UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[rumpelstilzchen]

Why did he stop paying?

[letissier14]

hello letissier14, welcome. Nice to hear the others sides perspective, it is refreshing.
Have you posted your feelings or opinion over on getoutofdebtfree at all? It seems anyone who appears to have doubts concerning Taylor and Eberts translation of the judges decision is shot down immediately or stop posting or banned✓ .

No, I've not mentioned anything on GOODF, though I have raised the subject on numerous facebook pages linked to the eviction. I was basically told that I don't understand "legalise" and was insulted, and also that I must be stupid, as it is clear Tom has clearly won.

[letissier14]

Why did he stop paying?

I've no idea, other then to assume because he had put the mortgage into dispute with the lender?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Is there any reason why you haven't mentioned it on GOODF?

[ArthurWankspittle]

Whilst I can't speak for all of the posters on this site, no-one can surely take pleasure in seeing a family lose their home.

What riles me in particular is that, properly advised Tom C could have resolved this issue some time ago, spared himself, his wife and their children much grief. Perhaps he still could if he swallowed his pride, divested himself of the Eberts and Celyons of this world and took some proper advice. I'm sure that the B&B would positively welcome some resolution that does not end in eviction.

This ^
For whatever reason he stopped paying the endowment, unless it was because he was already starting to believe the sovereign woo-woo, it was a long way from the end of the mortgage and lots of people must be in the same situation. But towards the end of the mortgage I think he had started believing and was therefore being antagonistic towards B&B and sorting out the situation. I'd love to know if B&B sent someone to interview him and what they reported if they did. So instead of saying to the B&B look, I cocked up over repaying the lump sum, give me 12 month to sell the place and downsize and I'll keep paying the interest until I sell, he comes out with it's not real money, you magiced it out of thin air, I'm not paying you and the house is mine. Take the first option and, so long as the figures are realistic, I think any judge would suspend the possession order for 12 months subject to him paying the interest in the mean time. Having taken the second route he still had the chance of going to the first but I think he is now too late.

[letissier14]

Is there any reason why you haven't mentioned it on GOODF?

Only because I rarely post on GOODF these days other than to post financial news headlines etc. I tend to post on facebook groups more.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Is there any reason why you haven't mentioned it on GOODF?

Only because I rarely post on GOODF these days other than to post financial news headlines etc. I tend to post on facebook groups more.

Is that the diplomatic answer?
Seriously though, Why does GOODF ban people who prove some of the GOOFs beliefs are wrong? Why do they silence people?

[wanglepin]

Having taken the second route he still had the chance of going to the first but I think he is now too late.

Couldn't agree more. As I have said king goofer spotted a soft target who was sickly, in debt and on a serious downer and said 'you don't want to do it like that, come with us' the rest as they say is ......

[letissier14]

Seriously though, Why does GOODF ban people who prove some of the GOOFs beliefs are wrong? Why do they silence people?

For that you would have to ask Jon or Ceylon, as when I was a full MOD on there I didn't have the authority to do that.

If you don't mind I would rather stick to the subject of TC rather than GOODF. Having looked at your forum it is obvious not many people agree with what GOODF stands for. However, I am not going to talk badly about GOODF as they really did help more than you can imagine when I was down and virtually out.

I was given some good advice all of which was free and it helped turn my life around.

I am happy to talk about most subjects, but don't really want to discuss the internal workings of GOODF, other than to say that there are some topics I totally agree with on GOODF, and other topics I totally disagree with. I hope you understand and respect my point of view on the subject.

[rumpelstilzchen]

OK, that's fair enough.

In your opinion does Tom know deep down that he lost or does he believe in Mr Ebert?

[letissier14]

OK, that's fair enough.

In your opinion does Tom know deep down that he lost or does he believe in Mr Ebert?

Well I can only judge that on the video Ceylon and Tom released last night, where Tom himself admitted that when he first read the judgment he thought he had lost - But after speaking with Mr Ebert he was informed he had actually won .... So I guess you have to take your answer from that!

[wserra]

After reading the last few pages of this thread - and thus admitting that I may have missed something in the other 25 - isn't the judgment at issue publicly available? If so, why doesn't someone link to it so the readers can decide for themselves?

[Bones]

Can I please have some of what SallieNae is smoking

Because Guy, Mark Ceylon, King ??? and Mr Ebert say Tom won, Tom won ???

Isn't the above just a who, who of idiots ? What happened to the two Micheal's and that other idiot who I can't remember right now ? Weren't they also helping



Re: Tom Crawford success!!

Postby SalliNae » Sat May 16, 2015 1:11 pm
If? Woodenhead, IF you choose to keep believing mainstream media and refuse to believe Tom has won, then there is no hope for you. Just what will it take to confirm this success? Guy and Tom on Court steps - from the horses mouth. Tom's son has disclosed an email he sent to Notts Post asking them to correct their reporting. Ceylon and King with Tom again, confirming Mr Ebert, who understands legalese and has read judgment in full, reporting a resounding success.

The negative posts and links to mainstream media are designed to undermine the truth because a spin has been put on this story in MSM to cover an outrageous scam that was perpetrated on Tom and his family. The biggest fear for the PTB is that this is happening up and down the country and if Tom's success gets out there, there will be an influx of proceedings citing Tom's case as a precedent.

The judgement isn't even written in what they refer to as legalese. I find it funny that they don't even understand what legalese is and yet talk about it every day

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legalese

language containing an excessive amount of legal terminology or of legal jargon.

There is very little if any legal terminology or legal jargon in the decision. It is written in plain english and clearly confirms that Tom lost

[vampireLOREN]

What are your thoughts on Tom's position regarding the original case? Tom did not pay the endowment policy and had nothing in place to pay off the final sum. Do you accept the B&B had every right to start proceedings? Is it not the case that it was actually the B&B that were wronged because Tom did not pay back what he originally agreed to?

Again it is very hard to speculate on this without seeing the full facts in front of you.

Tom has said there was an endowment policy, but it was cashed in by the bank and not by him? I know when I had a mortgage I was paying one payment for the mortgage and one for the endowment. I believe Tom was only ever making one payment.

According to what I've been told, Tom stopped paying the mortgage near the end of the mortgage term, which resulted in arrears! I believe that the judge had stated that the B&B were entitled to start proceedings as there were arrears on the account.

I would doubt that the B&B would ever have the authority to go anywhere near the Endowment policy. It is only paid to them on the end of term of the Mortgage with any short fall being the responsibility of the borrower or any "left over monies" forwarded to him. If for some reason he stopped paying his cover would stay in place diminishing gradually until there was nothing in the pot. At that point the Insurance co would contact B&B and they would convert to a repayment mortgage and insist he takes out further life cover. This is the whole point...and this is what spoils the Crawford persona , his memory is either very bad or his basic premise is based on a falsehood. He has stated he had arrears and that was due to his illness , that is understandable. He will be still building up arrears as he still owes the original purchase price+.
He has stated that he looked for further life cover in 1999.....the same time the court documents say he discovered his problem....ummmmmm.

[Bones]

In terms of if it was B&B or Tom, this is how it was reported

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

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.

'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.'

[PeanutGallery]

I've stated it before but I'm not sure that Tom ever really understood what sort of a mortgage he was getting. I still maintain that view, I believe he didn't realise that he would need to make two payments (one for the endowment policy and another for the mortgage) and that he thought paying the mortgage would cover both of them. Of course this is just speculation, but I would concur that Tom is financially naive and may well have been mis-sold the mortgage, although proving that so many years after the fact would be impossible.

I think he stopped paying the mortgage when it became clear that any future payments would not result in his having ownership of the property, the payments were only covering the interest on the initial loan and he didn't want to throw good money away. By then I also believe he was of the view that a fraud had been committed against him and he was likely upset.

Now he could have restructured, but I think his over-riding belief was that he had been defrauded and I would also imagine that Tom wanted to stand up for himself. Their is nothing wrong with defending what you consider to be your rights. But when you do decide to do that, it is always worth looking into what your rights actually are and understanding the situation you are actually in.

Unfortunately Tom has lost his court case, but I believe he has been pressured into claiming it as a victory, he's being used by Ceylon, Gerrish, Taylor and Ebert to further their own agenda and I suspect that when he is evicted one or possibly all of the above will mount a call for civil unrest.

[littleFred]

Welcome, letissier14!

After reading the last few pages of this thread - and thus admitting that I may have missed something in the other 25 - isn't the judgment at issue publicly available? If so, why doesn't someone link to it so the readers can decide for themselves?

The Nottingham Post published the conclusion at Tom Crawford court case: Read the judge's conclusions.

[PeanutGallery]

Also welcome letissier14, I have to say that from reading your posts here I would say your absence from GOODF is their loss. You seem a rational sort who appears to judge things based on the available evidence, even if the conclusion is both unfortunate and unpalatable.

I won't celebrate the eviction of Tom Crawford, but I won't condemn it either. When this started Tom had a number of options that could have completely freed him from the debt he was in. He didn't pursue them and instead launched fruitless action after fruitless action. What is unfortunate is that he attracted a number of guru's and they've slowly chipped away at whatever hold on reality he had to the point where Tom is now being told that up is down and fervently believing it, not because it is true, but because he wants and needs it to be true due to his emotional investment.

The Guru's got someone who was great to promote their scams with. It's just going to cost the man his house and quite possibly do damage to his health. At the end of this, only one man will be left as Tom Crawford.

[Hercule Parrot]

Is Tom willing to pay?

I don't think he has anything to pay with. I can't see a lender saying no worries we'll wait for your crowdfunding to come up with the money, when they can repossess and auction the place in a few months. Tom has to come up with £43k for the original capital amount plus interest and costs from the end of the mortgage and first court hearing onwards. B&B employed a barrister, have had a couple of failed attempts at possession etc. My guess is he owes in the £60k region by now.

Tom can trade other valuable things, it doesn't have to be cash today. He can trade a stake in the proceeds of sale when the house is eventually sold, he can trade a quiet and dignified settlement which ends the stress for everyone. He has a weak hand of cards, but they can be played nonetheless.

I'll bet that if people went into a quiet room with a whiteboard and talked constructively, a deal would be done somehow -

# Tom could sell his interest in the house to the bank for £80k. He has enough for a nice flat or smaller house, and the bank can resell the house for £130k to recover their losses.

# Tom's debt could be converted to a charge upon eventual sale, so that it is recovered from his estate in 20 years or so. Interest at the rate of RPI inflation, so nobody wins or loses during the waiting period.

# Tom could resume payments for a while - he's not too old to work, and if the bank agrees to freeze interest he could reduce the debt by quite a bit.

# Tom agrees to front a series of videos and adverts, encouraging financial responsibility and telling people not to fall into the same traps as he did. He becomes a youtube star for the right reasons. He is generously paid, by deduction from capital owed.

# A member of Tom's family (his son or daughter perhaps) could become a co-signatory to an extended loan period. By contributing £10-20k now, they ensure they have a larger inheritance in future.

There are loads of ways that a face-saving arrangement could be made. The bank would go for this, as long as they got most of their money and the public image win. Tom would go for it, if it meant he could stop worrying. The only people who would be determined to prevent this would be the GOOFy's. And they will keep the pressure on TC to make sure he martyrs himself.

[GaryBale]

How about B&B accept a reduced amount of £30k (I suspect they've sold a complicated product to Tom knowing he didn't fully understand the ins-and-outs) and just leave it as a charge on the property to be recovered later?

I like the idea of using the publicity to raise awareness of financial illiteracy.