UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[wanglepin]

Interesting post from professional fence sitter over on goof. Another platinum starred idiot too frightened to speak his mind about a member of Tom Crawford's legal team :

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... WovVzTF98E
I wondered if handle had mentioned his knowledge of and meeting with his "charismatic" friend Mr Ebert in any of the Crawford threads. No, not a whisper.

Is this like the judgement where you have to read between the lines?

But you see, Normal reading between the lines is privileged knowledge known only to certain freeman goofs......and Roger Hayes. It is a skill that is a “closely guarded secret”.

[NYGman]

Interesting video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFY-9fjc-5s

As we know, the judgement explains that Mrs C contacted B&B by telephone on 22 January 1999 (although Tom apparently denied this in court) and then in person on 29th January 1999 as evidenced by her signature on a B&B document (Tom is apparently silent on this).

In the video Tom says that they first found out about the problem with the endowment mortgage when in 1999 his wife contacted B&B to discuss "taking out some more life insurance".

The judgement explains that the initial Endowment Policy premium was paid by Mrs C up to 25th June 1991 when payment ceased.

The EP is described on the original mortgage offer letter as "Life Assurance" provided by Royal London Insurance

This appears to be clear evidence that neither Tom or his wife associated the "life insurance" directly with repayment of the endowment mortgage. It would explain why Tom thought (and maybe still thinks?) that the monthly interest payments to B&B was all that needed to be paid and that the "life insurance" was a useful but not vital add on.

B&B would not have understood this so when Mrs C spoke to them about "life insurance" (whether that was in 1999 or earlier) they assumed that she was talking about how to pay off the capital sum and
changing to a repayment mortgage.

Of course Tom and Sue weren't thinking anything of the kind so jumped to completely the wrong conclusion when B&B sent them the offer letter in January 1999 somehow assuming that the mortgage had already been changed. Both they and B&B continued talking at cross purposes from then on.

Even when Tom was threatened with the Order of Possession in 2006, Tom assumed that by settling the outstanding interest payments that everything was back on track. It was not until much later that the subject of the endowment policy came up and again Tom jumped to the wrong conclusion that he had paid for it (in the monthly interest payments) and B&B had simply "lost" it.

All in all, I think it is a sad case of extreme ignorance and stubbornness rather than a preconceived effort to deceive anyone.

Of course whether this has been the case since GOODF got involved is another matter.

I believe this to be spot on. Tom believes what he says, because he chooses to remember and disclose what he believes to be true. He is confused on some of the finer points to his mortgage. What is never explained, is why they paid the life/endowment until 1991* and why did they stop, they obviously were paying it at some point. I am sure this was explained when he took out the mortgage, "Mr/Ms Crawford, this is your mortgage interest payment, and this is your insurance policy, you pay the interest to us, and the life insurance to Royal Life." Also, why did they stop payments to Royal Life, although this seems to be easy to figure out, with a balance of 178* after a few years, they probably believed it wasn't worth the premium, that and cash flow problems, probably lead to them stopping payment. last unanswered question for me, why did they go back in 1999 and ask for more insurance cover, should they not have had that discussion in 1992 when they cashed what little remained? Something is off here, and either Tom or Sue are just oblivious to the truth and have a bit of a selective memory, after all it is over 25 years ago, or they are being economical with the truth for their own benefit.

Your post makes me think they are oblivious, and don't have the best of memories, or understanding of what they got themselves in to. Now, the question that someone should ask is whether the bank misrepresented anything when sold this product, but I tend to think the actions of the Crawfords, in paying both the Loan and the insurance at the commencement of the loan, shows that they understood what was required to service the mortgage. Perhaps they just forgot that the life insurance was part of the loan, and canceled it because it had little value and was a monthly drain on income.

*Although by not paying in for over a year, we do not know what the balance might have been in 1992 when cashed in, or what the expected shortfall was at that time, based on new forecasts.

[Normal Wisdom]

IB&B would not have understood this so when Mrs C spoke to them about "life insurance" (whether that was in 1999 or earlier) they assumed that she was talking about how to pay off the capital sum and
changing to a repayment mortgage.

Of course Tom and Sue weren't thinking anything of the kind so jumped to completely the wrong conclusion when B&B sent them the offer letter in January 1999 somehow assuming that the mortgage had already been changed. Both they and B&B continued talking at cross purposes from then on.

I don't agree that B&B were confused or mistaken about the situation. When B&B were talking about a part repayment part interest mortgage they were referring to the fact that, of the the total mortgage, £41k was interest only and £5k was on repayment. They had no record of any request to change this but, like most big companies, they are not going to get into a big argument about it - easier to apologise and make an offer of restitution. Tom refused it.

Yes I agree with what you say about the terminology about the two mortgages one endowment and one "part & part" (repayment), my point was that when Mrs C contacted B&B about "life insurance" they assumed that she was talking about how to pay off the endowment mortgage given that the endowment policy had already lapsed. I don't think she was, I think she was genuinely talking about "life insurance". That's why the offer from B&B to convert the endowment mortgage to a repayment was a complete surprise to the Crawford's and why they jumped to the wrong conclusion.

[guilty]

NYGman said:

Now, the question that someone should ask is whether the bank misrepresented anything when sold this product.

The bank would probably have accepted this complaint if the endowment had still been in place. Most banks fell on their swords when the endowment problems emerged back in the 90's and paid compensation without question. I received about £3k at the time. I changed to repayment, but kept the endowment policy, and when I sold my house a few years later, and paid off the mortgage, I still was able to cash in my endowment for some tens of thousands.
That's one of the tragedies of Tom's decisions. Every decision he took just made his situation worse.

[littleFred]

... in paying both the Loan and the insurance at the commencement of the loan ...

Throughout your post, I suppose you mean assurance not insurance.

There was a insurance policy, as the Judge said, but this wasn't to pay the loan. That was the function of the assurance policy. As I have said before, this might have been a source of confusion for Tom (as it also seems to be for other people).

[vampireLOREN]

NYGman said:

Now, the question that someone should ask is whether the bank misrepresented anything when sold this product.

The bank would probably have accepted this complaint if the endowment had still been in place. Most banks fell on their swords when the endowment problems emerged back in the 90's and paid compensation without question. I received about £3k at the time. I changed to repayment, but kept the endowment policy, and when I sold my house a few years later, and paid off the mortgage, I still was able to cash in my endowment for some tens of thousands.
That's one of the tragedies of Tom's decisions. Every decision he took just made his situation worse.

The problem also becomes more muddled as the Crawford's took out a further loan for home improvements and I think this was the part and part "mortgage" while their primary mortgage was interest only. Either way they were stupid then and appear to remain so.

[Normal Wisdom]

[

I believe this to be spot on. Tom believes what he says, because he chooses to remember and disclose what he believes to be true. He is confused on some of the finer points to his mortgage. What is never explained, is why they paid the life/endowment until 1991* and why did they stop, they obviously were paying it at some point. I am sure this was explained when he took out the mortgage, "Mr/Ms Crawford, this is your mortgage interest payment, and this is your insurance policy, you pay the interest to us, and the life insurance to Royal Life." Also, why did they stop payments to Royal Life, although this seems to be easy to figure out, with a balance of 178* after a few years, they probably believed it wasn't worth the premium, that and cash flow problems, probably lead to them stopping payment. last unanswered question for me, why did they go back in 1999 and ask for more insurance cover, should they not have had that discussion in 1992 when they cashed what little remained? Something is off here, and either Tom or Sue are just oblivious to the truth and have a bit of a selective memory, after all it is over 25 years ago, or they are being economical with the truth for their own benefit.

Your post makes me think they are oblivious, and don't have the best of memories, or understanding of what they got themselves in to. Now, the question that someone should ask is whether the bank misrepresented anything when sold this product, but I tend to think the actions of the Crawfords, in paying both the Loan and the insurance at the commencement of the loan, shows that they understood what was required to service the mortgage. Perhaps they just forgot that the life insurance was part of the loan, and canceled it because it had little value and was a monthly drain on income.

*Although by not paying in for over a year, we do not know what the balance might have been in 1992 when cashed in, or what the expected shortfall was at that time, based on new forecasts.

I don't think that the performance (or projected performance) of the EP was a factor but who knows. I'd be surprised if B&B didn't explain how the endowment mortgage worked and the purpose of the endowment policy but whether the Crawford's never understood or did at first and then forgot I still feel that later on they did not associate the "insurance policy" with paying off the loan capital.

[Normal Wisdom]

... in paying both the Loan and the insurance at the commencement of the loan ...

Throughout your post, I suppose you mean assurance not insurance.

There was a insurance policy, as the Judge said, but this wasn't to pay the loan. That was the function of the assurance policy. As I have said before, this might have been a source of confusion for Tom (as it also seems to be for other people).

Yes Tom always talks about "insurance" but given his apparent lack of knowledge I wouldn't expect him to understand the difference between insurance and assurance.

[NYGman]

... in paying both the Loan and the insurance at the commencement of the loan ...

Throughout your post, I suppose you mean assurance not insurance.

There was a insurance policy, as the Judge said, but this wasn't to pay the loan. That was the function of the assurance policy. As I have said before, this might have been a source of confusion for Tom (as it also seems to be for other people).

Not really my area, but I thought the Endowment part of the product was essentially a Whole Life insurance policy with a cash balance at the end of the 25yr term, assuming you hadn't kicked it, prior to the end of term. Either way, he didn't die, and there was no value left at the end of term, as payments were stopped and any residual value (178) was paid to his account. TO me this is like a Limited pay whole life policy in the US. Maybe it is a US/UK terminology thing.

Well that's my excuse anyway, TOm on the other hand...

[Bones]

This is just an observation from some of the comments that Tom and his children have made about the payments to the mortgage.

They at least it appears, genuinely think that if every single payments was made in full and on time for the last 25 years (which it wasn't he went into arrears from the very first payment - he didn't pay the mortgage for the first few months) - after 25 years it would be repaid. They seem unable, or more accurately unable to grasp that the payments being made were only to pay the interest accrued on an annual basis by the about that Tom and Sue borrowed.

Whilst people may argue that they may have misunderstood or they bank had a responsibility to deal with this differently - just look at the paperwork Tom showed in his video, called - The people V the psychopaths (Dark forces). Tom had all the paperwork (sorry Lizzie Watson, as you claim otherwise - there is even an offered signed by Tom, Sue and the Bank).

Tom has argued from day one that is was an Endowment mortgage that was changed to an interest only. Just through sheer stubbornness, Tom refuses to accept that an Endowment mortgage is an interest only mortgage with an endowment policy, which they stopped payment for. As it was assigned to B&B, as endowments were in those days, when the policy lapsed and the account closed, the funds were automatically paid to B&B and credited to the mortgage account.

Before this would have happened Tom would firstly know that he had stopped making payments to the endowment policy, secondly he would have received letters telling that payments had not been made and thirdly he received his mortgage statement which confirmed that the endowment had lapsed and funds had been credited to his account. For Tom to claim he didn't know isn't even believable.

Tom also received mortgage statements, every year showing that the balance was not decreasing, in fact in some years the balance would have increased due to non payments.

[JonnyL]

She never stops, 'woo woo' like this has left Tom in the 'doo doo'



Elizabeth Watson: I urge all people defending their homes against fraudulent repossession attempts, to SACK YOUR SOLICITOR: Beware! Many solicitors are SPV's (money laundering vehicles for banksters) and bring false claims on people's homes as a result of this! This is because the Bank have NO DEBT and so rely on the hyenas running the SPV's to capitalise on the false paperwork they created on the back of YOUR ASSET - I know this from first hand experience: tim Pyle of Evershites (Eversheds) is one such example - he has now run away!!!!



It could be argued that people like EW are a great earner for lenders repossession solicitors as action like she's suggesting simply racks up more time and costs for both the court and the lenders solicitors, it is she who works for the banks, when that day comes when they change your locks and your bags are on the pavement you'll find you'll owe a lot more than if you never followed her awful advice in the first place.

[Bones]

She never stops, 'woo woo' like this has left Tom in the 'doo doo'



Elizabeth Watson: I urge all people defending their homes against fraudulent repossession attempts, to SACK YOUR SOLICITOR: Beware! Many solicitors are SPV's (money laundering vehicles for banksters) and bring false claims on people's homes as a result of this! This is because the Bank have NO DEBT and so rely on the hyenas running the SPV's to capitalise on the false paperwork they created on the back of YOUR ASSET - I know this from first hand experience: tim Pyle of Evershites (Eversheds) is one such example - he has now run away!!!!



It could be argued that people like EW are a great earner for lenders repossession solicitors as action like she's suggesting simply racks up more time and costs for both the court and the lenders solicitors, it is she who works for the banks, when that day comes when they change your locks and your bags are on the pavement you'll find you'll owe a lot more than if you never followed her awful advice in the first place.

I am taking a real shine to this person. She is as batty as a fruit cake

[Hercule Parrot]

It could be argued that people like EW are a great earner for lenders repossession solicitors as action like she's suggesting simply racks up more time and costs .....

I am taking a real shine to this person. She is as batty as a fruit cake

She'll win a Law Society commendation for the amount of legal work she has generated, especially as the borrowers end up paying for it.

[mufc1959]

It's also worth remembering that all this about the endowment policy happened years before mortgage regulation came into effect in 2004. Nowadays, and particularly since MMR in April last year, lenders have a much greater responsibility to ensure there's a repayment method in place. But in the 1990s it was really left to the borrowers to make sure they had some way of paying off the capital. If a lender became aware that an endowment policy had lapsed or been cancelled (as in the Crawford case), they'd strongly suggest to the borrower that the mortgage be transferred to repayment. But the lender wouldn't force the issue or actively monitor the account.

In fact this is a common preconception many bank account and mortgage borrowers have - they think it's the lender's responsibility to monitor their accounts and flag up any anomalies or anything they need to be aware of with the customer. But banking these days is all automated. It's only if a current account exceeds its overdraft or a mortgage goes into arrears that it'd come to the attention of an actual person working for the bank, rather than everything being dealt with by computer.

In the Crawford case, when the bank became aware there was no repayment method, they offered to transfer it to repayment, but Tom refused. Since then Tom's been made aware on a regular basis that there's no repayment method in place. Every year since 2004 his annual statement would've stated it quite clearly, as this became a requirement once the administration of mortgages became subject to regulation.

[Jeffrey]

They at least it appears, genuinely think that if every single payments was made in full and on time for the last 25 years (which it wasn't he went into arrears from the very first payment - he didn't pay the mortgage for the first few months) - after 25 years it would be repaid.

I've thought about whether there's any way that the Crawfords could simply be confused about the terms of the mortgage or ignorant but I don't think there's any way to make that interpretation work.

We know, for example, that they stopped paying the endowment policy because they were short on money. They had to know on some level what the endowment policy was and have been warned about what cancellation would entail. Then the 1999 smoking gun, at that point they KNEW for a fact they lacked a repayment method. Obviously a repayment mortgage would carry higher monthly payments, I guarantee that was the reason for rejection. And finally, the 2006 arrears.

In 2006 they again, KNEW for a fact the 25 years on the mortgage weren't up but they still stopped paying. On what grounds? We know the bank and court must have explained to them that they were on interest only and had not repaid, so by 2006 they had to be fully aware of the mortgage terms.

The only explanation that fits is that the Crawfords knew their mortgage hadn't been changed, they knew it was interest only, they knew they cancelled the endowment policy but simply didn't want to pay.

[mufc1959]

I worked in the mortgage business in the 80s and 90s and in those days if payments under an endowment policy stopped, the endowment policy company would write to the customer several times over the next few months and tell them that if they didn't resume payment the policy would lapse. IIRC, they had a long time to reinstate it, usually a year.

This fits in with the timeline - the judgment says:

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 23rdJuly 1992.

So I don't buy it at all that the Crawfords didn't know about this until 1999. They'd have had letters from Royal Life at the time, probably two or three within the first few months, a reminder a couple of months later, and then before the policy's surrendered, another letter saying "look, if you pay the outstanding premiums, we'll put the policy back in place", and finally a letter telling them it'd been surrendered. Then B&B would've written to them in 1992 letting them know the policy proceeds had been credited to the mortgage account.

[guilty]

Muffa said:

I worked in the mortgage business in the 80s and 90s and in those days if payments under an endowment policy stopped, the endowment policy company would write to the customer several times over the next few months and tell them that if they didn't resume payment the policy would lapse. IIRC, they had a long time to reinstate it, usually a year.

I also recall from my own experience that the endowment company sent annual reminders about the performance of the policy. If there was likely to be a shortfall they gave various options to fix the problem.
But Tom probably didn't hold his policy long enough to receive these.

[mufc1959]

Muffa said:

I also recall from my own experience that the endowment company sent annual reminders about the performance of the policy. If there was likely to be a shortfall they gave various options to fix the problem.
But Tom probably didn't hold his policy long enough to receive these.

Yes, the shortfall issue didn't emerge until some years later, from about 2003 onwards.

[JonnyL]

get a read of this if you haven't already.
http://self-realisation.com/equity/bank ... a-victory/

[PeanutGallery]

Ultimately Tom must be responsible for his actions. As the Judge said, his case was not unique (from the laws perspective). The more I think about it, the more one theory keeps coming into my head which was that Tom and Sue knew they weren't going to be able to repay the capital a long time ago.

I believe they cancelled the endowment policy because they were having a hard time repaying it. They may have found themselves in a position where they had greater drains on the family finances than they thought. They probably thought that they could make this up at some point in the future.

When they discussed the option of moving to repayment with the bank, they made a choice not to take up that offer and to keep on interest only. I think they could afford the interest payments, but didn't want to move to capital because that might leave them a little short. I believe they took this choice hoping something would come up.

Something didn't come up, well not anything good at any rate. The only thing that came up was the end of the mortgage term. This is when I think Tom fell into the mire of woo and wibble that has ended up with him in the hole he's in today. Tom probably got out a calculator and worked out that he'd paid out a lot more in interest than he'd originally borrowed. That's not fair said Tom (who's calculator unfortunately was unable to work out the compound interest and inflation and all those other things that mean that £5 in the 80's would go a lot further than £5 today and also failed to notice that the property he'd bought had also gone up in value past the amount of the mortgage), and it was made all the more unfair in his head when he read that he'd apparently created the money by signing for the mortgage (he hadn't of course) so he'd now paid back twice the amount he borrowed and as far as the internet was telling him he hadn't even borrowed any real money in the first place.

So Tom decided to draw a line in the sand. Tom went looking for help in all the wrong places and got the sort of help that was going to hinder him. Those helping him didn't do it to win his case, they did it to further their agenda and to pitch their woo to the unsuspecting followers.

Now when it became clear that Tom had lost, those who had been helping him abandoned ship. They shut down the talk of his failure and others pitched in to explain that he had failed because he was using the inferior kung fu of Guy Taylor and Ebert when he should learn Liz Watson's new snake in eagle shadow technique. Sadly it didn't matter what arguments Tom used, the seed for this disaster was sowed before any Guru got hold of Tom or even before he began to read bad woo on the internet. It was sowed when Tom and Sue buried their heads in the sand and refused to take any action to sort out their finances. It was sowed when they chose not to take up the banks offer of a repayment mortgage. This is the result.