UK - Tom Crawford - Eviction

[YiamCross]

Danny Bamping letter trying to put Tom right on how far from winning his case he was and how close to losing his house.

Got it spot on when he predicted that the bailiffs would turn up early in the morning with no warning, the road would be cordoned off then the house would be emptied, fenced off and guarded day & night by men with dogs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYzHi83TzME

Quicker to flick through and read it than listen to it being read. I now recognise this as the one Bradley Knight commented on a week or so back. Quite restrained when you look at the garbage written by the lovely Liz Watson he's responding to, published through one of the almost as lovely Ceylon's YouTube channels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-B9U-maJQM

[Origen]

Watched the latest video and it's trashy and a clear attempt at tugging at peoples heartstrings with the amount of shit spewed and left me thinking less of the Crawfords.

Did laugh at the end when he dropped 1939.

[guilty]

Watched the latest video and it's trashy and a clear attempt at tugging at peoples heartstrings with the amount of shit spewed and left me thinking less of the Crawford's

Yes. I still retained some residual sympathy for Sue Crawford. I imagined that she was being pushed into this by Amanda and Tom and wasn't strong enough to question the mad decisions. The video, however, suggests that she is fully a part of it, or at least fully brainwashed.
"We won the court case; we paid for our house" is just madness. "Cancer sufferer, dead mum, dead dog, missing chicken, theft, trespass, etc" is just pathetic.

[FatGambit]

I see over in GOODFy land there's been another great cull of posts in Tom's forum for the benefit of mankind.

The forum management remind me of Henry Ford, 'you can have a car in any colour you want, so long as it's black'.

GOODF Rule #1: You can say or follow any path you want, so long as it's the same one as us.

EDIT: I was looking at the wrong thread, my mistake sorry.

[JonnyL]

that new UK response will leave you homeless page has managed to drag the BTBATB crowd away from Jeremy Kyle. Well done to whoever set it up. These people think the internet should be all one way with only their twisted beliefs regarding debt available for all to see. They're all reporting it to Facebook, which won't achieve a lot. Freedom of speech advocate TBSM is once again leading the charge for censoring that page, he's done a complete 180 during the last 7 days and has turned into a complicit FMOTL creep.

[letissier14]

Police sat near Toms approached by Toms supporters

https://www.facebook.com/14409401295450 ... 972169681/

[YiamCross]

Infotomb link to the judgement is not working again. I've searched Bailii but it doesn't seem to be there which is a surprise. Anyone got a link that works?

[Origen]

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... 84#p386440

Is the copy i have used.

[Gregg]

Well, finally, I've caught up. Still digesting this one, but I have a few things at random I think I'll say

TC is not as smart as my houseplants. Oh, and he's a right nasty man, too.

The Irish guy with long red hair, claiming he's being abused as a minority because he's a ginger? I'll give a reward of £100 to anyone who slaps him in the head on UTube, I hate the guy that much.

I didn't know the UK had Endowment Mortgages, so, just to make sure I have this right, you pay the bank a monthly interest payment, and separately pay an insurer a policy premium that at the end of the mortgage has a surrender value roughly equal to the principle?

Assuming I go that right, Tom apparently quit paying the insurer decades ago, and despite being told so and the significance of such, many times, over the course of many years, he didn't do dick to remedy that?

Also assuming I'm right above, is he really that thick, that he thinks because he (more or less) made the interest payments for 25 years, the bank needs to just forget the principle?

He makes much ado over "the bank changed the term of the mortgage, and so the whole lot is null and void, I owe them nothing" which is not only incorrect, but he has, not in public so much but in court, always agreed that the bank never changed the loan.

In fact, had the bank, with or without his permission, changed the note to a repayment note, with both interest and principle included, he would now either have paid off the loan or at the very least, have paid a substantial chunk of hte principle. For phucks sake, Tom, you should have let them change the loan!

And so here we are....

[NYGman]

Well, finally, I've caught up. Still digesting this one, but I have a few things at random I think I'll say

TC is not as smart as my houseplants. Oh, and he's a right nasty man, too.

The Irish guy with long red hair, claiming he's being abused as a minority because he's a ginger? I'll give a reward of £100 to anyone who slaps him in the head on UTube, I hate the guy that much.

I didn't know the UK had Endowment Mortgages, so, just to make sure I have this right, you pay the bank a monthly interest payment, and separately pay an insurer a policy premium that at the end of the mortgage has a surrender value roughly equal to the principle?

Assuming I go that right, Tom apparently quit paying the insurer decades ago, and despite being told so and the significance of such, many times, over the course of many years, he didn't do dick to remedy that?

Also assuming I'm right above, is he really that thick, that he thinks because he (more or less) made the interest payments for 25 years, the bank needs to just forget the principle?

He makes much ado over "the bank changed the term of the mortgage, and so the whole lot is null and void, I owe them nothing" which is not only incorrect, but he has, not in public so much but in court, always agreed that the bank never changed the loan.

In fact, had the bank, with or without his permission, changed the note to a repayment note, with both interest and principle included, he would now either have paid off the loan or at the very least, have paid a substantial chunk of hte principle. For phucks sake, Tom, you should have let them change the loan!

And so here we are....

That about sums it up. It isn't hard to comprehend, but somehow many at GOOFy have managed to. There doesn’t seem to be a solid reason why Tom Owns his house. Claims that he as paid over 120k which is well in excess of the 43k he borrowed seems the currently favored view. This ignores that the mortgage was interest only and the capital was covered by a canceled policy. While initial claims that Tom won in court have now been replaced with the Court was not legitimate. Finally, the claim that the Warrants were fake as they were unsigned and had no seal, the Bailiffs were not authorized or named in the warrant, and that no one has shown the warrant to Tom, and Tom had no notice. Because of all of this, his house was illegally taken, while the police stood by watching.

[vampireLOREN]

Well, finally, I've caught up. Still digesting this one, but I have a few things at random I think I'll say

TC is not as smart as my houseplants. Oh, and he's a right nasty man, too.

The Irish guy with long red hair, claiming he's being abused as a minority because he's a ginger? I'll give a reward of £100 to anyone who slaps him in the head on UTube, I hate the guy that much.

I didn't know the UK had Endowment Mortgages, so, just to make sure I have this right, you pay the bank a monthly interest payment, and separately pay an insurer a policy premium that at the end of the mortgage has a surrender value roughly equal to the principle?

Assuming I go that right, Tom apparently quit paying the insurer decades ago, and despite being told so and the significance of such, many times, over the course of many years, he didn't do dick to remedy that?

Also assuming I'm right above, is he really that thick, that he thinks because he (more or less) made the interest payments for 25 years, the bank needs to just forget the principle?

He makes much ado over "the bank changed the term of the mortgage, and so the whole lot is null and void, I owe them nothing" which is not only incorrect, but he has, not in public so much but in court, always agreed that the bank never changed the loan.

In fact, had the bank, with or without his permission, changed the note to a repayment note, with both interest and principle included, he would now either have paid off the loan or at the very least, have paid a substantial chunk of hte principle. For phucks sake, Tom, you should have let them change the loan!

And so here we are....

You have it game set and match My only hope now is the video of the actual eviction deters others considering this nonsense. I have gone right of Ginger people recently.....I wonder why?

[littleFred]

Well, ...

Yes, you got it. (Well, strictly, Sue Crawford was the one paying for the policy, and she stopped paying.)

Tom paid interest but didn't repay the capital, aside from the £178 cash-in value of the policy. He has never claimed to have repaid the capital, but he does claim he "owes nothing". I think he currently relies on the theory that the bank didn't lend real money in the first place. Or that his mother-in-law is dead but not buried. Or his dog likewise. Or the missing chicken.

Sue is on video outside the house shouting that "We won the court case." I suspect this is also Tom's (deluded) view.

[PeanutGallery]

The claim that he paid 3 times the amount owed can also be shown to be false. Tom claims to have been paying around £300 per month for 25 years. This means he would have paid £3,600 a year (12 times £300). Over a 25 year period that means the maximum Tom could have paid would have been £90,000.00. Which isn't three times the amount owed, its just over two times (2.09 according to my calculator). He would have repaid three times as much if he'd been paying £430 a month for that period, which as far as I am aware he's never claimed. However I can't find the video where Tom shows the exact amount that he'd been paying a month (I think it was around £316 but I can't be 100% sure - however even if he'd been paying £350, he'd have only managed about two and a half times the amount owed).

We also know that Tom didn't make ALL the payments. Not only did he owe the capital but he had also entered into arrears.

Finally if Tom had paid three times the amount he borrowed, he would still actually have his house.

[IDIOT]

Rue the day you sign up to GOODF hoping to get out of debt for free.

The Crawford case isn't exactly their best case study is it?

[littleFred]

To the deluded, the Crawford case merely confirms the delusions.

To the paranoid, it confirms the worst fears about TPTB.

The bulk of GOODF isn't about getting out of debt, free or otherwise. It is about feeding paranoid delusions.

[hardcopy]

Rue the day you sign up to GOODF hoping to get out of debt for free.

The Crawford case isn't exactly their best case study is it?

But but he did get out of debt and he didn't have to pay a penny
Losing the house is just a side issue

[daveBeeston]

But but he did get out of debt and he didn't have to pay a penny
Losing the house is just a side issue

He's not out of debt yet, until the property is sold for a sufficient amount to clear what he owes (including court costs, bailiff costs and storage costs) he is still well and truly upto his neck in debt.

[Normal Wisdom]

The claim that he paid 3 times the amount owed can also be shown to be false. Tom claims to have been paying around £300 per month for 25 years. This means he would have paid £3,600 a year (12 times £300). Over a 25 year period that means the maximum Tom could have paid would have been £90,000.00. Which isn't three times the amount owed, its just over two times (2.09 according to my calculator). He would have repaid three times as much if he'd been paying £430 a month for that period, which as far as I am aware he's never claimed. However I can't find the video where Tom shows the exact amount that he'd been paying a month (I think it was around £316 but I can't be 100% sure - however even if he'd been paying £350, he'd have only managed about two and a half times the amount owed).

We also know that Tom didn't make ALL the payments. Not only did he owe the capital but he had also entered into arrears.

Finally if Tom had paid three times the amount he borrowed, he would still actually have his house.

At the time the Suspended Order of Possession was granted in 2012, the monthly payments to B&B were £302.55. I think this must have included the compulsory buildings insurance premium too so the actual monthly interest on the loan would have been less. It's also worth remembering that there had been a number of capitalisations of arrears of interest so the capital sum had increased from the original amount borrowed. The interest rate would have been variable so it is likely to have been significantly higher in the early years. I began my endowment mortgage in 1987 and not long afterwards the interest rate soared to 16% before gradually falling back over subsequent years. No doubt the total amount he has paid B&B is somewhere between 2 and 3 times the amount borrowed. It is a lot of money. I remember my Dad laughing at my outrage when I worked out how much I would pay over the life of my first mortgage and that was only £10,500.

The point is, as you say, whatever he paid in interest, he hasn't paid any of the capital. He knew very well how an endowment mortgage worked because from time to time he goes on about the £11,000 surplus he expected to collect when the endowment policy matured. From the time of his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman his argument seems to be that he thought that what he was paying B&B covered everything he needed to pay although the FO rejected that claim. He raised it again in February this year although it's hard to see how he can really believe this when he knows that Mrs C had been paying a separate monthly endowment policy premium for the first three years of the mortgage.

i guess there are some things we will never fully understand.

[JonnyL]

Have a listen to this, first up is the idiot wannabe artist taxi driver clone Jason Nota and then further in is the funniest Mark Ceylon interview you'll ever hear.

http://loucollins.uk/2015/07/06/lou-col ... rk-ceylon/

[BlueBurmese]

Does anybody know exactly who was living in 3 Fearn Chase at eviction time? I can see the electoral role until 2011 which gives the occupants as:

Thomas Crawford
Susan Crawford
Amanda Crawford (married name is Pike now isn't it?)
Craig Crawford
Nicol [sic] Crawford

Tom mentions in the video that Craig posted (https://www.facebook.com/craig.crawford ... =2&theater) that "he, Sue, Amanda, my family" were all evicted, which doesn't really clear things up.

I'm curious as there's no way that house had more than three bedrooms and it was also full of dogs. Now bear in mind that Tom's children are all in their 30's, this must have been a bit of a squeeze. That then raises the question, if Tom was out of action from is battle with cancer, why couldn't four adults scrape together the £350 mortgage payments?

I'm thinking at the moment, and maybe I'm giving him more credit than is due, that Tom was the only one in the family who grafted, albeit unsuccessfully and badly paid. What has the wife done? What have the three adult children ever contributed? We know Craig has a fake internet marketing business and builds websites for mates, but that's probably so he can declare self-employment and claim working tax credits. Likewise with Amanda and her photography "business". God knows what Nicol does - she was the one with the dogs in the video right?

Anyway, Craig's video does the family no favours. The family come across as nasty and entitled. I don't think that any of them are very bright either. I bet the neighbours are glad to see the back of them.