UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[Normal Wisdom]

Wow! Now that's the sort of information that we've been wanting all along and of course it makes perfect sense. It also explains why he has been so unwilling to say anything definitive about the existence of the endowment policy and any payments he might have made. What an absolute con man.

Nicole Sandells, representing Bradford and Bingley... his endowment policy had lapsed - due to him not making the endowment payments

Yes Normal, he stopped paying,. Why? I don't doubt for a second that it was at this point he had discovered Mark Haining Ceylon of GOODF and Guy Taylor. Who put him on the road to getting into more debt free. I believe Tom could well end up with costs against him should it not go his way.

I'm guessing again but I think he stopped paying long before GOODF was even a twinkle in Jon Witterick's eye. Bear in mind that he took out the mortgage in 1988. For the endowment policy to be worth nothing (or close to it) I reckon he must have stopped paying pretty soon after it commenced. That would explain why his wife was told in 2000 that they would never pay off the mortgage and why someone in B&B might have helpfully tried to turn it into a "part & part" mortgage (with or without his agreement). I wonder if he ever understood what that endowment policy was? One of the it's benefits is that it provides life assurance to cover the mortgage in case the mortgagor dies. Perhaps he thought it was a just "nice to have" optional extra and stopped paying without checking first.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Bear in mind that he took out the mortgage in 1988. For the endowment policy to be worth nothing (or close to it) I reckon he must have stopped paying pretty soon after it commenced.

I think there were some really duff endowments around, especially if they were based on some exotic bit of the financial markets. One of the problems with endowments is that they are the first thing to go if the insured has financial problems, but no one used to care or notice. The insured saves a few quid a month, the insurer can't do anything about it and the mortgagor is still getting paid.

I also wonder if the judge is having a think about whether to land Tom Crawford with costs and how much. B&B are probably getting pissed off with him with having to get the "big guns" in for the case. tm169 may be able to help, but I think the judge will have asked for a statement of costs from both sides and has probably gone "blimey" (or equivalent judicial phrase) when he saw that B&B are claiming well into 5 figures of costs.

[mufc1959]

Tom Crawford's made his preferences clear. I'm sure it can be arranged.

"Cancer patient Tom Crawford says he would "rather be dragged out and sent to jail" than let his home be taken by bailiffs."

http://www.nottinghampost.com/drag-kick ... story.html

[notorial dissent]

Wow! Now that's the sort of information that we've been wanting all along and of course it makes perfect sense. It also explains why he has been so unwilling to say anything definitive about the existence of the endowment policy and any payments he might have made. What an absolute con man. No sympathy any more he needs to be kicked out as an example to others.

And of course, it wasn't his fault. The actual answer makes a lot more sense than his carefully edited stories.

[Normal Wisdom]

A comment by Tom's daughter on the "Eviction-Fraud of the Banks" FB page explains a bit more. This is exactly what happened in the Paula Campbell case and I am bound to say that her comments sound exactly like Paula's after her hearing and before judgement was delivered:

Amanda Pike: He said he needed to go away and look at a few of the documents.....it had already over run and he asked the court staff ladies (who were lovely) if they minded staying for half an hour. He said he would write the out come to mum and dad...then we would be going back to court to hear it from him formally to go through the motions properly and that he would be as quick as possible. I dunno how i feel about it all. I'm not sure he'll rule in our favour even given the actual FACTS not hear say as was all presented by the other side. But some of our facts he flatly refused to listen to. However who knows he may look into them? So for want of a better word the jury is out! Lol x

[littleFred]

Assuming that B&B are correct, that Tom simply stopped paying the endowment so it lapsed, I still have a little sympathy for Tom because this was a bad situation inviting the current trouble, a decade or two after the lapse. I think the lender has a moral duty (if not a legal one) to ensure that something is in place to repay the capital. I can't see that interest-only mortgages with nothing to repay the capital, are any better for the homeowner than simply renting.

I suppose the main question for the current judge is whether Tom had proper opportunity to refute B&B's assertion that Tom allowed his endowment to lapse. My guess is that Tom did have the opportunity, and an appeal would simply go over the same ground which Tom has no chance of winning, so permission to appeal will be denied.

Perhaps Tom's case will end with him renting his house from B&B, or whoever B&B sell it to.

[Normal Wisdom]

Assuming that B&B are correct, that Tom simply stopped paying the endowment so it lapsed, I still have a little sympathy for Tom because this was a bad situation inviting the current trouble, a decade or two after the lapse. I think the lender has a moral duty (if not a legal one) to ensure that something is in place to repay the capital. I can't see that interest-only mortgages with nothing to repay the capital, are any better for the homeowner than simply renting.

I suppose the main question for the current judge is whether Tom had proper opportunity to refute B&B's assertion that Tom allowed his endowment to lapse. My guess is that Tom did have the opportunity, and an appeal would simply go over the same ground which Tom has no chance of winning, so permission to appeal will be denied.

Perhaps Tom's case will end with him renting his house from B&B, or whoever B&B sell it to.

I imagine that B&B would be thinking about some kind of equity release scheme.

[mufc1959]

I think the lender has a moral duty (if not a legal one) to ensure that something is in place to repay the capital. I can't see that interest-only mortgages with nothing to repay the capital, are any better for the homeowner than simply renting.

But every year Tom would have got his annual statement showing the balance wasn't going down at all and saying that the mortgage was interest only. Since MCOB in 2004 the statements have to contain a lot of information about this.

http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/handbook/MCOB/7/5

See 7.5.3. The statements would have reminded Tom every year that he'd need to have some way of repaying the capital.

As far as B&B is concerned, Tom had a repayment method - an endowment. But if he let it lapse that's not B&B's fault.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Assuming that B&B are correct, that Tom simply stopped paying the endowment so it lapsed, I still have a little sympathy for Tom because this was a bad situation inviting the current trouble, a decade or two after the lapse. I think the lender has a moral duty (if not a legal one) to ensure that something is in place to repay the capital. I can't see that interest-only mortgages with nothing to repay the capital, are any better for the homeowner than simply renting.

They do have a duty to keep an eye on how the mortgage will finally get repaid but Crawford's mortgage has allegedly switched to repayment and then interest only again. Given Crawford's ability to not notice letters from the B&B, I would not be surprised if B&B has sent sufficient letters and done sufficient diligence in trying to get Crawford to do something. Further, if they hadn't complied with lending guidelines they would be unlikely to get a possession order. I think they would only be "let off" minor points by a judge and the other side would have to have been imperfect for a judge not to say go back and sort it out before you come back to me again.

I further don't think that even after a few years Crawford will have built up enough equity to do some sort of equity release or reversion mortgage, especially when he's going to owe a shedload of costs, extra years of interest etc.

[vampireLOREN]

Assuming that B&B are correct, that Tom simply stopped paying the endowment so it lapsed, I still have a little sympathy for Tom because this was a bad situation inviting the current trouble, a decade or two after the lapse. I think the lender has a moral duty (if not a legal one) to ensure that something is in place to repay the capital. I can't see that interest-only mortgages with nothing to repay the capital, are any better for the homeowner than simply renting.

I suppose the main question for the current judge is whether Tom had proper opportunity to refute B&B's assertion that Tom allowed his endowment to lapse. My guess is that Tom did have the opportunity, and an appeal would simply go over the same ground which Tom has no chance of winning, so permission to appeal will be denied.

Perhaps Tom's case will end with him renting his house from B&B, or whoever B&B sell it to.

I imagine that B&B would be thinking about some kind of equity release scheme.

[vampireLOREN]

Assuming that B&B are correct, that Tom simply stopped paying the endowment so it lapsed, I still have a little sympathy for Tom because this was a bad situation inviting the current trouble, a decade or two after the lapse. I think the lender has a moral duty (if not a legal one) to ensure that something is in place to repay the capital. I can't see that interest-only mortgages with nothing to repay the capital, are any better for the homeowner than simply renting.

I suppose the main question for the current judge is whether Tom had proper opportunity to refute B&B's assertion that Tom allowed his endowment to lapse. My guess is that Tom did have the opportunity, and an appeal would simply go over the same ground which Tom has no chance of winning, so permission to appeal will be denied.

Perhaps Tom's case will end with him renting his house from B&B, or whoever B&B sell it to.

I imagine that B&B would be thinking about some kind of equity release scheme.

An equity release scheme would actually solve the whole issue, but Tom has I imagine cost considerable expense !B&B they may wish to raise the cost. If this direction is taken these people will spin it as a victory anyway. I actually find him a detestable little man.

[Normal Wisdom]

Assuming that B&B are correct, that Tom simply stopped paying the endowment so it lapsed, I still have a little sympathy for Tom because this was a bad situation inviting the current trouble, a decade or two after the lapse. I think the lender has a moral duty (if not a legal one) to ensure that something is in place to repay the capital. I can't see that interest-only mortgages with nothing to repay the capital, are any better for the homeowner than simply renting.

I suppose the main question for the current judge is whether Tom had proper opportunity to refute B&B's assertion that Tom allowed his endowment to lapse. My guess is that Tom did have the opportunity, and an appeal would simply go over the same ground which Tom has no chance of winning, so permission to appeal will be denied.

Perhaps Tom's case will end with him renting his house from B&B, or whoever B&B sell it to.

I imagine that B&B would be thinking about some kind of equity release scheme.

An equity release scheme would actually solve the whole issue, but Tom has I imagine cost considerable expense !B&B they may wish to raise the cost. If this direction is taken these people will spin it as a victory anyway. I actually find him a detestable little man.

His kids won't like an equity release scheme!

On the subject of the moral duty of B&B to ensure he had a way to repay the principal. He had an endowment which he apparently abandoned. We haven't yet learned how the mortgage was changed to a "part and part", repayment mortgage but it would have solved the problem and Tom is clear that he insisted they change it back to interest only.

[Hercule Parrot]

A comment by Tom's daughter on the "Eviction-Fraud of the Banks" FB page ...
Amanda Pike: But some of our facts he flatly refused to listen to. However who knows he may look into them?

"We gave him some really good youtube links explaining how the Zionist bankers have invented money, how laws made by parliament are voluntary, and that everyone is entitled to a free house. If he doesn't watch them all, and agree with them, its just more proof that the system is corrupt..."

[littleFred]

I think it is likely that B&B gave Tom all the cautions about "interest only" that they were legally obliged to. And there may have been nothing else they could have done, short of (a) declining to issue an interest-only mortgage or (b) going round to Tom's house and beating him over the head with a plastic blow-up hammer until he understood that he wasn't paying the principal so would be chucked out at the end of the mortgage.

On (a), this is a political/social/ethical/moral argument that is outside the scope of Quatloos. I'll leave it alone.

[Bones]

He said: "They committed fraud against my family by changing the terms without my consent.
"My wife and I have paid our mortgage. They changed it, I'm not responsible for paying it."

Is this a bit closer to the truth Tommy boy?

But Bradford and Bingley said his endowment policy had lapsed - due to him not making the endowment payments - and that he had only been paying an interest-only mortgage.
They say he owes £43,000.
Nicole Sandells, representing Bradford and Bingley, said: "It seems abundantly clear...that they knew the [endowment] policy had lapsed and needed to put something in place to sort out how they were going to repay the capital, but they've never done that.
"This is not a case where Bradford and Bingley has lost an endowment policy. The bank was not asked to sort the problem out by turning it into a repayment mortgage. There was no fraud by the bank."

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Tom-Crawf ... story.html

This explains why Tom has refused to answer any questions about the endowment policy.

All the gumpf the two michael's said and whoever else was there won't matter a joy.

Did Tom borrow £x ? Yes
Did Tom repay £x ? No

At the end of the day these will be the main questions the judge will consider.

As I understand it, this was an application to appeal a previous judgement and not a hearing to consider new arguments.

[Bones]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sters.html

"A judge due to rule on whether a cancer sufferer can be evicted from his home for falling behind on his mortgage will give his verdict via email after angry protesters mobbed the court.

Judge Nigel Godsmark QC has told grandfather-of-two Tom Crawford, 64, that he will receive his judgement electronically over fears that giving it in court could start a riot."

If the judge was going to say Tom would not be evicted, common sense would suggest that he would not have any fears that the judgement could start a riot

[wanglepin]

His wife Susan, who works in market research, said: 'If you can imagine trying to save your home at the same time as wanting to nurse your husband when he's desperately ill.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sters.html

Oh stop it Susan! Your "desperately ill" husband Tom has been touring the country for the last 12 months giving advice on fraudulent court documents and court stamps and having a proper jolly with Roger Hayes, Guy Taylor and that king idiot goofer Mark Haining Ceylon.Wasn't it all down the pub after this latest court jolly?

[wanglepin]

Besides, Guy Taylor has many times insisted that

"this is not about a cancer sufferer, it`s about the fraud committed by the courts and bailiffs"

[slowsmile]

Wow! Now that's the sort of information that we've been wanting all along and of course it makes perfect sense. It also explains why he has been so unwilling to say anything definitive about the existence of the endowment policy and any payments he might have made. What an absolute con man.

Nicole Sandells, representing Bradford and Bingley... his endowment policy had lapsed - due to him not making the endowment payments

Yes Normal, he stopped paying,. Why? I don't doubt for a second that it was at this point he had discovered Mark Haining Ceylon of GOODF and Guy Taylor. Who put him on the road to getting into more debt free. I believe Tom could well end up with costs against him should it not go his way.

I'm guessing again but I think he stopped paying long before GOODF was even a twinkle in Jon Witterick's eye. Bear in mind that he took out the mortgage in 1988. For the endowment policy to be worth nothing (or close to it) I reckon he must have stopped paying pretty soon after it commenced. That would explain why his wife was told in 2000 that they would never pay off the mortgage and why someone in B&B might have helpfully tried to turn it into a "part & part" mortgage (with or without his agreement). I wonder if he ever understood what that endowment policy was? One of the it's benefits is that it provides life assurance to cover the mortgage in case the mortgagor dies. Perhaps he thought it was a just "nice to have" optional extra and stopped paying without checking first.

First post here from a lurker of a few months - hi everyone.

I would concur that it would appear he stopped paying well before GOODF. If he "bought" the property in 1988 then I would imagine the price would most likely have been pretty close to the £43k he owes (based on me buying a 3 bed semi in Sheffield in 1991 for £55k).

[Arthur Rubin]

Besides, Guy Taylor has many times insisted that

"this is not about a cancer sufferer, it`s about the fraud committed by the courts and bailiffs"

The fraud committed on (the bank), courts, and bailiffs?