UK - Tom Crawford - Eviction

[Origen]

I'm happy that Tom is persisting on the same path, I was worried it might all fizzle out.

He might fizzle out......but the movement moves on.
Thank God for the security guard for giving the chickens a home ( unless he has taken them to cook them).

Well he might getting free eggs in the morning plus you can't say they don't care for animals as one of them had the decency to take them home to look after.

[vampireLOREN]

I think this was filmed by a neighbour

https://youtu.be/E_7T00F9qd4

[PeanutGallery]

I think Tom is in too deep to see the truth. He's going to be like Ebert and Taylor and pin the blame for his mistake on anyone but him.

That's why the 'dark forces' myth is so appealing to him. It's comforting to think that you are struggling against a larger opponent and fighting corruption as even if you lose, their is some sense of nobility to the struggle. It also feeds into a myth we are taught from an early age and that is reinforced in a wide media narrative that "good" always wins in the end.

In order for Tom to realise the truth and what has actually happened to him he'll need to let go of a number of things he has deluded himself into thinking is true. The first is that he's up against some mysterious force intent on claiming Fearn Chase for themselves. Their isn't. Nobody is especially craving a small two bed bungalow on the outskirts of Nottingham. So if Tom's home wasn't taken by his imagined "Dark Forces" then he'll have to consider that it was lost because he got into arrears on the mortgage.

Except Tom has also persuaded himself that he wasn't in arrears, in spite of agreeing that he didn't make a number of payments, he thinks that he paid enough. The bank disagrees and points to the agreement that they had with Tom where he had agreed to pay more). If Tom were to accept that then he'd have to realise that he was the one that didn't stick to the agreement.

Except of course that Tom has finally convinced himself that what he did agree is a very different thing to what the records show he agreed. He and Sue stopped paying for the endowment policy way back, rather shortly after they took it out, and this meant the capital wasn't going to be repaid. If he realises this then he'd have to understand that a long time ago he and Sue made a decision that meant this was inevitable.

Except it wasn't inevitable. Tom had a choice when this issue first came up, he could deal with the problem in a manner we would consider sensible (such as by taking stock and taking steps to protect the capital he had built up in the property).

Tom made mistake after mistake after mistake and each mistake further served to convince him he was fighting the good fight. He wasn't. In fact, if anything, the argument would be that if Tom had prevailed it would have meant a larger injustice on all those who found themselves in a position like Tom did, who had made the better choice of either keeping the endowment, re-mortgaging, or otherwise protecting their investment at their own expense.

Tom made bad choices and he hasn't been helped by all those who keep telling him the choice was right because they have long imagined the machine they rage against.

[JonnyL]

I think this was filmed by a neighbour

https://youtu.be/E_7T00F9qd4

I take it that was sue screaming 'we won our case in court'? Lol oh no no no no no you didn't.

[PeanutGallery]

I think this was filmed by a neighbour

https://youtu.be/E_7T00F9qd4

I take it that was sue screaming 'we won our case in court'? Lol oh no no no no no you didn't.

That and apparently they'd paid for the house. Although according to the bank, the courts and everyone else who matters they hadn't actually paid enough.

[IDIOT]

Is it me or does Tom seem drunk in this video.

he is a very foolish man . I think everyone of them should carry a Public health warning
"listening to these people can endanger your health".

Listening to these people can seriously damage your 'wealth'.

[vampireLOREN]

This video made me very angry, I really don't like any of these people.
https://youtu.be/W7Vnw8nRmCk

[fat frank]

From the bit i listened to the interesting part was where he said he was notified by the bank about a change in the endowment in 1992 which is something he has never mentioned before.

I hope he knows that some of the stuff he comes out with in public only helps corroborates what the banks story.

its been a con from the start, he thought he would get away with out paying it off, and its back fired,

[fat frank]

From the bit i listened to the interesting part was where he said he was notified by the bank about a change in the endowment in 1992 which is something he has never mentioned before.

He's talking about the endowment policy and claiming the bank cashed it in, not them.

There's also some drunken slur about "it was an endowment but it was repayment", which is absolute gibberish.

I mentioned a while back what happens when payments to an endowment policy stop but I'll repeat it here.

- policy provider writes to the customer saying you've stopped paying. If you don't start paying again, then we'll cancel the policy.

- most policies have a built-in 'loan' facility - so if you stop paying, provided enough has been paid into the policy, for a year the policy premiums will be funded out of the amount already paid in.

- reminders will be sent periodically and letting the customer know that they can put everything back on track by paying up the missing premiums.

- after a year, the policy will be cancelled/surrendered and if it's connected with a mortgage (as this one was), the cash value will be sent to the lender and applied to the policy mortgage [edited to correct this oops].

- the lender will then ask the borrower how they intend to repay the mortgage - is there another investment to repay the mortgage, or would you like us to transfer it onto a capital and interest repayment basis.

In Tom's case the policy premiums were being paid from Sue's account. She stopped paying in 1998. The policy was cashed in (I'm 99.99% certain this would have been by the policy provider) in 1999 and the £178.odd was credited to the mortgage account, as we were told in the judgment and shown in the documents Tom provided in one of his "I won" videos. Tom was given the option of transferring onto a repayment method, but refused to do so.


So I have to agree that it wasn't Tom or Sue who cashed in the policy - it lapsed because the premiums weren't paid. That the policy surrender happened a year after the premiums stopped leads me to conclude that the above scenario took place, with the policy provider following its usual process.

I thought it was cashed in 92 and then in 99 sue signed the paperwork at the bank to discuss the change of mortgage

[Gregg]

Just a little housekeeping post to pop in and say Hi again. I am trying to catch up on all this enough to not sound like a cretin when I respond to anything, so I'm not ignoring y'all (that's a Kentucky thing) I'm just still catching up. At great effort I might add.

[Origen]

I think the reason Tom seemed drunk today was because he was celebrating this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIb9OESuTyA

Maybe if it goes to a proper court the judge could pull him to one side and explain that there is no chance he will ever win his house back unless he deals with the endowment policy.

[mufc1959]

I thought it was cashed in 92 and then in 99 sue signed the paperwork at the bank to discuss the change of mortgage

Yes, you're right, I got my dates mixed up, but the sequence of events is the same. Payments stopped in 91 and a year later the policy was surrendered. Here's the extract from the judgement that deals with it.

[YiamCross]

The crazyness goes on. Not even sure what this is supposed to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIb9OESuTyA

Just got t his from goofy, no idea who's written it or to whom. Whatever, it makes little or no sense.

[IDIOT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... BM#t=14087

Latest from Tom, starts roughly at 3:55:00 if i failed to link it at the correct time.

Better quality video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4H8yYwDP3o

[midjit-gems]

From the bit i listened to the interesting part was where he said he was notified by the bank about a change in the endowment in 1992 which is something he has never mentioned before.

I hope he knows that some of the stuff he comes out with in public only helps corroborates what the banks story.

its been a con from the start, he thought he would get away with out paying it off, and its back fired,

I've said from the beginning his early videos were too rehearsed, was like sitting down to a bit of children's hour jackanory style. With the trademark hat already in place. It's always the same.
First post in goodf asking about a4v to a pay the mortgage off etc. Sorry but no.

As for Amanda I think she's genuinely too thick to comprehend anything other than the drivel she has been spoon fed all this time.

I am however concerned about a rumour about them having a website helping people with evictions and charging them for it. How many people will need to lose their home before these freetards wake up and realise they've been conned?

I'm guessing the corporations have been on a mass kidnapping spree as some have been very quiet since it all happened. Wesley Ahmed for one, the voice like nails on a chalkboard is always fighting the prince for media attention, why wasn't he there and why hasn't he been screaming from the rooftops about injustice like he always does?

[Jeffrey]

Hey just for context, what's the square footage on Tom's former house, how many rooms and bedrooms?

I'm curious if the £300 (?) monthly payment was low for the house or high, as compared to say renting.

[#six]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... BM#t=14087

Latest from Tom, starts roughly at 3:55:00 if i failed to link it at the correct time.

Better quality video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4H8yYwDP3o

To summarise

Waffle, waffle, waffle, bullshit, waffle, bullshit.

[PeanutGallery]

£300 would be low by todays standard for renting. But it has to be taken in context as that amount will have been unchanged by inflation. From what I understand the property is a two bedroom bungalow, I would wager it had a decent sized garden (large enough to keep chickens) and seemed to be in a decent neighbourhood and had a nice view. Right now a property is available for rent, that sounds similar to the Crawfords in that area, they are asking for £500 a month, which seems a fair price for the area.

Of course Tom would have been paying £300 a month from when he took the mortgage out and thanks to inflation £300 is less of a sum today than it would have been way back in the day. I'd suggest that the amount may have been slightly higher than rents back then, but it was a price they were willing to bear because it came with the notion that at the end of the term you'd own the property.

An estimation from Zoopla (a website that can provide a very rough estimated value for property prices in the UK, based on advertised prices for nearby properties of a similar type) puts it at around £125-140k. Of course at auction the property is likely to be sold for substantially less (my estimate would have it possibly creeping over the 100k mark, but not by much a conservative maximum would be £115k). The actual price it would achieve is going to be dependant on a number of factors, which now should include if any protesters start shouting things out during the auction, but would also include more mundane factors like how decorated it is. I think the auction house most likely to take it on would be Savills, they have a regular Nottingham area auction and the next available slot for Tom's would be in September. I'll keep an eye to see if it comes up in their catalogue (if I was planning on investing in that area I would be interested as I imagine the house to be in decent enough shape, although my main interest would be to actually see precisely what all this fuss was about).

I worked these prices out a long time ago in the old Tom thread, simply because I was curious to see if, with the amount that remained owing on the mortgage Tom might have been able to walk away with something positive had he not swallowed such bad advice. My conclusion was, that if he sold the property and moved further out into a smaller village, he would be able to get a new property without needing a mortgage. The new property would likely need some work done to it, but it would have been Tom's outright.

Failing that he might have been able to re-mortgage or look into an equity release scheme (sure it would have impacted on what he left for Craig and Amanda but it would have meant keeping the roof over his head).

But all this is a moot point now. Tom didn't do any of those things and we are seeing the result of this. It's a shame but he made bad choices and is responsible for the consequences.

[wanglepin]

BREAKING NEWS!!!1!!!!!!BOOMBOOM!#!#!#!#!#!#!#!#!#
THE CHICKENS HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY FOR ASSAULTING THE BAILIFFS !!!!!!!!!

bertiebert » Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:59 am
Amanda Pike‎Eviction the fraud of the bank
we needed to know ie the chickens. We were told yesterday they were being taken to a free hold farm

At least they got a nice new open range home free.

This post by Sycophant Salli is not completely "path" free but it is funny;

Re: SPECIAL REPORT Tom Crawford Evicted by SalliNae » Fri Jul 03, 2015 2:32 pm
I don't care if you have posted once or several thousand times...by your actions you are known and unlike the general populace, the people on this site have the ability to critically think.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... ZidXjTF98E
who's she trying to kid?

[rumpelstilzchen]

bertiebert » Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:59 am
Amanda Pike‎Eviction the fraud of the bank
we needed to know ie the chickens. We were told yesterday they were being taken to a free hold farm

A "free hold" farm? Would that be opposed to a leasehold farm?