UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[wanglepin]

I have just been looking over Toms news reports and I couldn't help noticing what it was Mrs Susan Crawford was holding in her hand? So I enlarged it?

[Normal Wisdom]

Do we have a link for Mr Eberts 'forensic' analysis? Or some sort of summary? I could do with a laugh.

Unfortunately not. The only source of information at the moment is the various YouTube videos that TC has posted and a few comments from his supporters. Tom is always threatening to publish details of the "fraud" but never quite manages it. Having read transcripts of Mr Ebert's own court proceedings I can imagine what his forensic analysis is reveals. No doubt the fraud includes the lack of a "wet ink signature" and "raised seals" on the warrant for eviction.

I and another sceptic are trying to entice one of TC's supporters to reveal some actual facts via the comments section of Tom's latest video posted on Ceylon's SriLankerC YouTube page. So far without success.

[wanglepin]

After the fool’s errand cooked up Ceylon and Guy Taylor at Ebert’s family scrum eviction, I wouldn't hold too much faith in as many turning up for Tom again as they did at the last attempt of his eviction.
That said, there are some suckers for punishment over on Getout of Into More Debt Free.

[Normal Wisdom]

This video makes it obvious that Tom Crawford (or Ceylon and his mate) have any idea how mortgages work, particularly an endowment mortgage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMn-xGiJHTg&spfreload=10

Timeline seems to be something like:

1988 - take out an endowment mortgage (an interest only loan backed by an endowment policy which on maturity repays the capital)

2000 - Bradford & Bingley convert the endowment policy to a repayment mortgage which covers interest and capital. TC says that they were advised that their loan wouldn't be repaid and I suspect that this was due to the projected underperformance of the endowment policy. It appears the B&B acted unilaterally but my suspicion is that this is because TC failed to respond to the warnings about the endowment policy.

TC seems to have taken exception to this change and believed that B&B had changed the mortgage back to the endowment model (why would they since they had already identified that this would fail?)

2005 - TC finds out that they have only been paying interest on their loan. There's no mention of what happened to the proceeds generated by the endowment policy up to 2000. Nor of any mention about what if anything they did once they discovered the interest only situation.

2012? - TC discovers GOODF.

2013 - the loan period expires. TC is aware that B&B will say that he owes some or all the capital sum and tries to head this off by issuing fraud proceeding against B&B based on the theory that since money is conjured out of thin air that B&B did not lend him anything and thus that the interest payments he has made (which amount to about 3 times the capital sum) is more than sufficient repayment.

2014 - Amazingly he is unsuccessful in proving bank fraud and an attempt is made to repossess his house to cover the capital sum he owes.

Tomorrow - another (probably unsuccessful) attempt to evict him will be made

[PeanutGallery]

The other gentleman in this video (well other than "Ceylon" and Tom) was known as "Kingabdullahkey" at least on YouTube. He appeared in a number of videos with Ceylon up until last year when he suddenly disappeared. All his YouTube videos were deleted and he seems to have completely left the sovrun scene.

Tom seems to have misunderstood or not appreciated the risks involved in taking out an endowment mortgage, nor did he understand that when he first complained his policy would change to an interest only. He likely complained because Bradford and Bingley were asking for a larger amount to be repaid than the endowment had arranged for. The only option for lowering his repayments would have been to convert the mortgage to an interest only. It seems likely that Tom, at that time, wanted to lower his repayments and may not have appreciated that from then on all his repayments would go to servicing interest on the debt.

It seems that Tom discovered GOODF in April 2013, certainly he joined the forums on the 23rd of that month (quite a coincidence Tom joins on the 23rd, his first eviction was scheduled for the 23rd and his second is also slated for the 23rd). Tom likely joined because he'd been told that he still owed a substantial amount from his mortgage and that Bradford and Bingley wanted their capital back.

Tom seems to have been shepherded into his current position by blindly following the advice on GOODF and not thinking for himself or questioning the simple fact that if the advice worked as GOODF claimed, why wasn't it working when he tried it. However like many a sheep before him he has followed the yudasgoat to his end.

What is most sad is that it didn't need to go this way. Certainly back when Tom was buying his property £40,000 was likely a much more substantial sum than in it is now. As such Tom would have more capital in his property (a Zoopla search based on the estimated value for an identical property, in the same street, as being around the £165,000 mark Zoopla. Tom's house is likely to sell at auction for substantially less than that (I'd estimate that a developer would look to pick it up for 120-130k although would probably be prepared to push to 145k). However even if it sold for 145k Tom won't get 105k to go and buy another property (which he could have actually had, if he'd cut his losses and sold up when B&B first started asking for their money back). Right now the court and legal fees, plus the costs of the repossession action will likely mean that Tom may in fact still owe money after he has been evicted.

To me this is the tragedy of Get Out Of Debt Free. Tom doesn't strike me as a devious sort, or a conniving schemer, he strikes me as being too ordinary, too normal, too gullible certainly, but not strictly speaking as someone looking for a free ride. He's fallen for bad advice and while he must live with the consequences of following it, I can't help but feel that if he had found decent advice, given by someone who isn't feverishly rambling about the unfairness of the financial system and trying to find a way of 'beating' it, he would have had a better outcome (Perhaps not an ideal outcome, but at least one with better options).

The people who have evicted Tom are sitting with him in that video and are those who will travel to Fearn Chase to meet him under a pretence of solidarity.

[Normal Wisdom]

I think that's a very fair assessment Peanut.

[wanglepin]

The people who have evicted Tom are sitting with him in that video and are those who will travel to Fearn Chase to meet him under a pretence of solidarity.

Spot on PG. This is exactly what has happened to Guy Taylor. There has been no sign of his 'friends' - Chapman & Hayes - since the money ran out. They also sat with and supported dripped off Guy for a long time too under he same pretence.
Those cretins over on- get into more debt free, will drop Tom like a hot potato once poor old Tom has lost his home and the money dries up..

[PeanutGallery]

It appears that the gathering has achieved their goal of frustrating the eviction and delaying Toms departure. A few video's have surfaced on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Monopoly ... 729?ref=hl) outlining the day so far. It seems that various Woo leaders had all crawled out of the woodwork for Tom, so far the day includes Roger Hayes, Guy Taylor, Ceylon, Daniel Bostock and others have all been seen making an appearance on videos taken today.

Of course this is only setting Tom up for greater failure and misery. Because now when the Bailiffs come back, and they will come back, it will be without telling Tom and likely with a substantial police presence. If he's in, they'll knock, if he refuses them entry, they'll use the locksmith that they will have to gain entry.

Then Tom will be removed. There will be an outcry from the GOOF scene. But I wouldn't bet on him lasting another week in the property.

[wanglepin]

I noticed Hayes has jumped on the band wagon. Guess They better bring their tents.

[Normal Wisdom]

An inevitable outcome. TC has become such a high profile figure in the GOODF scene that they had to pull out all the stops to prevent the eviction. I think there is also a feeling that TC represents a more media friendly face of the anti-eviction movement and (as happened last time) is likely to attract mainstream media interest without too many awkward questions. The Nottingham Post has already run a largely fact free article ahead of the attempted eviction and I would not be surprised to see today's events presented as a another victory for the "ordinary man" against the evil banks and for this to be picked up by The Daily Mail again.

Surely the bailiffs expected this charade. Perhaps they had to go through this in order to seek an order from the High Court which can be undertaken by High Court Enforcement Officers without notice.

Update: Half way there - http://www.nottinghampost.com/500-stran ... story.html

Update#2: Didn't take long - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... galow.html

[Hercule Parrot]

Of course this is only setting Tom up for greater failure and misery. Because now when the Bailiffs come back, and they will come back, it will be without telling Tom and likely with a substantial police presence. If he's in, they'll knock, if he refuses them entry, they'll use the locksmith that they will have to gain entry.

Then Tom will be removed. There will be an outcry from the GOOF scene. But I wouldn't bet on him lasting another week in the property.

I agree. As Normal says, it will now be passed to HCEO's. There will be a without-notice visit one day soon, and the vacated property will be secured with steel shuttering. I suppose we'll then have TC trying to re-occupy by extra-legal means, so plenty of legs left in this one.

I suppose the positive aspect is that it might cause some of the GOOFys to reflect on the reliability of their prophets. Ceylon for example, peddling false hope to many desperate and gullible people.

[wanglepin]

I have to confess, the turnout did surprise me. I didn't expect that many to turn out after the Ebert eviction debacle.

[littleFred]

The turnout surprised me, too. Someone has organised it. With pre-printed hats. Ceylon threatening to arrest the bailiffs and police. His performance is becoming more polished, interviewed by rt.com, an organisation that loves to say the UK is an awful place to live.

500 people. Suppose the day out cost them £40 each. That would pay half his debt.

The videos are disturbing, with the rabble deciding who can drive on the roads and where they can go.

Tom has equity in his house. But he is frittering it away.

I'm sure Ceylon and Tom enjoy the feeling of power, with hundreds of people doing their bidding. This is more important to them than an elderly couple keeping their home.

[PeanutGallery]

It's the amount of Equity he had in the property, and is wasting that is interesting to me. As I've said, I conservatively estimate the property to be worth around £165k (based on figures supplied by Zoopla). He could have taken that equity and invested it in a different property, which would have been his mortgage free. While it wouldn't have been the home he's had to live in over the years, it would have been a sensible course of action that would have left him without any debt and able to see out his retirement (having checked on Rightmove there are plenty of modest property's around the 100k mark that Tom could have had in the Nottingham area).

It's also worth pointing out that Tom had (according to the Daily Mail) held the property for 27 years and that the original purchase price was £41,800. Tom didn't realise that he had benefited considerably from the equity he had built up in his home over the years. He'd turned what would have been a modest deposit into over a hundred thousand pounds in a very short period of time. Had he left that amount in a bank, it would not have done nearly so well.

In short Tom was ahead. While he hadn't 'beaten' the banks, it would be fair to say that the banks had helped put him in a position where he could walk away with a win. Both Tom and the banks could have had their cakes and ate them. But Tom wanted the banks cake too. I don't think he wanted the banks cake out of gluttony or greed, I think he wanted the banks cake because he thought he'd been paying for it all these years.

He hadn't. Tom didn't understand the mortgage product he'd purchased and that the type of mortgage he had meant that he was effectively renting the banks money from them for 25 years and that at the end, the bank would want that sum back. Tom thought he'd been buying that money from the bank and that at the end of the 25 year period he would own it outright.

Tom had also grown attached to the property he'd been living in, he didn't want to move, he'd probably filled the house up with memories. That combined with his confusion about what he'd been paying for probably led him to Get Out Of Debt Free. From their he became a 'cause' he's a quietly spoken man, who speaks in measured and concise tones. He actually speaks rather well, when he's prepared what to say in advance, and being an older man who has cancer garners some sympathy from his supporters and the media. Unlike Paula Campbell who has stood accused of mistreating the animals in her care, or Guy Taylor who has multiple convictions for fraud, or Mr Ebert who's long been a vexatious litigant in the High Court, or Roger Hayes who said he couldn't attend a bankruptcy hearing because he was giving a paid talk on how to not pay your council tax, or Gary Beaver/Raymond St. Clair who's misdeeds are too numerous to mention, you can't find a bad word to say about Tom. He's a perfect victim that is what makes him so important to the mob.

Tom screams victim. But it's important to note he only became a victim when he went onto Get Out Of Debt Free.

[littleFred]

Tom may still have time to salvage the situation by scraping together £43k from somewhere, such as borrowing from his children or from their credit. If this happens, we can expect to hear that "the bank has caved in". But he doesn't have long.

His biggest financial loss will be the value of the house. It will have gained a reputation: defended by crowds of hundreds, boarded up by bailiffs, whatever. An ordinary family won't touch it with a barge-pole. It will be sold at a knock-down price to a property developer who will hang on to it for at least a year before reselling. (And GOOFers will protest that the banks fraudulently sold it below its market value, ignoring the fact that the market won't want to buy it.)

I wouldn't be surprised if the house sale barely covers the debt. Tom is currently tossing away £100,000.

Yes, he's a victim. He has become a willing victim, happy to lose his home for the sake of Ceylon's lies and delusions.

[wanglepin]

Tom screams victim. But it's important to note he only became a victim when he went onto Get Out Of Debt Free.

Yes, he's a victim. He has become a willing victim, happy to lose his home for the sake of Ceylon's lies and delusions.

I agree with both those quotes, but I am not so sure anymore about Tom being the naive polite gentle Tom he once passed himself off as, as I once believed
He will undoubtedly become a big 'player' in the- get into more debt free/ freeman - conclave and will be spreading the word of how, after he forensically examined court documents discovered the great fraud commit by the establishment. Just as Guy Taylor seems to have become in the eyes of believers of OPCA.

[Flying Daggers]

Update#2: Didn't take long - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... galow.html

Good old Daily Mail

"But the Crawfords claim that these arrears only exist because of blunder by the bank. They say they believed they were paying off their mortgage when in fact they were paying only interest."

So he never noticed on his mortgage statement that the balance was never going down

"Mr Crawford and his wife, 54, took out an endowment mortgage to buy the bungalow for £41,800 27 years ago. They expected to own the property outright when the loan came to an end last year"

Come on Tommy boy, an endowment mortgage is an interest only mortgage -

[Burnaby49]

And another one;

https://purpleport.com/group/general-of ... n-Story--/

Your endowment mortgages seem to be odd ducks. First I'd heard of an interest-only morgage. Don't have them here in Canada, just bread and butter fixed term mixed principal and interest.

Our Freeman mortgage scams tend to involve the mortgagee attempting to annul the mortgage for purported fraud. Belanger was big on that one and, as a result, lost his own home and led the Volks to disaster.

[wanglepin]

Tom: another update. the police have informed Tom "bailiffs will not be attending today".
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153564527482519

and from; get into more debt free

The police have stated that there will be an investigation into the multiple crime reports received on Friday, now this combined with other 'less than legit' documents SHOULD in theory suspend the validity of the warrant while these investigations take place -

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... MYJVTSsV8E

[Normal Wisdom]

And another one;

https://purpleport.com/group/general-of ... n-Story--/

Your endowment mortgages seem to be odd ducks. First I'd heard of an interest-only morgage. Don't have them here in Canada, just bread and butter fixed term mixed principal and interest.

Our Freeman mortgage scams tend to involve the mortgagee attempting to annul the mortgage for purported fraud. Belanger was big on that one and, as a result, lost his own home and led the Volks to disaster.

A very passionate defence of Tom Crawford by "Jon Dow" which unfortunately he rather undermines by getting the fundamental facts of the case wrong. He repeats that 6 years before the end of the mortgage (i.e. 2007) the bank changed the mortgage TO an endowment without agreement when in fact part of TC's case is that the bank changed his mortgage FROM an endowment to a repayment arrangement. In the video I posted above TC says this was in 2000 i.e. 13 years before the end of the loan period. If "Jon Dow" is unable to get even this simple fact correct then I'm not inclined to take too much notice of anything else he has to say. That said I will search for the documentation which is apparently available.

The endowment mortgage was particularly popular in the 80's, peaking in the late 80's and it is those that were most vulnerable to the problems that I ( and I believe Tom Crawford) encountered. It consisted of a fixed term loan to buy the property against which you paid monthly interest at variable rate. Separately, although normally through the same company that lent the money, you took out an endowment policy. This is an investment product that you buy from a life assurance company. They are set up as regular savings plans and at the end of a set period pay out a lump sum. The policy includes life assurance, so it will also pay out if you die during the term.

You are of course gambling that the return on the endowment policy investment will be sufficient to pay off the capital sum. In the late 80's with the stock market going gangbusters this was often sold as not only almost guaranteed but with high prospects of significantly exceeding the loan amount - extra money all for you!

Mortgage advisers were supposed to explain the potential risks and benefits of this type of mortgage but as the 80's wore on and no doubt encouraged by bonuses from the life assurance companies, the risk part became more and more underplayed and sometimes not mentioned at all.

In my own case, I remember the bank's mortgage adviser mentioning the theoretical risk of underperformance but saying "but that never happens". As I recall their offer letter only contained positive projections at different rates of return on investment and the brochures were all about how I could spend the additional money that the policy would generate after the loan was repaid.

Roll forward 10 years and the wheels came right off. Stock market decline and future projections showed that very many of the endowment policies taken out in the late 80's would fail to cover even the loan amount. Banks were required to send their customers statements to show the projected return and the impact on their loan and these were colour coded red, amber or green according to the degree of certainty of a problem.

My own endowment policy was projecting a return of about 60% of the amount that I had borrowed. My response was to agree with the bank that I would increase my monthly payment above the interest element so as to erode the capital owed and over time also made two or three lump sum payments against the capital sum. This is effect, turned the endowment mortgage into a repayment (capital and interest) mortgage. I paid off the loan 5 years early and at that point sold the endowment policy to a third party for about 40% of the amount I had borrowed.

The timing and information (such as it is) regarding Tom Crawford's problems are so similar that I am sure he faced the same issue as I did. However, I strongly believe that never really understood the endowment mortgage in the first place and either failed to comprehend the warnings from the bank about a projected shortfall or wilfully ignored it. I don't know if the bank really did change the mortgage from an endowment to a repayment type without his knowledge but if they did I suspect it was out of exasperation and in an effort to actually help him. Unfortunately, he insisted that the mortgage was changed back to an endowment. The "interest only" payments against the loan resumed but at some point the endowment policy ended. TC is not very forthcoming about this part of the story.

I don't think Tom Crawford set out to scam the bank. He was simply ignorant about the nature of endowment mortgages. I think right at the end of the loan period he realised what had happened and that he still owed the capital without any means to repay it. He got involved with GOODF and their forensic document experts and is now more confused than ever.