UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[Normal Wisdom]

I can't find anything on Facebook linking to the documentation that "Jon Dow" mentions in the "Purpleport" link posted by Burnaby. However, one has to be a "friend" to access the timeline on Tom Crawford's personal Facebook page. In any case later comments on "Purpleport" seem to suggest that this relates to the "unlawful" eviction documents rather than anything to do with the mortgage.

"Jon Dow" mentions is that he has seen evidence of mortgage payments of around £400 per month for the whole of the loan period. This seems strange because it suggests a fixed rate of interest for all of the 25 year / 300 month period. Not only is this impossible I can say with the certainly borne of personal experience that the interest rate over this period fluctuated wildly. Indeed shortly after I took out my own endowment mortgage in late '87 the rate increased from around 13% to 16% and then slowly declined over subsequent years. The payments against the capital amount which I made to cover the projected shortfall in my endowment policy were achieved by not reducing the monthly payments when interest rates fell rather than actually increasing the amount paid.

Yet one more aspect of the Tom Crawford story which does not make sense.

[littleFred]

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.

In one video, I forget which, Tom claims the building society claimed to have "lost" the endowment policy. This seems unlikely. Either Tom doesn't understand what happened or he is lying,

In my case, as I think was common, the loan to buy my house came from a building society while a separate company provided the life assurance policy. The policy was tied to the loan, but not vice versa. For as long as I owed the BS money, I had to keep up the assurance policy. When I paid off the loan early, I could do what I wanted with the policy. I chose to continue paying, so got the full cash value at maturity.

I find it unlikely that Tom's BS was able to unilaterally cancel his assurance policy. Nor would it be in their interests to do so. Even if a shortfall was predicted, the BS would want the policy to continue unless and until something better replaced it.

I write the above as if the mortgage was Tom's. There are suggestions that, in fact, it was his wife's. Or it might have been a joint mortgage. Who knows?

[PeanutGallery]

I think it's more likely that Jon Dow is mistaken in his belief that Tom took out a full mortgage and that this was changed to an endowment or an interest only policy.

For one, Tom has never claimed - in any of his video's to have taken out a full mortgage, he's actually claimed to have taken out an endowment mortgage and this claim has certainly been repeated by Ceylon et al at both of the 'gatherings' that took place with the aim of frustrating the eviction.

I wouldn't take Jon Dow as a credible source of information, given that his account - which is very much hearsay - contradicts accounts given by parties more directly involved in this matter.

[wanglepin]

Message from Police left for Tom Crawford.

Andy Berryman[? ] is the inspector, it’s now been moved into the criminal inspection. They want to investigate what Bradford & Bingley & what the courts are up to.... it looks like they are taking the fraud of the banks very serious and of the court... so now we have an investigation

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10 ... nref=story
None of what Tom says there rings right to me.
I think he is probably appeasing those supporters and or got the wrong end of the stick and believes they are going to investigate the fraud Tom and Goofers alleged.

But it maybe the case that the police will simply be investigating whether or not everything is/was in order for the eviction to take place.

[littleFred]

Perhaps Inspector Berryman is secretly a GOOFer who has become convinced that Ceylon and Tom are correct that banks and courts are corrupt.

Or perhaps he is disturbed about the situation and doesn't want mob rule by hundreds of people on his patch. For the next eviction, he doesn't want to rustle up an army of police officers with riot shields and water canons and all the rest. He would rather sit down with Tom to try and understand Tom's position, and to see what can be done about it. He wants a peaceful resolution.

The inspector may wish to impress on Tom the seriousness of certain crimes, such as inciting a mob to violence. Doubtless Tom has no such intention. The inspector may wish to know what Tom will do to ensure that other people don't commit crimes in his name or in his "defence".

[Normal Wisdom]

I suggested that the mortgage may be in Tom's wife's name (Susan) because in one of his early videos he talked about how the BS had written to her and she talked to him about it. However, I now think this may have been when he was in hospital so it's not a sure indication. On the other hand I understand that the eviction notice that was taped to his door a couple of weeks ago was addressed to his wife which indicates she may be the debtor.

I don't see how the endowment policy can have been "lost" even if Tom doesn't recall who it was with. And as mentioned it could not be cashed in without Tom's (or his wife's) agreement. One thing is for sure if a policy ever existed, it would have been worth something. In a recent exchange of messages under a YouTube video, one of his close supporters told me that he expected a payout of £11,000 from the endowment policy at the end of the loan period. This doesn't help us understand what happened to it but if he was only expecting this amount then clearly he must have known that the full loan amount wasn't covered.

I agree that it's very unlikely that the police are going to investigate Tom's allegations of bank fraud. As I understand it, this follows Tom's pre-emptive strike against being asked to pay back the original capital sum by requesting that B&B prove that they "owned" the money that was given to him to buy the house. As they have failed to meet this request it is evidence to Tom that they didn't lend their own money and in Tom's world this means that their request for him to pay interest was fraud.

It is much more likely that the police will, in the hope of quelling at least part of the protest, investigate the legitimacy of the eviction notice. There is some suggestion that the decision of the court is "out of date" - if this is a thing. And of course there is the perennial complaint that the paperwork is fraudulent, e.g. there is no signature from the judge in "wet ink", no "raised" seal, not the proper forms etc. According to GOOFers including Tom, some 90% of eviction documentation (and for that matter any other kind of writ) is fraudulent for these sort of reasons. This is the area of expertise of Mr Ebert and co. and I am sure is baloney. I doubt that the police can do anything to satisfy the GOOFers who have again succeeded in muddying the waters sufficiently to delay the process and given them more cause to be outraged when their ridiculous claims are not supported.

[PeanutGallery]

To a certain extent the police's hands are tied when it comes to investigating the bank fraud. Once a complaint has been made, unless there are very good reasons to ignore the complainant (and these would need to be very well documented) they would have a duty to make an investigation.

So they probably will look into it. Of course the investigation will be a bored copper half heartedly ringing the court and checking that they approved the eviction. Once that's done, said copper will mark it as a civil matter and that will become the police opinion. The police don't have the power or authority to override a court order and won't actually do so.

However they will have a duty to investigate the complaint and we shouldn't encourage them to shirk that duty simply because we are certain the investigation will prove fruitless.

[littleFred]

And terrorism, of course. The GOOFers reported that terrorism occurred on Friday. I've watched a number of videos, but I saw no terror. No burning buildings, no-one injured, no property damage.

I don't know how the police would investigate alleged terrorism despite the lack of any evidence. They should investigate, provide they also prosecute if (as I suspect) their time is entirely wasted.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I find it unlikely that Tom's BS was able to unilaterally cancel his assurance policy. Nor would it be in their interests to do so. Even if a shortfall was predicted, the BS would want the policy to continue unless and until something better replaced it.

No it isn't difficult to cancel the policy. That's between the policyholder and the insurer. The assignment of the policy to the mortgage is between the borrower and the lender. Stop paying the insurance policy and it will lapse or be made up to that point. No one is going to keep paying it for the policyholder. Of course the lender will find out and get upset but, like I say, that's between the lender and the borrower.

So they probably will look into it. Of course the investigation will be a bored copper half heartedly ringing the court and checking that they approved the eviction. Once that's done, said copper will mark it as a civil matter and that will become the police opinion. The police don't have the power or authority to override a court order and won't actually do so.

However they will have a duty to investigate the complaint and we shouldn't encourage them to shirk that duty simply because we are certain the investigation will prove fruitless.

This ^. If there was any possibility of real fraud, there are special teams of police devoted to such things as they have training and understanding of such matters. The above is much more likely. Some cop will get the task of phoning or calling round at the court and checking they issued an order. After that it confirmed everything is back to square one.

[wanglepin]

another tom video.
This is turning into the Ceylon and Abdullah show.
Still claiming fraud and claiming the newspaper were wrong to say the court documents were all in order.
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... MdeHDSsV8E

[wanglepin]

U.K. column Guy Taylor on fridays eviction attempt.4.20 onwards
Taylor produces what he says are “Tom’s Case court management file” and Gerrish reads out;

Judgement details: no judgments recorded. Warrant details: No warrants recorded.

Taylor says this file was obtained from the court the same day as the last attempted eviction just last week but;

the police refused to recognise them as court documents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCb8FtdnX3A
My question would be; why hadn't Tom et al obtained these court documents before the date of the last attempted eviction?

[Arthur Rubin]

Interest-only mortgages are not common in the US, either, but are not unknown. They are usually only for 5 or 7 years, though.

[Normal Wisdom]

U.K. column Guy Taylor on fridays eviction attempt.4.20 onwards
Taylor produces what he says are “Tom’s Case court management file” and Gerrish reads out;

Judgement details: no judgments recorded. Warrant details: No warrants recorded.

Taylor says this file was obtained from the court the same day as the last attempted eviction just last week but;

the police refused to recognise them as court documents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCb8FtdnX3A
My question would be; why hadn't Tom et al obtained these court documents before the date of the last attempted eviction?

Well as a layman in these matters I wouldn't expect the court process to be carried out on the day of eviction. Especially as the notice was served days before. Presumably there has to be a decision before the notice can be served.

I also understand that once you are served with a notice of eviction you can request that the possession order is set aside although I don't know what grounds would be required. There's no suggestion that Tom tried to do that. Perhaps he preferred to have a public "showdown" with the bailiffs.

One small issue that I do have sympathy with Tom about. Why was it necessary for the notice of eviction to be served at 5.00 am? It seems unnecessarily confrontational.

[Hyrion]

Why was it necessary for the notice of eviction to be served at 5.00 am?

• Perhaps historically that's when they've found most people home. For example, perhaps sometimes both are employed and have left for work at 7:00 am. In other words: perhaps to ensure service is almost guaranteed on the first attempt.

• Perhaps the previous service(s) during more normal hours ran into problems with group(s) of FOTL types preventing service: get up early enough and avoid such a confrontation.

I don't know what's happening - especially since I live on another continent. But I can see reasonable possible situations that would explain why the server might have had reasonable cause to select a 5 am service time.

[Hyrion]

the police refused to recognise them as court documents

Given the propensity for the OPCA litigant crowd to:

• 1) Be less than forthcoming with the truth

and

• 2) Be willing to read a clause totally out of context of where it actually exists and applies to

I would strongly question the authentication of any documentation they provided as well. I would want to collect the documents from the Court directly and then compare them with what was provided in order to confirm whether or not what they were presenting was accurate.

[littleFred]

And the question arises: which court? There are many, dotted around the country. The notice delivered at 5am probably said which court issued it. This might not be the court local to Tom.

Ceylon claims he has documentation proving the banks, court and bailiffs are acting in fraud. I think it is more likely that he doesn't understand the documents.

Do Ceylon and Tom seriously doubt the authenticity and legality of the eviction? Perhaps they do, but this is a delusion, blowing smoke in an attempt at concealing the true situation: Tom borrowed a load of money, promised to pay it back, and hasn't.

Ceylon invents a court process, complete with audit-trail stamped (not sealed) wet-signature documentation, then complains the courts don't follow his inventions. I don't much care that Ceylon, as an individual, is deluded. But he encourages other people to lose their homes.

[wanglepin]

I also understand that once you are served with a notice of eviction you can request that the possession order is set aside although I don't know what grounds would be required. There's no suggestion that Tom tried to do that. Perhaps he preferred to have a public "showdown" with the bailiffs.

My point is, why did they wait for the second attempt of eviction , why hadn't they got these court papers before or immediately after the first eviction attempt?

[PeanutGallery]

I think that they didn't make a fuss about the court papers earlier because they hadn't thought up the whole 'forensic analysis woo' back then.

[wanglepin]

That would explain it.

[Normal Wisdom]

I've spent the last couple of days reviewing as many videos and written articles that I can find relating to our friend Tom Crawford's struggle with his bank and descent into GOODF madness and I think I have a handle on the legal timescales and process.

The legal shenanigans didn't begin until 2012 when Bradford & Bingley began proceedings for possession of the house. It's likely that they were seeking a suspended Order of Possession in the knowledge that, with the mortgage period due to expire in 2013, Tom had no mechanism in place to repay the capital sum he had borrowed (i.e. an endowment policy). Usually such orders are made where a borrower has defaulted on mortgage payments and the order allows him to stay in the property provided future payments are made to an agreed schedule. However, I guess it could also apply to a repayment of capital on an endowment mortgage.

Tom attended court to oppose the possession order. As usual he says that he had evidence of fraud by the bank or at least negligence but doesn't specify what this was. Initially, the case was adjourned because Tom's complaint to the Financial Ombudsman was still under investigation but six months later after the complaint was rejected (due to being time barred) and despite the evidence presented by Tom, a second judge issued a suspended Order of Possession.

Not more than a few months later, with the end of the mortgage fast approaching, Tom claiming "we didn't know anything", telephoned B&B to ask if there was any money owing. "The gentleman said no, not a penny, except for the endowment mortgage ... endowment policy which is an insurance policy basically, which they knew they had lost. So we took them to court".

Tom characterised his court action as a "pre-emptive strike" against being chased for the capital sum with the action intended "to get their charge off our deeds". Again, he doesn't specify the basis of his action but it was apparently preceded by his first approach to GOODF for advice. He had already been in contact with FoTLer Simon Spaniard who had thoroughly confused him and the advice from GOODF simply encouraged him into the whole "all bank loans are fraud" nonsense and away from what may have been a more fruitful complaint about the "lost" endowment policy.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... Mp25lronzJ

Bradford & Bingley sought a hearing to determine if the action initiated by Tom should proceed and to nobody's surprise but Tom's the County Court judge ruled that it had no merit. A subsequent attempt to elevate the claim to the High Court was struck out on the same grounds.

With the mortgage now ended, B&B advised Tom that they were seeking to reactivate the Order of Possession. Tom could have challenged the possession order but there is no evidence that he did. The Order of Possession is valid for 6 years (after which it has to be renewed in court). An eviction under an Order of Possession requires a Warrant of Possession from the court. Once granted this is valid for 12 months.

As we know in July 2014, Tom was served with a Notice of Eviction which was frustrated by the arrival of 200 "strangers". Similarly, he was served with a Notice of Eviction a few days ago which was again frustrated by 500 kind hearted strangers.

My understanding is that the Order of Possession and Warrant of Possession which preceded the 2014 eviction attempt were both still valid for the recent attempt and therefore there would not have been a recent court decision for Guy Taylor and co. to "find" and argue about.

Tom could have contacted the court at any stage to query the validity of the Order of Possession or the Warrant of Possession or indeed to seek to have the order or the eviction delayed. It seems that he has chosen not to do so and that as in most other evictions contested by our freeman chums they prefer to try to argue the validity of court decisions and documentation with hapless bailiffs and police. One can only surmise why that would be.