UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[NYGman]

It has just occurred to me. If Tom's house is not worth enough to cover the debt, what else will they take to balance the amount owed?

his soul.



But seriously he has run up a nice big bill, hasn't he. He should be glad they didn't show up, less fees to return.

On the perjury charge, do we know if the bank consented to those laws?

[wanglepin]

Just read this on Peter of England`s FB page

Peter
This is for the benefit of those that are mistaken and misunderstand the decision of the Court. For those not familiar with the transcript of cases, the conclusion are the findings and the determination of the Judge. Please find below a complete transcript of the findings and determination of the Judge in Tom’s case – You will see that Tom lost and it cannot be argued that Tom won.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 9179700768
That's Peter off Tom's christmas list then.

[PeanutGallery]

That's the 'fake' Peter of England account, not the real Peter of England.

[wanglepin]

That's the 'fake' Peter of England account, not the real Peter of England.

He's clever isn't he that Peter? Creating another Peter to take the rap.

[Bones]

Looks like Bertie is losing the faith

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... VZx0ZMvb6Y

food for thought Toms dilemma...

Postby bertiebert » Fri May 15, 2015 11:22 pm
I have been asking 3 questions; - 1 what happened to the Endowment Insurance Policy? 2 - Why is no one crowdfunding it - to pay the bill and 3 - then have clean hands to make an equitable claim and put them on the back foot and ask them to prove they lent money, had the right to bring claim and have the 'promissory note' and all documents returned - after the debt is discharged. The courts and the banks are connected - in fact in a way they are one and the same thing; they are not going to let ANYONE win in court when the world is watching and a ruling in his favour would open a floodgate rule on endowment mortgages and the Sheaple may wake up out of their coma...and stop paying their mortgages.
Danny Bamping..

https://www.facebook.com/danny.bamping


I thought Tom won ?

Anyway Bertie

1) Tom stopped paying it
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3aECwwS00

"Mr Crawford has since been embroiled in a court battle over the mortgage, which he says the bank converted into an interest only loan without his knowledge.

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.

Nicole Sandells, representing the bank, told the court: '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."

2) Why crowdfunding ? Why not use a WeRe cheque
3) Can't see an actual question there

I think bertie counted to 2 and reached his limit and got confused

Why does Tom have a dilemma and why is any of the above needed, if Tom won ?

[Hercule Parrot]

I really wonder what they will do when he finally loses his house? Although a good guess would be that they blame the corrupt courts who issued a warrant without trial, that is not signed because no one wants to admit liability. The crooked bailiffs who have been paid off by the thieving banks will enforce the fraudulent warrant, and the police will stand by and watch the law being broken without intervening.

I think you're right. They are maintaining this "victory" myth so that they can rely on an gullible, outraged mob to resist the inevitable eviction. If the bank has any sense they'll repo the house in a surprise visit before any mob can be assembled. They might give notice of this by sending TC a letter saying "Expect Us", if they had a sense of humour.

While I'm giving unwanted advice, they should also ensure that all attending police officers are briefed by Notts Constabulary's legal dept that the order for possession has been verified as authentic and lawful. Sometimes it's good that the Police patiently listen to lectures on 'legalese' and humour the protestors for a while, but in this case it will be disastrous. TC and his GOOFyguards will be frantically stalling, so that the mob can arrive in time. They need to be brushed aside briskly, arrested if necessary, so that the court order can be swiftly effected.

[fat frank]

I think your looking at 6 am, van full of coppers and bailiffs, to remove them

[wanglepin]

I am keen to see a full transcript. As it is my belief that somewhere we may read that Tom played Guy Taylor`s “fraudulent documents “card. If this is the case- as I have mentioned before – this would mean that Tom actually lied on camera that there was an ongoing police investigation into his allegations of fraud committed by the B&B, courts, solicitors and bailiffs; because I am sure that evidence from an ongoing investigation would not be permitted to be entered. And it is certain “fraud” was mentioned one day as we heard from the barrister for B&B the words to the effect that “there had been no fraud”
Some quotes from Tom around that time were;

an investigation into the criminal activities of the courts paperwork and bailiffs

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.

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
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153564527482519
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... Vbe3zTF98F

Is this why the Tom and Taylor are not showing the whole transcript, I wonder

[wanglepin]

Looks like Bertie is losing the faith

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... VZx0ZMvb6Y

food for thought Toms dilemma...

Looks like bertiebert has had his post taken down.
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... VZx0ZMvb6Y
It's back up again
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... Vb1QzTF98E

[ArthurWankspittle]

I have to agree that the ignorance of the GOODFers is breathtaking.
The judge granted Tom permission to appeal out of time - so Tom's case had some merit. If this was the B&B appealing out of time, the GOODFers would be shouting illegal, the judge has broken the law. The judge allowed it as there is a significant issue riding on the outcome. If this had been a dispute over £500 between two businesses he would have refused permission to appeal.
B&B quoted an incorrect arrears figure and blamed it on a computer - so they have lied to the court and committed fraud. Skipping the fact that few people know how lenders work out interest, have the ability to do the calculations required to the necessary significant figures and that rounding can cause variations in the results, you have to realise that the exact figure doesn't matter in the case of arrears because ARREARS ARE CALCULATED ON THE NUMBER OF MONTHS PAYMENTS MISSING. For example. You are supposed to be paying £300 a month mortgage. The arrears are £1894. If you say, no my arrears are £1849 it doesn't matter because you are still 6 months in arrears. Also, any lawyer with any brains will just say OK we'll use the £1849 figure for now subject to us checking our figures and correcting it later if needs be.
B&B didn't turn up at court on 14th May - because they were afraid of being charged with perjury or contempt of court and imprisoned. Not that it computes with any of the GOODFers but they are obliged not to due to their (the lender's) professional standards. They know the result. They have it in writing. Turning up in court would be an unnecessary additional expense that will end up being added to Tom's bill, which is why it is not done.

[ArthurWankspittle]

It has just occurred to me. If Tom's house is not worth enough to cover the debt, what else will they take to balance the amount owed?

Nothing. He effectively ends up with a debt like a county court judgement for the balance. They can of course come after him for the next 12? years. (12 not 6 because it's a mortgage debt). He'd better take real professional advice if he has a pension which pays a lump sum on retirement but I'm 99.99% certain he hasn't.

[fat frank]

ccj don't get statue barred, so can chase him for 30 years, bankrupt is his only way out

[ArthurWankspittle]

ccj don't get statue barred, so can chase him for 30 years, bankrupt is his only way out

Doesn't an ordinary CCJ get unenforceable after 6 years of no contact? tm169 will likely know the rules.

[letissier14]

If there has been no contact/payment for over 6 years, the creditor would need to go back to court to enforce the ccj, which rarely ever happens.

[Bones]

If there has been no contact/payment for over 6 years, the creditor would need to go back to court to enforce the ccj, which rarely ever happens.

Not sure if you posted in the right thread Letissier (isn't that a mod from Goof Land ?) - but Tom had a mortgage and as such, if you refer to limitations act 1980, it is 12 years and not 6. I hope you provide your members with more accurate advice than you have posted here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58/section/20

20. Time limit for actions to recover money secured by a mortgage or charge or to recover proceeds of the sale of land.

(1)No action shall be brought to recover—

(a)any principal sum of money secured by a mortgage or other charge on property (whether real or personal); or

(b)proceeds of the sale of land;

after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right to receive the money accrued.

[letissier14]

Yes I was a MOD on GOODF and you are quite correct regarding a mortgage being 12 years under the limitations act.

However, I was answering the previous person who said "Doesn't an ordinary CCJ get unenforceable after 6 years of no contact"

[vampireLOREN]

It has just occurred to me. If Tom's house is not worth enough to cover the debt, what else will they take to balance the amount owed?

his soul.



But seriously he has run up a nice big bill, hasn't he. He should be glad they didn't show up, less fees to return.

On the perjury charge, do we know if the bank consented to those laws?

After all of Tom's troubles hopefully this makes you smile
https://youtu.be/fmEg15cElNw

[Bones]

Yes I was a MOD on GOODF and you are quite correct regarding a mortgage being 12 years under the limitations act.

However, I was answering the previous person who said "Doesn't an ordinary CCJ get unenforceable after 6 years of no contact"

In that case I apologise, I misunderstood your post

Sorry for the less than warm welcome to Quatloo's that I gave you, that was unfair of me.

I hope despite my confrontational initial post, you enjoy it here

[letissier14]

No worries

[vampireLOREN]

Yes I was a MOD on GOODF and you are quite correct regarding a mortgage being 12 years under the limitations act.

However, I was answering the previous person who said "Doesn't an ordinary CCJ get unenforceable after 6 years of no contact"

Welcome .....