UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[Flying Daggers]

The biggest problem with all the youtube video's and posts on GOODF is that they are just smoke and mirrors.

Why doesn't Tom just post his mortgage documents online (either scanned and added to a post) or uploaded to a hosting site. If what he has claimed was true, those documents would prove it.

I have to call horseshit on some of the claims. If it was a repayment mortgage and was converted to an interest only mortgage, there would have been a huge prepayment balance. Not sure if it was Tom or one of the idiots claiming that they know the facts that said his payments have always been £400.00 - If this was true, the capital element of that monthly payment, once the mortgage was converted to an interest only would still be credited to the account and created a prepayment balance (payments in credit). Nothing has been said about that.

As he had an endowment, it does support the view that it was an interest only (a.k.a an endowment) mortgage from day one and that the claims that it was converted at a later point is not evidence of fraud by the bank but evidence of Tom not knowing his ass from his elbow when it comes to mortgages.

I watched an interesting video made by el spaniard where he talked about mortgages and loan accounts. For someone that is supposed to have so much knowledge about banking, he forget something from his explanation.

The way he explained it was that if you took out a loan or a mortgage, the funds were magically created and credited to your current account or sent by a cheque to the solicitor etc.

He completely forgets and what I consider more likely is unaware that is not how it works - a new account is opened for either a loan or a mortgage with a balance of £0.00 - the amount lent is then debited from that account - effectively making that mortgage / loan account overdrawn and the repayments reduce the overdrawn (debit) balance of that account.

This is it, watch from about 2:50 onwards - he does not have a clue how accounts work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22K-EUnF9bM

As for ceylon / srilankac / all the other names he posts under - I wonder how long he will be talking about Tom after he has finally lost his home (and thanks to Ceylon, a chunk of this equity) - Ceylon is posting all these youtube video's at the moment, 5 seconds after this all goes tits up, he will suffer from a memory lapse and forget Tom as quickly as possible.

I have seen the fuss they are making about the police investigation - I don't think it has dawned on any of them that the police investigation may also include their own conduct and behaviour - it was a public highway after all that they blockaded and thanks to all the youtube clips the police will be able to identify who was there.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/198 ... nd-streets

Obstruction of highways and streets

137 Penalty for wilful obstruction.

(1)If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale

They were even so kind, to go to the police station afterwards and provide all of their own details - when they were making their complaints - so if they were so inclined, the Police would not have to look very hard to find them

Do they really think that the Police will turn around and say WOW your right ?

[wanglepin]

but it was apparently preceded by his first approach to GOODF for advice.
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... Mp25lronzJ

I find Tom’s rapid rise to fame fascinating . Tom had joined goofers Apr 23 2013 and by Apr 27 2013 (4 days later) he was a gold star member with 489 posts under his belt.

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 now it is clear why he did not. Mark Ceylon Haining and Abdullah got their self-serving claws into poor old desperate Tom and he swallowed it hook line and sinker. He, like many fmotlers it seems, hit a point of no return and must think ‘what have I got to lose’?

[ArthurWankspittle]

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.

I can't see that a court would grant a possession order for something that hasn't happened yet. Tom must have been in arrears or missed some payments. Courts don't like throwing people out of their homes if they can avoid it. He had to have been behind with payments and was ignoring the court hearings. His endowment being short of the mark just adds to the argument that he had his head in the sand and wasn't looking to come up with some way of paying off the mortgage.
Please add these possibilities to your scenario:
Tom has been paying a fixed £400 / month but the interest rates have changed leaving him in arrears.
Tom's mortgage was planned to end when he was aged 65, which would fit in with retirement age, pensions, lending criteria etc.
Tom has been ignoring the B&B requests for talking about the situation and coming to an arrangement. Or he's made an arrangement (or several) but keeps breaking them. Has he ever mentioned someone from B&B physically calling to see him to discuss the situation? (Because I know they used to do that.)

[Jeffrey]

Normal Wisdom's recap was very good, thanks.

[Normal Wisdom]

I can't see that a court would grant a possession order for something that hasn't happened yet. Tom must have been in arrears or missed some payments. ... <<snip >> ...
Please add these possibilities to your scenario:
Tom has been paying a fixed £400 / month but the interest rates have changed leaving him in arrears.
Tom's mortgage was planned to end when he was aged 65, which would fit in with retirement age, pensions, lending criteria etc.
Tom has been ignoring the B&B requests for talking about the situation and coming to an arrangement. Or he's made an arrangement (or several) but keeps breaking them. Has he ever mentioned someone from B&B physically calling to see him to discuss the situation? (Because I know they used to do that.)

On reflection, I think you're right about the suspended Possession Order. Tom was taken ill in 2011. I believe he worked as a carpet fitter so I doubt he would have received much in the way of sick pay. He has also mentioned that his wife had to work three jobs to cover their bills. In those circumstances it's almost inevitable that they would have fallen into arrears on the interest payments. And now I come to think about it, I dimly remember a comment about them having to make a payment to clear arrears near the end of the mortgage.

One of his supporters did post a message that they had seen evidence of Tom paying £400 per month throughout the mortgage. As I said previously, that doesn't make sense because of interest rate changes over the 25 years which in my experience were automatically applied to your monthly interest payments. I've since seen comments to the effect that their payments were between £300 and £400 per month.

One other point that I omitted from the previous post for (relative) brevity was that one of Tom's complaints is that having been told that they were up to date on interest payments at the end of the mortgage, B&B then said they owed about £1,300 in addition to the original loan. I think this must almost certainly be court costs which lenders are entitled to add to the mortgage,

I am still looking at how the confusion about the endowment policy began and I may return to that later.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I believe he worked as a carpet fitter so I doubt he would have received much in the way of sick pay.

Agreed. He was almost certainly self employed and carpet fitting isn't the greatest paid job.

Tom was taken ill in 2011. He has also mentioned that his wife had to work three jobs to cover their bills.

I'm also curious about this. Prostate cancer is one of the easier to treat cancers if caught early enough. The treatments are surgery or radiotherapy. Neither would stop you working for three(?) years. Either there's more to it than just prostate cancer or he's milking it (sorry).

[Normal Wisdom]

I'm also curious about this. Prostate cancer is one of the easier to treat cancers if caught early enough. The treatments are surgery or radiotherapy. Neither would stop you working for three(?) years. Either there's more to it than just prostate cancer or he's milking it (sorry).

I am a little reluctant to suggest that he is overplaying his illness although I do get a little annoyed at his supporters railing about the bank harassing "a dying man". There's nothing to suggest that he is terminal. Indeed, in his first video (Eviction, The Fraud of the Banks) he says ... "2011, I contracted ... or was diagnosed with cancer and underwent numerous operations to sort out the mistakes the surgeon made, not the cancer.".

Whatever his current state of health,he certainly isn't so ill that he cannot gallivant all over the country "observing" court cases and helping frustrate other evictions.

[wanglepin]

he says ... "2011, I contracted ... or was diagnosed with cancer and underwent numerous operations to sort out the mistakes the surgeon made, not the cancer.".

Does this mean we could be looking at further action against the N H S, goaded on by Mark ceylon Haining, I wonder. Maybe if the idea pops into the idiots we will be looking at more
"forensically examined" doctored documents from the NHS.

[Normal Wisdom]

As for ceylon / srilankac / all the other names he posts under - I wonder how long he will be talking about Tom after he has finally lost his home (and thanks to Ceylon, a chunk of this equity) - Ceylon is posting all these youtube video's at the moment, 5 seconds after this all goes tits up, he will suffer from a memory lapse and forget Tom as quickly as possible.

Indeed, Paula Jayne Campbell, once a regular subject of Ceylon's YouTube videos has been notable only by her absence since she was evicted and lost her subsequent court case. Tom is a bit more embedded of course so he may be more difficult to abandon after his eviction. They may have to resort to the claim that "we lost the battle but we'll win the war".

[PeanutGallery]

Or, as I suspect, they'll start saying things like "They couldn't let Tom win even though he should have" and we'll hear about how poor old Tom has been robbed and is a victim of the banks fraud and criminality. At least for a couple of weeks. Maybe even a thread on GOODF about taking Toms bungalow back, which will gradually peter out and be forgotten (Russ McGarry made similar attempts and posted on GOODF about demolishing the house he'd lost, as far as I know he hasn't made good on his promise and very few people seem to be talking about him any more).

But someone else will be being evicted and the mob will gather around them, talking about how they won't let this happen, then Tom will be forgotten because Ceylon will have his next victim to parade for the mob to defend.

[grixit]

Welcome to the season premiere of Sovereign Alley!

Once again, the victims, dispossessed of their homes by evil banksters and corrupt judges, will engage in a series of humiliating contests for your entertainment.

And here come the trucks! They're delivering brand new refrigerator boxes for our lucky returning participants. Later, they will get lunch, courtesy of our sponsors.

Now as you can see, we have some new guests, here on the studio backlot. In fact, we've had to extend the alley to 3 blocks in length. And we will introduce those newcomers, right after our opening event.

Here you see, we've filled the center gutter of the alley with petroleum jelly. Each contestant will take a running start into a belly slide. The winner will be the one who slides farthest. Winner will get to pick out a new outfit from a pile of clothes that got torn in a brawl on last week's episode of Real Punks of South Boston!

And as the contestents line up, just remember-- you may have a roof over your head, a steady job, friends you can trust, and electricity-- but these folks? They have freedom!

[Hercule Parrot]

I have seen the fuss they are making about the police investigation....

It is a risky proposition to discuss "the police investigation" as if it is a confirmed fact that Nottinghamshire Police have instigated a criminal investigation of fraud, encompassing the conduct of both Bradford & Bingley and the courts. I think that is extremely unlikely.

The next claim will be that while this investigation is underway, the repossession must be suspended. And of course the investigation cannot be completed until the police have read all of the GOOFy documents and watched all of their videos. Then interviewed a dozen senior officials from the bank and the courts under formal caution, obtaining answers from them for every assertion made by the GOOFys, and then submitted a file to CPS for a decision about who is prosecuted.

It does not seem plausible at all. Especially as this delaying tactic would then be repeated for every repossession. It's a dishonest or naive attempt to create confusion and delay events.

[Normal Wisdom]

Having considered as much information as I can find about Tom’s mortgage situation, I have been pondering the potential scenario that gives him the biggest benefit of the doubt. I don’t say that this is what happened only that it might explain some issues.

Tom says that in 1988 he took out an endowment mortgage. I don’t think there is any doubt that this is what he intended. As far as I am aware, “interest only” loans weren’t usual in 1988 while endowments were all the rage. Bradford & Bingley had seemingly told Tom that an endowment policy would cover the loan amount and leave him with a surplus £11,000.

But what if Bradford & Bingley omitted to set up the endowment policy?

If, as seems likely, Tom was totally ignorant of how the loan interest and endowment policy premium was collected (i.e. they are paid entirely separately) then as long as he paid what B&B had requested (£300 - £400 per month) then he would have no reason to suppose anything was wrong or realise that in fact he was only paying the interest on the loan.

Some 12 years later, during an unspecified query to B&B, a “whistleblower” (as Tom likes to call them) revealed to Tom’s wife that they “would never pay off their mortgage” and that, without Tom’s permission the endowment had been converted to a repayment type. Their B&B branch manager confirmed that there was no documentation to explain this change and apologised with flowers and champagne.

It’s hard to understand why this might have happened. Apart from it simply being another stupid mistake by B&B, I can only suggest that B&B had realised what had happened and had attempted to cover their tracks. It’s even harder to understand why having raised the issue with the branch manager, the problem of the missing endowment policy did not emerge and more importantly was not resolved. Instead, Tom was left with the impression that their mortgage had been changed back from a repayment to an endowment type. He continued to pay the £300 to £400 per month requested by B&B, still completely ignorant of the fact that this was only interest on the loan.

Another issue that I have regularly raised is that Tom asks us to believe that he was totally ignorant of the huge problem that emerged in the late ‘90s of under-performing endowment policies that would not even cover the loan amount let alone leave surpluses. After all, banks and building societies had been forced to introduce the “traffic light letter” system that warned policyholders of the potential risk on their endowment. Except that Tom wasn’t a policyholder so quite feasibly would not have received any communications on the issue. Furthermore, in 2000, B&B was still pushing endowment policies as a viable mortgage product so perhaps the branch manager had not explained the issue.

Not until 2006 was Tom told that he was only paying interest on the loan and even then it’s not clear that he understood that this had been the situation right from the beginning of the mortgage and that there was no endowment policy. Tom says that he complained to the Financial Ombudsman about the matter. It’s not clear when he initiated the complaint although as the result was not received until 2012 it seems unlikely that it was in 2006. In any case, the complaint was rejected by the FO on the grounds that it was time barred i.e. more than “six years from the event the consumer is complaining about or, if later 3 years from when the consumer knew, or could reasonably have known, they had cause to complain”.

It is after this that Tom committed fully to the GOODF approach.

So is it likely that B&B had simply omitted to set up the endowment policy? It seems so given that in 2001 the Financial Ombudsman’s website explained the compensation arrangements in such a circumstance … http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/p ... licies.htm

It is a matter of opinion as to the extent of Tom’s contribution to his own difficulties, whether we should have sympathy for him and when this sympathy might have run out.

[Hyrion]

It is a matter of opinion as to the extent of Tom’s contribution to his own difficulties, whether we should have sympathy for him and when this sympathy might have run out.

I do have sympathy for him. With regards the situation that he seems to have turned a blind eye to his finances over the years rather than being aware of them.

Two questions stand out to me:

• Upon reviewing his bank statement each month, how can he not notice the principal not decreasing?

• Upon reviewing his endowment statement each month, how can he not notice whether or not it will be sufficient to cover the value upon maturity?

The only answer I can currently see to those questions is: he did not review his finances frequently.

So... I have sympathy for the fact he chose not to have a better awareness over his finances - but I do not have any sympathy for the consequences of his choice.

Of course, that current position is subject to change upon verifiable facts presented about the situation that may alter the answer to the two questions above.

I find it both puzzling and sad when anyone chooses a path which will harm themselves.

[Normal Wisdom]

It is a matter of opinion as to the extent of Tom’s contribution to his own difficulties, whether we should have sympathy for him and when this sympathy might have run out.

I do have sympathy for him. With regards the situation that he seems to have turned a blind eye to his finances over the years rather than being aware of them.

Two questions stand out to me:

• Upon reviewing his bank statement each month, how can he not notice the principal not decreasing?

• Upon reviewing his endowment statement each month, how can he not notice whether or not it will be sufficient to cover the value upon maturity?

The only answer I can currently see to those questions is: he did not review his finances frequently.

So... I have sympathy for the fact he chose not to have a better awareness over his finances - but I do not have any sympathy for the consequences of his choice.

Of course, that current position is subject to change upon verifiable facts presented about the situation that may alter the answer to the two questions above.

I find it both puzzling and sad when anyone chooses a path which will harm themselves.

Not sure what you mean by "the principal not decreasing". The amount he borrowed does not decrease at all during the whole period of the mortgage. Each month he pays only the interest due on the amount he borrowed and this will not change unless there is a change in the percentage interest rate. At the end of the mortgage period (25 years in this case) he still owes the full amount that he borrowed.

However, at the same time as the loan is made, an endowment policy is taken out with a life assurance company for which Tom should have paid a monthly premium. This is essentially an investment vehicle which "matures" i.e. becomes payable to coincide with the end of the mortgage period when the principal sum becomes due for repayment. The idea is that it generates enough money to cover the original loan and if you are lucky some additional funds. During the period of the loan it provides life assurance so that in the event that Tom had died during the mortgage period, the loan would have been repaid in full.

His monthly bank statement covers his current (or checking) account so would not show details of the mortgage loan. However he would see the outgoing payments for the interest and the separate endowment policy premium. If he knew that these were separate payments then he could have easily spotted that something was wrong if the endowment premium did not appear. In my previous post I suggest that it's likely that he didn't know this and understood the outgoing interest payment as the full amount required for both interest and endowment policy.

I very much doubt that any UK bank provided a monthly statement of the endowment policy performance. I think I got an annual statement but again if Tom never received one (because the endowment didn't exist) then arguably he wouldn't have expected it.

IMO the branch manager has a lot to answer for but I understand he is long gone. Tom could and probably should have done more to understand his finances. I think to a large extent B&B have made it very difficult but they will still get their money in full. Tom lost my sympathy when he embraced GOODF and particularly now he is such an strong advocate for their brand of stupidity.

[Hyrion]

Not sure what you mean by "the principal not decreasing". The amount he borrowed does not decrease at all during the whole period of the mortgage.

Exactly! If he was under the mistaken belief the principal was being covered, seeing this would have - at the very least - raised questions for which he can find out what's really happening.

His monthly bank statement covers his current (or checking) account so would not show details of the mortgage loan.

Having been in a similar situation, I've requested regular statements be produced. In the one instance where that was "not available" I went into the bank personally to request statements showing transactions. Yes, I understand the statement for the checking account would not show balance on the loan itself - but that doesn't prohibit someone asking about getting statements with regards the loan. If there's ever a situation where a lender "absolutely can not produce statements of any kind" then I won't be signing that loan agreement.

However he would see the outgoing payments for the interest and the separate endowment policy premium. If he knew that these were separate payments then he could have easily spotted that something was wrong if the endowment premium did not appear.

And in the event they were combined into a single payment: it's even more important to get detailed information on:

• A) The loan

• B) The endowment policy

In my previous post I suggest that it's likely that he didn't know this and understood the outgoing interest payment as the full amount required for both interest and endowment policy.

Bolded is exactly my point: He has a responsibility to ensure he understands any contractual relationship he has entered into as well as ensure that it doesn't go awry on him.

Absolutely: the above does not absolve the banks of their responsibilities and if they've actually committed some form of crime or breach of contract they absolutely should be held accountable. But:

In a situation where everyone is 100% behaving, a single reality still exists:

• Toms best interest is not the responsibility for the bank to oversee

• The banks best interest is not the responsibility of Tom to oversee

The point at which those best interests separate is the point where the individual has a responsibility to themselves to fully understand the situation. And the only way a person can be sure their expectation aligns with the reality is regularly reviewing the situation to ensure one can take steps to fix things sooner if something gets de-railed.

Tom lost my sympathy when he embraced GOODF and particularly now he is such an strong advocate for their brand of stupidity.

For myself, that falls into the category of: deliberately choosing a path which is going to harm oneself. My sympathy is due to the fact he made that choice. I have no sympathy for any consequences he will end up serving for having made that choice.

[littleFred]

I used to get annual statements from my policy provider giving the current growth rate and value. I kept a spreadsheet to answer my continuing question: "if the growth continues at the current rate, how much will it pay at maturity?" The spreadsheet was on paper, as they were in those days.

If Tom's loan and endowment policy were with the same company, so the two payments (interest and policy) were combined, and the company never provided policy statements, and cancelled the policy without telling Tom or changing the payments (or never started it), and never told him he was on interest-only (or Tom didn't understand the significance), and the company wasn't fussed about the fact that Tom would never repay the capital, and ... yes, a perfect storm might have created the current apparent situation.

And Tom may have latched on to the GOOFy myth that we can borrow money and never pay it back because we never borrowed anything in the first place.

[Normal Wisdom]

And Tom may have latched on to the GOOFy myth that we can borrow money and never pay it back because we never borrowed anything in the first place.

As far as I can tell, that is pretty much the grounds for his action against B&B once it was clear that the Financial Ombudsman offered no solution and it remains his contention now (along with the fraudulent Possession Order).

It's the argument that the money given to him was "created out of thin air" by Tom's signature on the loan agreement rather than taken out of B&B's own reserves. For B&B to charge interest on that money is fraud. Tom apparently paid between £90,000 and £125,000 interest over the loan period so he contends that he has more than paid back the loan and by rights should get some of that money back.

The Judge considered the claim ahead of a formal hearing and rejected it as "without merit". I think he also refused an appeal for the case to be transferred to the High Court

[littleFred]

It seems Tom was in court yesterday, successfully applying for permission to appeal. Appeal what? Dunno. The possession order, perhaps. Tom also says:

The crime report is now being investigated by the complex case review at the Metropolitan Police and they have said that they have never had to investigate fraud in the county court before (due to the fact its a civil matter) so we are encouraged that we have all managed to open a door which has been firmly shut before now.

Well, I'm impressed. The Met Police investigating the courts for fraud. Or maybe just thinking about it.

[wanglepin]

It seems Tom was in court yesterday, successfully applying for permission to appeal. Appeal what? Dunno.

He doesn't say what he is appealing, odd that. He does say they were in the court for "three hours" but gives nothing to what they were discussing in all that time. I notice he mentions "another load of fake document's Ive seen before". I can see tears here if this appeal (whatever it's for) is rejected.