UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[PeanutGallery]

Actually the question of did they or didn't they pay a court fee has been raised before (at first I thought by Gedaljahu Ebert, but after a brief search through transcripts I couldn't find it, it might have been advanced by Guy Taylor and I will look. However my main point is that this is not a new argument, the courts have heard it before and dealt with it, and Tom is just parroting someone else's gibberish.

Anyway the way the court dealt with the question then, which is likely to be the same way they dealt with it now, was to ask if the court did any work. If the papers were lodged without a fee the claim doesn't go any further, so the court reasons that if the court issues papers or in any way proceeds with the claim, it was paid either paid the appropriate fee or the claimant was entitled to remission.

Equally the question of whether a fee was or was not paid would be a matter between the claimant and the court and it would not prejudice the defendant as LittleFred correctly points out.

[littleFred]

Guy Taylor has spouted junk about fees: see viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10234&start=60#p183516 . He may have acquired it from Mr Ebert, or invented it himself.

In fact, Tom's presentation is mostly a re-hash of Guy's junk, including the "48 hours" misquote.

[PeanutGallery]

It may well have been Guy Taylor. Having finally had the chance to listen to Tom's talk which I felt suffered from poor delivery and it seems very poor comprehension on the part of Tom. I suspect his previous video's were both better rehearsed and scripted. I think that while certain parts of the Sovrun movement want Tom to become a guru, it would seem that he lacks the charisma.

In regard to Tom's point about fee's, the CPR rules (3.7) actually prescribe what would have happened had the claim been lodged without a fee. The first option is, to write to the Claimant, tell them they filed a claim but omitted the fee and ask them to pay it. This is entirely sensible, as striking out a valid claim if the Claimant simply forgot to enclose the fee would be harsh. If, in Tom's case, the claim was filed without the fee, a note would have been placed on the court file and then the court would have waited until the court was satisfied the fee had been paid or the Claimant had applied for remission. If they did not do this, then the claim would have been struck out.

[notorial dissent]

The "they didn't pay any fees" whine sounds about like the "paperwork reduction act" scam here, based on the scammers lack of understanding of how things are done, and certainly doesn't seem to work work any better. That particular one has been bounced any number of times as a non starter, but they don't seem to learn, under the "but it'll work for me this time" school of not learning from past mistakes.

Doesn't sound like your lot is any brighter, and just keeps repeating the same old fail. It really is no wonder the world spends so much time laughing and pointing.

[Normal Wisdom]

At about 10:20 he starts slagging off CAB with some bonkers story that they (CAB) are pursuing a desperate householder for £79,000 of court fees. That's obviously not true, and it's pretty despicable for TC to spread such rumours.

I have listened to that part a few times now and I am not sure that is what he is saying. As you quite rightly say, his presenting skills are awful, hence the confusion. I think that what he is saying is that CAB agreed to attend the hearing for possession in order to assist the householder but no one from CAB turned up at court on the day. The householder lost and (I think) what Crawford is saying is that the other side was awarded costs and they are persuing him for the money. Crawford is blaming the CAB for that. But, would the CAB agree to organise representation in a case like that? I have no idea.

It's not impossible if a lawyer had volunteered to provide pro bono legal assistance to the local CAB branch.

[PeanutGallery]

Even then the lawyer wouldn't be liable for the costs of a failed action. That would be down to the client, unless the solicitor was somehow negligent, in which case a claim could be brought on their personal indemnity insurance.

However based on my understanding of how the CAB works and their ability to provide legal services, I would say that a solicitor advising at the CAB would be very unlikely to form a client relationship through the CAB. They would instead, if the case warranted it and it could be funded, direct the client to their firm where the matter would be dealt with. They wouldn't do it through the CAB simply because the legal services that are provided to the CAB, on a pro bono basis, are already heavily oversubscribed and the CAB does not have staff with relevant experience.

[Normal Wisdom]

... The Manchester case relates to Russ McGarry who claims that 7 police officers have been "found guilty" by the "Professional Standers (sic) of Investigation and Civil Litigation Office" and are now subject to private prosecutions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR6cYkdXFSE&spfreload=10

I have been trying to find out whether this refers to a proper investigation by the police or it's just some made up FoTLer nonsense but as usual I haven't been able to get a straight answer. Fortunately Greater Manchester Police publish the results of all complaints against them on line so I will be able to check. Unfortunately, they only update the information quarterly and the next period isn't due to be published until after the end of March.

Well, well and quelle surprise! Greater Manchester Police have updated their record of upheld complaints and there is no sign of the much vaunted seven instances which Russ McGarry claimed. I am beginning to think that this was just more GOOFer BS. I look forward to hearing about how the private prosecutions are going now.

[Normal Wisdom]

I watched the latest video (link below) in the hope that it would reveal the basis of Tom's appeal against the Order of Possession which is apparently due to be heard on 1st May. It doesn't. He simply repeats his favourite part of the story; they took out an endowment mortgage, it was changed to a "part and part" and then to an "interest only" mortgage without their knowledge. It's notable that he claims he found out that it was interest only in 2002. That's the earliest of the many different years he has quoted for discovering this information and a full 11 years before the loan period ended. He's much less forthcoming on what he did to try and sort this out or whether he ever actual paid into an endowment policy alongside the interest only loan.

There's no mention of whether he intends to contest the eviction on the basis of the "missing" endowment policy but my suspicions are that it will mainly be the "void mortgage" and the fraudulent nature of the possession process conducted by the "fake" court and as evidenced by the fraudulent court process and documentation.

Despite his bullishness about the "complex case review" by the Metropolitan Police, I can't see how this can end well for him. And to be honest, I hope it doesn't.

[Bones]

I don't get it

To start with he would have been paying the interest on the mortgage and for an endowment policy

Then he says it was changed to part and part - so his payment would more than likely increased as he was not making payments to reduce part of the capital balance (wonder what happened to the endowment)

Then he says it was changed to interest only, so his payments would have decreased as he was no longer paying anything towards the capital balance.

Doesn't guy in one of his many video's say that Tom's payments never changed ?

I might have more sympathy once they can get their stories straight

[littleFred]

Tom gives a feeble I mean rousing Independence Day speech about his upcoming case on 1st May. In his usual vague manner, he doesn't bother saying who is the plaintiff is or what the case is.

[Normal Wisdom]

I don't get it

To start with he would have been paying the interest on the mortgage and for an endowment policy

Then he says it was changed to part and part - so his payment would more than likely increased as he was not making payments to reduce part of the capital balance (wonder what happened to the endowment)

Then he says it was changed to interest only, so his payments would have decreased as he was no longer paying anything towards the capital balance.

Doesn't guy in one of his many video's say that Tom's payments never changed ?

I might have more sympathy once they can get their stories straight

Tom has always been a bit shy of explaining some aspects of his situation. It's never been clear whether this is an intentional omission to avoid uncomfortable facts or whether it is simply because he just doesn't understand what he is talking about. Either is plausible.

His interest payments on the loan would not change (interest rates not withstanding). He should also have been separately paying a premium for the endowment policy. I've tried numerous times but he will not say whether this ever started or whether it started then stopped. My bet is that for some reason the endowment policy never commenced, the bank realise dafter a few years and changed it to a repayment mortgage (with or without his permission) and then at his insistence back to an interest only loan. He simply never understood the endowment policy situation. However, this is mainly my gut feel because as I say Tom is careful not to reveal too much and in fact the story changes every time he tells it.

As far as I can tell, it hardly matters what happened because he has long ago abandoned any attempt to hold the bank accountable for what may have been their mistake and instead has gone right down the OPCA path that all mortgages are void and fraudulent as is the Order of Possession from the court.

[wanglepin]

Tom gives a feeble I mean rousing Independence Day speech about his upcoming case on 1st May.

The “dark forces” will have a field day I suspect. What I do not understand is that if this case is to be heard 1st May, what has happened to the police investigation into what Tom described as “an investigation into the criminal activities of the courts paperwork and bailiffs”? Are the two running parallel? Or is Crawford simply lying?

Everyone is invited to the court

It is just as I suspected, a rally call by Tom Crawford for Tom Crawford all disguised as a jolly sov’s outing at the Jerusalem Inn pub.

[wanglepin]

it hardly matters what happened because he has long ago abandoned any attempt to hold the bank accountable for what may have been their mistake and instead has gone right down the OPCA path that all mortgages are void and fraudulent as is the Order of Possession from the court.

Yes all those claims of bank fraud seem to have disappeared altogether and for the last year or so he has concentrated of the fraud of the courts and bailiffs along with the forensically examined paperwork that they have found to be fraudulent.
I lost all sympathy for Tom Crawford some time ago.

[vampireLOREN]

Tom gives a feeble I mean rousing Independence Day speech about his upcoming case on 1st May. In his usual vague manner, he doesn't bother saying who is the plaintiff is or what the case is.

"Once more into the breach dear friends" or " we few we precious few", the more I see of this man the more it is obvious he is hand picked. This is the media friendly face of the movement! he is the bishop on the board. Those like stupid Ken, Cleveden Rhoden and others like the man in Luton are the pawns, soon discarded and forgotten. They are missing a point that in a good game of chess which is to keep him out of the game till he attacks. No this panama hatted bastard appears everywhere The church in Hampstead, giving practical talks and advice, Mr Eberts eviction, with Guy Taylor every bloody where.
The only truth in this movement is that it is full of liars.

[ArthurWankspittle]

His interest payments on the loan would not change (interest rates not withstanding). He should also have been separately paying a premium for the endowment policy. I've tried numerous times but he will not say whether this ever started or whether it started then stopped. My bet is that for some reason the endowment policy never commenced, the bank realise dafter a few years and changed it to a repayment mortgage (with or without his permission) and then at his insistence back to an interest only loan.

This is my take on the sequence of mortgage events. He takes out an interest only + endowment mortgage. The lender does a review and works out the endowment is not going to pay the capital. There was a lot of this going on about, what, 7-8 years ago. They convert it into a repayment mortgage. Tom then gets into further financial problems, ill health, whatever so the lender swaps his mortgage back to interest only. This minimises the payments and, if you aren't being stupid about it, is what Income Support (a government benefit for the colonials reading this) pays. In a lot of cases this is enough to prevent foreclosure (I mean repossession, I'm typing in American again) because the IS rate is usually within a few pounds of the actual interest only rate on the loan. The lender is relatively happy because they are getting their interest paid-ish, and the mortgagee should be happy because they still have a house. Everyone kicks the can down the road, the lender hopes they will get paid somehow sometime, the mortgagee keeps the house until sometime in the future when they do something to sort the mortgage out. And the courts are happy that they avoid all the petty repossession cases. Only the most argumentative dickhead is going to go to court because they are being underpaid by £7.32 a month. And then the law says you have to be two or more (full) months payments in arrears before they will even consider doing something.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I believe Arthur's assessment is about right. There is the possibility that although Crawford (tempted by the lower repayments) agreed to switch to an interest only mortgage, he did not understand the implications. I recall a recent news article where it was shown there were a lot of people on interest only mortgages who were unaware that at the end of the term they still owe the amount borrowed.

[vampireLOREN]

I don't get it

To start with he would have been paying the interest on the mortgage and for an endowment policy

Then he says it was changed to part and part - so his payment would more than likely increased as he was not making payments to reduce part of the capital balance (wonder what happened to the endowment)

Then he says it was changed to interest only, so his payments would have decreased as he was no longer paying anything towards the capital balance.

Doesn't guy in one of his many video's say that Tom's payments never changed ?

I might have more sympathy once they can get their stories straight

Tom has always been a bit shy of explaining some aspects of his situation. It's never been clear whether this is an intentional omission to avoid uncomfortable facts or whether it is simply because he just doesn't understand what he is talking about. Either is plausible.

His interest payments on the loan would not change (interest rates not withstanding). He should also have been separately paying a premium for the endowment policy. I've tried numerous times but he will not say whether this ever started or whether it started then stopped. My bet is that for some reason the endowment policy never commenced, the bank realise dafter a few years and changed it to a repayment mortgage (with or without his permission) and then at his insistence back to an interest only loan. He simply never understood the endowment policy situation. However, this is mainly my gut feel because as I say Tom is careful not to reveal too much and in fact the story changes every time he tells it.

As far as I can tell, it hardly matters what happened because he has long ago abandoned any attempt to hold the bank accountable for what may have been their mistake and instead has gone right down the OPCA path that all mortgages are void and fraudulent as is the Order of Possession from the court.

I am puzzled here...a bit, in the early to middle 80s Mortgage Brokers were the people who pushed Endowment Mortgages due to higher commission . The used the fact that the monthly payments would be considerably less. Under repayment your payments must increase.
I would think the Crawfords have quite a history with their lender .....maybe due to poor health or no fault of their own.The fact they still live in the house shows that the lender has treated them with consideration. I also think this current action has been a long time in the planning.

[littleFred]

The theory was that endowment policies would return a gain that was higher than interest rates. So an endowment mortgage with the same monthly cost as a repayment mortgage was supposed to repay more than the capital at the end (a "with profits" policy). Alternatively, the house-buyer could choose to pay less than the equivalent repayment mortgage, and receive no profit at the end, but the capital would be repaid.

So if Tom had a "with profit" endowment policy and this changed to repayment, the monthly cost would be the same.

I don't know if Tom ever had an endowment policy, or who stopped this policy and when, or what happened to it. It does seem that Tom has been paying interest only for a long time. Upthread:

It's notable that he claims he found out that it was interest only in 2002. That's the earliest of the many different years he has quoted for discovering this information and a full 11 years before the loan period ended.

During those eleven years, what did Tom do to ensure he could pay the capital when it became due? Apparently nothing.

What will Tom argue on 1st May? With luck, he has taken advice from a real solicitor. I suspect he hasn't, and he will try to argue a load of irrelevant junk.

[rumpelstilzchen]

What will Tom argue on 1st May?

Tom has an Ace up his sleeve! In this thread http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... 60&t=85242
ceylon writes:

yes but you dont know what tom will be doing

So what secret manoeuvre Tom will be implementing is anyone's guess.

Of course there is always the possibility that Tom doesn't know what Tom will be doing.

[wanglepin]

ceylon writes:

yes but you dont know what tom will be doing

So what secret manoeuvre Tom will be implementing is anyone's guess.

Of course there is always the possibility that Tom doesn't know what Tom will be doing.

One would have thought that if Tom Crawford was going to present and use as evidence Guy Taylors forensically examined fraudulent court stamps and documents as any type of defence that this he couldn't possibly do if these frauds are the subject of a ongoing Police Investigation. Which leads me to ask, what is Tom Crawford going to be producing for the court?