UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[Bones]

Just a reminder that this thread is about Tom Crawford and not about posting or not posting links to GOODF

[rumpelstilzchen]

I don't care if it does increase traffic to their site. When you have a site such as this that exposes scams it is imperative that anything written on here can be easily verified as fact. That is how this site has operated since I joined.

I totally agree with all comments about verification and proof but the point I'm trying to make is simply, and I'll go back to my original post on this subject, I wonder if all this controversy created by the clowns on GOODF with smoke screens and mirrors is purely to exploit Crawford's situation, generate as much traffic to their site as possible across the whole internet through non-reciprocal linking with the sole purpose of generating revenue?

You credit them with too much intelligence.

[Tom Carter]

I don't care if it does increase traffic to their site. When you have a site such as this that exposes scams it is imperative that anything written on here can be easily verified as fact. That is how this site has operated since I joined.

I totally agree with all comments about verification and proof but the point I'm trying to make is simply, and I'll go back to my original post on this subject, I wonder if all this controversy created by the clowns on GOODF with smoke screens and mirrors is purely to exploit Crawford's situation, generate as much traffic to their site as possible across the whole internet through non-reciprocal linking with the sole purpose of generating revenue?

You credit them with too much intelligence.

You are probably right!

[Philistine]

I don't care if it does increase traffic to their site. When you have a site such as this that exposes scams it is imperative that anything written on here can be easily verified as fact. That is how this site has operated since I joined.

You sound suspiciously like a GOODFer

You must be reading a different GOOF site to the one I'm reading.
If you don't want to provide links that is fine. I do so I will unless a mod tells me otherwise.

It was a joke. Did you not see the smiley?
I'll bow out now...too serious.

[Bones]

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 10#p388031

Re: Tom Crawford Full Judgement: https://infotomb.com/cixyk.

Postby Applecart1 » Sun May 24, 2015 2:07 pm
I don't think whether Tom confused s.2 or s.53 was the learned Judges concern at the end of the day.

It seems to me 'B&B' initially brought a claim for possession asseerting Tom had defaulted in the sum of £1800 odd - the Judgment confirms, B&B was unable to evidence that amount to the satisfaction of the Judge - whooopppsss!!

The Judgement appears to state the facts as the Judge found them. The Judge does not appear to have assisted B&B further a cause that the Judge has not 'found'. I can't see where lifting the stay on a warrant that lapsed assists B&B in such circumstances really - can anyone else?

It would be unfair of anyone to infer the learned Judge did not know the warrant had lapsed when he handed down the draft Judgment.

Apple

Back to the matter at hand, the above post (with direct link) claims that the warrant has now lapsed. However, if you read the judgement, there were two warrants issued. As kindly confirmed by Tom in the documentation that he showed in one of his video's



A second warrant was issued on 10 June 2014. It was this warrant that was suspended and it is this warrant that the judge said

"The suspension of execution of the warrant for possession of 3 Fearn Close is lifted"

Tom as you have already received the notice, they can now turn up at anytime

[PeanutGallery]

Another problem I suspect the GOOF's are having with understanding the Judgement is that it wasn't a rehearing of the original case. It was simply a hearing to see if Tom had advanced any grounds for appeal that might have a prospect of success.

He didn't. The Judge isn't going to look at the finer details of what was decided. If Tom wanted to challenge the amount of arrears, in fact at 27 the Judge states that both sides agree that Tom was in arrears when proceedings commenced (at that time it was three months).

This is then supported by the statement in 45, the Crawfords - in September 2013 ceased making payments, this was what was disastrous. Because they were still obliged to make payments, so now they are now in a significant amount of arrears (likely well over 20 months worth).

Because both sides agreed that Tom was in more than two months worth of arrears, both when the bank started proceedings and when those proceedings concluded, the bank had a right to possession. Tom cannot dispute that any more. If he wanted to stop the proceedings, all he had to do was get the arrears below two months worth.

He didn't.

The Judge didn't make any comment on the size of the arrears or look into that matter, because he wasn't asked to do that by either of the parties and the actual amount wasn't relevant. It would matter if two months arrears was a Pound or a Million pounds to the possession order.

[guilty]

Here is my own "forensic" analysis of the case:

Tom Crawford bought the house at 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton, Nottingham, in 1988 with a loan from Bradford and Bingley. This was not an arcane and mysterious procedure; £41,800 of real money was given to the sellers of the house. Tom now owes it to the bank.

The bank offered Tom a choice to pay off the loan – he could choose a capital repayment mortgage at £319.60 per month (after MIRAS tax relief) or an endowment (interest only) mortgage at £278.70 per month plus 1/12 of the annual insurance premiums.

Godsmark, in para 70, suggests that this insurance policy was building insurance, but it is actually more likely to be the mortgage indemnity guarantee (MIG) of £11,000, also mentioned in para 70.
A MIG is requested by the bank if the amount of the loan they are giving is more than they would normally provide in consideration of Tom’s earnings at the time.

Tom made the decision to pay interest only on the loan, leaving the capital amount unpaid until a separate life assurance policy (endowment), that he also had to pay for, matured after 25 years (para 2). There was no requirement to pay off the capital on a monthly basis provided that the endowment insurance was duly maintained.

At the time, bank interest was running at about 7.5% - 8.5% so the payment of £278.70 looks about right.

In 1989 Tom took out a further loan of £5000 for home improvements. This loan was taken out on a capital repayment basis. Both loans were secured on the house.

Tom stopped paying the endowment policy (life assurance) on 25th June 1991. The policy was cashed in on 22nd July 1992 and the Crawfords were paid £178.75 as a credit on their mortgage account. It appears that payments ceased because the Crawfords were having financial difficulties.

There were three capitalisations of arrears on the £5000 loan up to December 1996.

In January 1999 B&B spoke to Sue Crawford about the lack of the life assurance policy and the likelihood that the capital would not be repaid. Sue claimed that they had asked the bank four years earlier to change the mortgage to a capital replacement basis, but the bank had no record of this. The bank apologised and offered to make the necessary changes, recalculated back to 1st January 1995. They asked the Crawfords to confirm that they accepted this offer. Tom refused the offer (para 36) to convert to a repayment mortgage; he didn’t see why he should.

Only six payments were made in 2005, and none in January, February or March 2006.

In 2006, with the arrears building up again, possession proceedings were started. Bradford and Bingley wrote to Tom on 25th April 2006 to repeat that Tom had never given his authority to change to a capital repayment mortgage. Tom paid off the arrears and the possession was halted.

There were six capitalisations of arrears on the £41,800 loan up to December 2006.

Tom ceased payments on 27th February 2012 and was again in arrears in August 2012 to the sum of £825.95 and had missed at least three (probably more) monthly payments of £302.55. B&B started possession proceedings again.
Tom claimed “We did not sign for this mortgage”.

On 5th September 2012 B&B filed evidence that Tom owed, by then, £2105.45 in arrears and £45,763.85 in capital.
The hearing was on 19th September 2012 before DDJ Murray-Smith. Murray-Smith granted the possession but suspended execution on the understanding that Tom paid the monthly instalments. As Godsmark commented in para 8, this was “most generous”.

Tom’s position was reviewed six months later by DDJ Holt on 27th March 2013 and the suspension was continued because Tom was keeping up with payments.

However, just two weeks later, Tom decided to appeal the possession order of 19th September 2012 on the grounds that there was no ‘seal’ and no ‘wet signature’. On 9th May 2013 Godsmark refused this appeal.

Tom also complained to the Ombudsman in April that his endowment ‘had been lost’. The Ombudsman rejected his complaint on 18th July 2013.

The twenty-five year mortgage term expired on 31st August 2013. Tom ceased all payments.
That decision was taken, according to Tom, because by then they had reached the end of the twenty-five year mortgage term and felt that they had no continuing liability to make any further payments. Godsmark shows that he was wrong (paras 46 and 47).

He also applied to remove the capital charge on his property on the basis that it had been applied illegally. This application was determined to be an abuse of process and was struck out.

Having ceased making any payments Tom was now in breach of the possession order made on 19th September 2012 (suspended as long as he made payments). B&B therefore obtained a warrant for possession on 6th June 2014.

Godmark points this out in para 48. “The decision to cease making those payments was disastrous. It immediately put the Crawfords in breach of the terms of the suspension of the possession order. It immediately gave Bradford & Bingley the right to enforce the possession order.”

However, attempts to enforce the possession in 2014 were thwarted by a rent-a-mob who had been lied to and had no comprehension of what had transpired previously.

Tom made an application to the court to stay the warrant on 2nd February 2015. He again wanted to dispute the validity of the mortgage and the possession order. Godsmark came to the conclusion that there was no basis for a stay of execution, but suspended it whilst Tom considered making an appeal.

That appeal was heard on 14th May 2015. Tom needed to apply for permission to make his appeal, as it was out of time. Although Godsmark thought that was going to be an uphill struggle, he was prevailed upon by B&B to allow the appeal to go forward.

During the hearing Godsmark comments that “the refusal by Mr Crawford to take up a repayment mortgage has been the source of this problem”.

Tom tried to claim that there was no valid claim because a fee hadn’t been paid. Godsmark does not agree (para 55) and gives reasons.
Tom then tries the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Godsmark states “this point is misconceived”.
Tom says B&B reneged on the mortgage agreement. Godsmark says “this point must also fall on the agreed facts”.
Tom says he never agreed to a repayment mortgage. Godsmark points out that there never was a repayment mortgage.
Tom says that a subsequent mortgage contract should have complied with the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1989. Godsmark points out that there wasn’t a subsequent mortgage contract, “The problem with the submission is that both sides agree that there was no subsequent mortgage contract replacing the original 1988 mortgage agreement”.
Tom cites case law, but they don’t assist his arguments.

In para 71 Tom tries to claim that B&B should have been paying the endowment policy. He was wrong. Godsmark explains why in paras 71-73.
Tom tries to claim fraud and that fraudulent statement were made in court. Godsmark states, “I can find no basis for saying that any statements of the nature identified by Mr Crawford were made to the court”.
Tom disputes the accuracy of the figures..Godsmark says (para 92) “[N]one 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”

The judgement ends: “The points made by Mr Crawford are either without foundation or legally misconceived. Factual assertions about changing the terms of the mortgage are misplaced; both sides agree that the mortgage terms were not changed. The legal challenges raised are misconceived and I have set out in detail above why that is so.
None of the points raised by Mr Crawford have any substance in terms of potentially defending the possession claim. None of them can be described as a point with a real prospect of success on appeal”.

The suspension of the execution of the warrant dated 6th June 2014 is lifted.

[wanglepin]

Back to the matter at hand, the above post (with direct link) claims that the warrant has now lapsed. However, if you read the judgement, there were two warrants issued. As kindly confirmed by Tom in the documentation that he showed in one of his video's

A second warrant was issued on 10 June 2014. It was this warrant that was suspended and it is this warrant that the judge said "The suspension of execution of the warrant for possession of 3 Fearn Close is lifted"

It was Guy Taylor who accidently and unintentionally showed us that.
He went down the sheet at speed in the hope it wouldn't be spotted. And then he (Taylor) and Brian Gerrish both had the brass balls to declare that;

there were no warrants issued

Watch from 18:35
24 September 2012 Suspended Mortgage Possession Order
And further down it can be read
10 June 2014 Warrant of Possession issued
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6WkCBm ... 9428#t=409
They are both barefaced liars.

[Bones]

Thanks WP

I thought it was from Tom's one but you are right it was Guy

Thanks Guy

[fat frank]

well said bones

[Losleones]

To save the thread heading off to an unrelated topic, the topic of links should be in a seperate thread.

However my 2 Re's worth, I am a fan of direct links. One of the biggest problems with sites like GOODF is that they tell people what things say and mean.

Here we provide a link allowing the reader to make up their own minds. We are not a cult and we encourage free thinking.

We are not afriad of the truth like Ceylon and co. Whilst I understand your concerns, I feel that in the grand scheme of things it is a cost worth paying

I also concur. Goofy is full of illiterate garbage with little back up to a post. This is a great site from which I've seen little confrontation due to its intelligent posters such as littlefred, peanut....the list goes on. I'm learning from the posters on here & enjoy the mature debate....oh forgot bones....like your ready wit & humouros links Forums need a mixture of intellect, knowledge & SOH.

[Silly Ebert]

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 10#p388031

Re: Tom Crawford Full Judgement: https://infotomb.com/cixyk.

Postby Applecart1 » Sun May 24, 2015 2:07 pm
I don't think whether Tom confused s.2 or s.53 was the learned Judges concern at the end of the day.

It seems to me 'B&B' initially brought a claim for possession asseerting Tom had defaulted in the sum of £1800 odd - the Judgment confirms, B&B was unable to evidence that amount to the satisfaction of the Judge - whooopppsss!!

The Judgement appears to state the facts as the Judge found them. The Judge does not appear to have assisted B&B further a cause that the Judge has not 'found'. I can't see where lifting the stay on a warrant that lapsed assists B&B in such circumstances really - can anyone else?

It would be unfair of anyone to infer the learned Judge did not know the warrant had lapsed when he handed down the draft Judgment.

Apple

Back to the matter at hand, the above post (with direct link) claims that the warrant has now lapsed. However, if you read the judgement, there were two warrants issued. As kindly confirmed by Tom in the documentation that he showed in one of his video's



A second warrant was issued on 10 June 2014. It was this warrant that was suspended and it is this warrant that the judge said

"The suspension of execution of the warrant for possession of 3 Fearn Close is lifted"

Tom as you have already received the notice, they can now turn up at anytime

I would say that the warrant that has just has the suspension lifted is in fact the third warrant,
the one from July was withdrawn by B&B last September and new one issued Dec 14 .

[tm169]

.
I would say that the warrant that has just has the suspension lifted is in fact the third warrant,
the one from July was withdrawn by B&B last September and new one issued Dec 14 .

It's important to distinguish between warrants and eviction appointments. My understanding is that the warrant, once issued, lasts 12 months and can be repeatedly renewed (automatically). Once the warrant is issued the bailiffs gives notice and then can arrange numerous eviction appointments with the claimant to actually execute the original warrant.

So when you mention a warrant in Dec 2014 are you talking about a fresh warrant or a fresh eviction attempt after the initial failed eviction(s).

It's a minor point but if B&B are operating under the original warrant dated 10 June 2014 they only have a week or so to go until that runs out. I suspect they are either biding their time, potentially waiting for the renewal to go through on PCOL or are going to attempt a no notice eviction before 10 June 2015.

[fat frank]

they have the possession order, so can just apply at any time for a warrant, but with all the trouble they have had, they could prob knock it up to the high court and go for a no knock eviction, just turn up and kick them out, as the police will prob say this is the safest method

[mufc1959]

I used to live a few miles from Nottingham. When I worked in a pub there and someone ordered a half of any kind of beer I'd always ask "is that in a lady's' glass?" because this was the brewery's rules, and was common practice in all pubs in the East Midlands.

So I can tell you with some authority that Guy Taylor is drinking his lager from a "lady's' glass".

[tm169]

they have the possession order, so can just apply at any time for a warrant, but with all the trouble they have had, they could prob knock it up to the high court and go for a no knock eviction, just turn up and kick them out, as the police will prob say this is the safest method

Yeah I can see that a High Court warrant might do the job. Not much legal difference but HCEOs are payed by results and tend to be a bit more brutal. Compared to Dale farm or evicting protestors etc. this is a fairly straightforward matter especially now support for Tom will have diminished. I have a strong recollection of a CJ in the County Court making an order for a no notice eviction or "surprise eviction" as the bailiff manager called it. That was without having to transfer to High Court but did require a CJ presumably because it's a fairly draconian measure.

Other option is to endorse the original order with a penal notice Ex parte, essentially allowing any and all occupiers of the house / land to be arrested for contempt of court thereby dispensing with the need for any covert shenanigans. The arrest warrant would be executed at say 9am and the possession warrant at 9:10. Wouldn't even be any need to pass a sentence for contempt.

Thinking about the judgment I think the judge was very clear and concise but in retrospect it would have been better if he had added another paragraph to the effect of:

Mr Crawford all your legal challenges have failed and you will now be removed from your home with reasonable force, likely in the next few weeks but it could be any time in the next few months. I suggest you pack your bags and seek advice about rehousing from Shelter as every time you make a legal challenge or resist an eviction further costs are added to the mortgage which will be deducted from the proceeds of sale of your house.

It reminds me of some valuable marshalling I did in the High Court Ch Div. when I was a student. The judge made a finding of fact that the defendant was lying and was about to deliver his judgment. In chambers robing he said something to the effect of "Tm169 I'm going to turn to his face and call him a liar because if I don't he will only hear the parts of the judgment he wants to hear and I don't want their to be an ambiguity about my finding of fact."

[mufc1959]

Thinking about the judgment I think the judge was very clear and concise but in retrospect it would have been better if he had added another paragraph to the effect of:

Mr Crawford all your legal challenges have failed and you will now be removed from your home with reasonable force, likely in the next few weeks but it could be any time in the next few months. I suggest you pack your bags and seek advice about rehousing from Shelter as every time you make a legal challenge or resist an eviction further costs are added to the mortgage which will be deducted from the proceeds of sale of your house.

I think this will come once the next eviction appointment is made. Tom & Co will make an application to throw it out it on the basis that it's unlawful, fraud, yadda, yadda, yadda. At that point Tom will get the 'Come to Jesus' speech where the Judge explains in words of one syllable or less that he's lost and he's about to be kicked out.

[wanglepin]

Thanks WP

I thought it was from Tom's one but you are right it was Guy

Thanks Guy

Yes , he's scored a few own goals of late.

[Normal Wisdom]

Thinking about the judgment I think the judge was very clear and concise but in retrospect it would have been better if he had added another paragraph to the effect of:

Mr Crawford all your legal challenges have failed and you will now be removed from your home with reasonable force, likely in the next few weeks but it could be any time in the next few months. I suggest you pack your bags and seek advice about rehousing from Shelter as every time you make a legal challenge or resist an eviction further costs are added to the mortgage which will be deducted from the proceeds of sale of your house.

I think this will come once the next eviction appointment is made. Tom & Co will make an application to throw it out it on the basis that it's unlawful, fraud, yadda, yadda, yadda. At that point Tom will get the 'Come to Jesus' speech where the Judge explains in words of one syllable or less that he's lost and he's about to be kicked out.

Might it not come as a result of the "Request review and revise" document that Tom has apparently already sent to the Court? I cannot wait to hear the response - assuming we do.

[grixit]

We could just post urls with using the url function. That would require copy and paste into the browser address line, but i think all of us here are up to that. and it would not create a spiderable link.