago. Most homes have increased in value much more (Zoopla says that mine has quadrupled in the 18yrs since we bought it). For a throwaway approximation, their purchase price can't have been much more than £80-100,000. If so, they've subsequently taken further loans against the home or they've accrued more debt through arrears.

I don't think you can extrapolate from your property, or property prices in general, to a specific house over a specific period. Me and my ex bought for £30,000 in 1996 and sold for £80,000 in 2004. Rightmove suggests a current value of £90,000 at best so an increase of only 12% over 14 years (04-18) compared to getting on for 200% in the eight years (96-04) we had it.