The Second Battle of Crawford's Castle, a Nottingham Farce...

[Jeffrey]

What do the dates mean?

[Bones]

What do the dates mean?

High Court 20 July 2015
Injunction 22 July 2015

The application for the injunction was heard after the date of the high court order, so the judge would have been aware of the order, when they applied for injunction.

[wanglepin]

"without merit" Isn't that legalease for full of s**t

Complete shit, I think?

[PeanutGallery]

I think these are two separate issues. The High Court was an attempt to get another copy of the warrant (the one that they've already had). The application that was dismissed seems to be related to the proposal by Bradford and Bingley to destroy or dispose of the Crawfords goods and Tom wanting to tie that up for longer.

Why he would do that is especially moronic, Bradford and Bingley had told him to give them an address to deliver it to, that obviously wasn't good enough for Tom (well for one he doesn't have an address to which the goods could go). The application to delay was without merit. He has had plenty of time to sort an address for delivery and to get his property back, it would be easier for him to do that than it would be to tie the court up with an argument about whether it could be disposed of because he hasn't asked for it back.

The court would simply say, if you want it then ask for it to be returned, since you haven't it's reasonable to conclude that you don't want it. That is the glaringly obvious simple solution that Tom is refusing to try because he's so fixated on trying to make everything a court battle when it doesn't need to be a court battle and shouldn't be a court battle.

If Tom was at all a reasonable and sane person (he wouldn't be in this mess) but if a reasonable person found themselves in this situation I would think it would be reasonable for them to do at least one of the following, 1) Arrange an address where the property can be delivered and stored or 2) Arrange with the removal company who currently have the goods in storage to take over the storage fees.

Tom wants to do neither. He is trying to use the law to bury his head in the sand and the courts have better things to do than pander to his increasingly pointless whims.

[slowsmile]

He is trying to use the law to bury his head in the sand and the courts have better things to do than pander to his increasingly pointless whims.

I wonder if Tom will emulate Ebert and achieve vexatious litigant status (legal guru in the eyes of the crazier sovs).

[ArthurWankspittle]

If Tom was at all a reasonable and sane person (he wouldn't be in this mess) but if a reasonable person found themselves in this situation I would think it would be reasonable for them to do at least one of the following, 1) Arrange an address where the property can be delivered and stored or 2) Arrange with the removal company who currently have the goods in storage to take over the storage fees.

Tom wants to do neither. He is trying to use the law to bury his head in the sand and the courts have better things to do than pander to his increasingly pointless whims.

He's not buying his head in the sand, he's playing "poor me" the victim. Look how much sympathy he got for the "granddad battling cancer" affectation. He's now trying for the "B&B threw away all my stuff" sympathy card which the gullible morons will fall for.

[NG3]

He's now trying for the "B&B threw away all my stuff" sympathy card which the gullible morons will fall for.

Less and less so. When this first hit local news most people, who were aware of the case, were sympathetic to the Crawford's, unsurprising given the initial lies, but now, as the facts have slowly come out it's become increasingly hard to find any with sympathy for them.

I even know some of Craig's offline friends who are now privately voicing that his family is in the wrong here.

The circle is contracting...

[letissier14]

Why he would do that is especially moronic, Bradford and Bingley had told him to give them an address to deliver it to, that obviously wasn't good enough for Tom (well for one he doesn't have an address to which the goods could go).

I've been informed that Tom and Sue are living at her mums old house - which is probably the reason why he doesn't want his property delivered there, so that B&B don't find out.

Most sane people would go out of their way to get their property back, rather than have it destroyed, especially if it contained so many valuable and private things, unless of course they had already removed them prior to the eviction.

[Normal Wisdom]

Please share

Tom admits receiving a warrant

http://tinypic.com/r/1zqa9n4/8

I know he said that but I don't think he really did. I don't think he knows a warrant from a hole in the ground. I suspect he received a notice of eviction. As far as I understand it, the warrant isn't usually shown to the householder. That isn't it's purpose.

It isn't normally an issue because a householder who has been notified by the lender that they intend to make a claim for possession, potentially has attended the possession hearing and has heard a judge say that possession is granted to the lender, has received written notification of that fact and a date to leave, receives a notice of eviction, seeks leave to appeal and is turned down verbally and in writing by a judge who clearly states that the suspension of the possession order is lifted wouldn't normally be asking to see proof that the eviction is "legal". As I said earlier, they only want to see the warrant so that they can claim it's fake.

What I don't understand is why the illegal occupiers of Crawfraud Castle think that the request or writ or whatever it was for the documentation to be released to Tom means that they can demand it is brought to the house for inspection by people who are not party to the issue while they stand on the roof of a property that they don't own

[littleFred]

On Tom's FB, he posts a photo of the High Court order, which includes the words:

2) In particular court staff are requested to provide the Defendants with copies of any warrants of possession and orders for possession.

(My emphasis.)

That seems clear. I know what "requested" means. I think Tom does, too. But he twists it:

... despite having a Royal Courts of Justice High Court order ordering the Nottingham County Court to produce us a valid copy of the warrant which should bare court seal with the name of the court the date, the signiture of the judge and the appointed bailiffs name and on the back full details of monies owed nothing was forthcoming, ...

(My emphasis.)

Does Tom really not understand the difference between "request" and "order"? I think he understands very well. I think this is a deliberate lie to keep supporters on his side.

A year ago, Tom had an equity of about £80k. (House worth £125k minus mortgage around £45k.) Since then the house has plummeted in value and his debts have increased. After yesterday's events, I suspect his assets of £80k have reduced to zero or negative.

Tom has thrown away around £100k in one year.

EDIT: I might add that Tom's motivation was, of course, to gain £45k. He tried to gain £45k but lost £100k. Oops. Epic fail, as they say.

[Pox]

Why he would do that is especially moronic, Bradford and Bingley had told him to give them an address to deliver it to, that obviously wasn't good enough for Tom (well for one he doesn't have an address to which the goods could go).

I've been informed that Tom and Sue are living at her mums old house - which is probably the reason why he doesn't want his property delivered there, so that B&B don't find out.

Most sane people would go out of their way to get their property back, rather than have it destroyed, especially if it contained so many valuable and private things, unless of course they had already removed them prior to the eviction.

'Unless he had already removed them prior to the eviction' - I think he did the same thing with the central heating boiler and perhaps installed in Sue's mums house EPC for the property says 'no heating system present'. Now no ceiling present!

I do suspect that having inherited a property they now intend to cause as much mischief as possible and just walk away from the carnage that they have created.

I wonder though - who is using who?

Ceylon for his own propoganda means? Or is Tom using Ceylon just to stick one up B & B? Or just a symbiotic relationship?

[longdog]

I think he did the same thing with the central heating boiler and perhaps installed in Sue's mums house EPC for the property says 'no heating system present'. Now no ceiling present!

I suspect the reason the property was listed as 'no heating system present' was more a matter of the agents didn't know what system was present if any and the condition or safety status of what might or might not be there. It was probably more in the lines of an arse-covering "don't know... don't care... don't blame us" than an accurate description.

[Hercule Parrot]

"without merit" Isn't that legalease for full of s**t

It has a very particular meaning. People who bring cases which are declared to be without merit fall into the potential for a vexatious litigant order.

[JonnyL]

Sorry I know this was posted a couple of days ago but it has just dawned on me about the dates.



If the high court order, meant anything like what sweaty sue and toxic tom claim, why do they think they lost again on 22 July 2015

"without merit" Isn't that legalease for full of s**t

[PeanutGallery]

Sorry I know this was posted a couple of days ago but it has just dawned on me about the dates.



If the high court order, meant anything like what sweaty sue and toxic tom claim, why do they think they lost again on 22 July 2015

"without merit" Isn't that legalease for full of s**t

According to Ebert 'without merit' is super secret legalease code for you've won this one too Tom!

[GH132]

We've all been making the assumption that Tom and Sue are being left the house. If the house was left to Amanda / Craig / Nicole then Tom and Sue can go bankrupt with no hangup.

[JonnyL]

I think he did the same thing with the central heating boiler and perhaps installed in Sue's mums house EPC for the property says 'no heating system present'. Now no ceiling present!

I suspect the reason the property was listed as 'no heating system present' was more a matter of the agents didn't know what system was present if any and the condition or safety status of what might or might not be there. It was probably more in the lines of an arse-covering "don't know... don't care... don't blame us" than an accurate description.

The agent had an EPC carried out so it must have been assessed by a qualified assessor that no heating is present. There's probably a gas fire for the lounge, water cylinder with immersion heater for hot water with portable heaters for the rest of the house.

[Pox]

I think he did the same thing with the central heating boiler and perhaps installed in Sue's mums house EPC for the property says 'no heating system present'. Now no ceiling present!

I suspect the reason the property was listed as 'no heating system present' was more a matter of the agents didn't know what system was present if any and the condition or safety status of what might or might not be there. It was probably more in the lines of an arse-covering "don't know... don't care... don't blame us" than an accurate description.

No, in which case the energy surveyor would have stated 'no access' - the energy surveyor is not obliged to assess the condition or safety of the boiler/ heating system, merely to record the presence of such - it's model number or if non present, the approximate age and various other details - flue type etc. They get randomly audited and have to provide dated photographic evidence of the heating system etc. so 'don't know 'may be an option, but 'don't care ' may result in a loss of their licence

[Hercule Parrot]

Unless there's something I haven't seen, this is pretty much the last gasp of the Crawfools. Even after the rooftop stunt they've barely mustered 20 supporters on the ground today. Guy Taylor at the front, flapping his lips grandiloquently and without any effect at all. Hilarious scenes at http://bambuser.com/v/5682201 - a sergeant doing a sterling job of politely humouring their arm-waving crazy nonsense.

[letissier14]

Guy Taylor and 25 others have been down to the police station to report a crime that Tom has never been shown the warrant and was evicted illegally -

https://www.facebook.com/LIL.MISS.HEIDI ... 084010844/