Ok reading the Judgement, the first bit of note is a line in 14:
Mr Crawford said that as far as he was concerned he had made all payments required of him. He believed that the monthly payments they were making to Bradford & Bingley included the endowment premium.
I think this explains exactly how Tom got into this mess, the product he obtained from the bank, an endowment mortgage, required him to make two payments. He only ever claims to have made one. It seems likely that this was through ignorance.
26 then further clarifies the position regarding the changing of the mortgage
Fifthly, in 1999 Bradford & Bingley offered to move the Crawfords to a repayment mortgage but the Crawfords refused. This is important because Mr Crawford’s case has been that Bradford & Bingley changed his mortgage to repayment without his agreement. Today the position has been clarified. It is clear that Bradford & Bingley offered to convert the mortgage to repayment and it is agreed that Mr Crawford refused this. However Bradford & Bingley did not unilaterally change the type of mortgage the Crawfords had. I observe that in many ways the refusal by Mr Crawford to take up a repayment mortgage has been the source of this problem.
Then turning to 30 we find
Bradford & Bingley have information from Phoenix Group (successors to Royal Life) indicating that their records show that endowment policy premium payments were received from the account of S A Crawford (Mrs Crawford) up to and including 25 June 1991. There is no record of any payments thereafter and the policy was surrendered on 22nd July 1992 with a surrender payment of £178.75. There is a credit to the Crawford’s mortgage account of £178.75 on 23rd July 1992.
Which disputes the theory I first advanced above, but shows that Tom and Sue did know what the endowment was and surrendered it, crediting the payment towards the mortgage. Perhaps by then they had become confused about what the policy was for and decided to reduce their outgoings by removing it, we don't know and can only speculate.
At 40 the Judge addresses the issue of the mortgage account numbers changing, it seems to be for the reason I had theorised earlier in the thread. The Judge notes that he has had experience of these changes in the past and does not seem surprised by this.
This was something of a parting shot from Mr Crawford at the end of the hearing which he says supports his contention that the statements of account are, to say the least, suspect. I am not prepared to go that far. I know from other cases that mortgage account numbers do sometimes change with the merger of lenders or of record keeping systems. In addition the numbers are not completely different, the basis of one can be seen in the other.
62 is damning to Tom's claim and shows that he may not have been scrupulously honest
Attention is drawn to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and in particular s.10. This is concerned with secondary contracts which seek to evade the provisions of the Act. Mr Crawford’s reliance upon the 1977 Act is premised on a unilateral change in his mortgage conditions undertaken by Bradford & Bingley. However this point is misconceived. One of the agreed facts in this case is that there was no change in mortgage to a capital repayment. The terms of the mortgage remained as they had started out and there is no secondary contract.
82 provides the Judges feelings on this matter
This is dealt with by what has gone before. As I have already observed a key mutually agreed fact in this case is that the Crawfords’ mortgage did not change. Sadly it would have been so much better for them if it had.
92 is the paragraph we didn't see, which gives perspective on 91 (the one that tells us computers should be slaves)
However none of this helps Mr Crawford in relation to possession. The entitlement to possession is triggered by arrears amounting to two monthly instalments and no-one suggests that such qualifying arrears did not exist both at the time the claim was issued and on the date of the Order.
When read in totality, which it isn't that hard to do (it's well written and plain English) it is not good news for the Crawford family.
A few other interesting observations, UKAR wanted this judgement to be made, they knew about the protests and the difficulty they have had in enforcing the possession order. Therefore they did not dispute allowing Tom to appeal out of time, I believe they knew that had they disputed that it would have caused them further problems. They wanted a clear judgement so that they could draw a line under this.
They got the Judgement. But the mob decided to draw a different conclusion at odds with it. How this will play out is yet to be seen, but I wouldn't think it is anywhere near over.
I just hope they don't read my post and interpret it as fact and that the Judge has written that on the documents in invisible ink... 
