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

[GH132]

And nope its not me that bought it as i couldn't even get the selling agent to speak to me despite emailing a firm initial offer of £40,000 to them.

If the sale goes through at less than £40,000 then you would have a very strong claim depending on the wording of your offer !

[hardcopy]

So Tom got evicted ?

[YiamCross]

Pretty much, except they won't be responsible for repairs to the property. It will be sold as is, though of course the fact that the roof is full of holes and there are no ceilings inside will significantly affect the final price.

Even if it's not demolished I wonder how much chance there is of a profit in it. I can see all kinds of bumps in the night causing costs to rise and if they have to put 24/7 secourity on the place that will hurt quite a lot too.

Whatever happens, I'm sure there's plenty of entertainment to be had yet. Pass the popcorn.

[ArthurWankspittle]

arayder - basically yes.

However I cannot see why TC should be liable for any costs accrued after he was repossessed - such costs should be the responsibility on the possessor IMO - not trying to defend his actions, just trying to be logical.

No, Tom is responsible for paying back a loan. The lender doesn't get their money until the place is sold. All costs up to that point are Tom's, or, to put it another way, it's all Tom's fault this has happened and he agreed up front to pay for all the costs in these circumstances. The lender is obligated to get the best price in the circumstances and minimise the costs. That's why they have sold it quickly because otherwise they are paying out £x,000 a week to guard the place while they find a buyer or wait for an auction. Given the security have gone, I am now more and more convinced this place exchanged contracts on Friday.

[Pox]

Second video attempt. This time with chickens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0Dbv2JVYQI

Love the background music.

[Footloose52]

I wonder if it was simultaneous exchange and completion so it is now the purchasers responsibility.

Surely the vendor would still be liable up to completion for any further damage as the property would no longer be as seen at the time of exchange?

[NG3]

That's why they have sold it quickly because otherwise they are paying out £x,000 a week to guard the place while they find a buyer or wait for an auction.

Do we know where the security were from?

I'm sure someone said, but I don't recall where from.

The removals and selling agent was from the NW, so I'm just wondering if I've been perhaps neglecting to add in costs associated with distance when estimating costs.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The removals and selling agent was from the NW, so I'm just wondering if I've been perhaps neglecting to add in costs associated with distance when estimating costs.

The odd trip from Manchester pales into insignificance if we believe that there are 10 security guards plus dogs there 24/7.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Surely the vendor would still be liable up to completion for any further damage as the property would no longer be as seen at the time of exchange?

It's not sold as seen. You insure it from exchange as a buyer.

[hardcopy]

Well, Toms case was interesting for a while, but the level of interest, and frankly bizarre, nit picking over every aspect of the situation is worrying.

[Losleones]

Music sounds like it's from the 70s sitcom On The Buses.

[vampireLOREN]

Well, Toms case was interesting for a while, but the level of interest, and frankly bizarre, nit picking over every aspect of the situation is worrying.

But,
a Bloody fine response video from Norm,
"je suis Dave"

[hardcopy]

Well, Toms case was interesting for a while, but the level of interest, and frankly bizarre, nit picking over every aspect of the situation is worrying.

But,
a Bloody fine response video from Norm,
"je suis Dave"

Don't get me wrong, I can watch reruns of comedy classics all day long, but the intricate delving into Toms case isn't healthy, and to no purpose, IMHO. Peace

[NG3]

Don't get me wrong, I can watch reruns of comedy classics all day long, but the intricate delving into Toms case isn't healthy, and to no purpose, IMHO. Peace

It can be a little morbid but it helps pin down the truth so that others might one day avoid similar mistakes. I guess it looks even worse with some of the dark humour, but the truth can be pretty dark without it.

There is the rubbernecking element too, but speaking personally, when it's on your doorstep you have to look because it's having a genuine impact on you.

[JonnyL]

Guy Taylor om Tom C starts at 1hr, tonight's Bastion Radio.

https://youtu.be/dpAKeCJfZ-Y

[IDIOT]

It can be a little morbid but it helps pin down the truth so that others might one day avoid similar mistakes.

Whilst the likes of Ceylon, Taylor, Ebert and now Crawford who has stepped up to the helm are about there will always be marks for them to have their heads filled with false hopes.

[NG3]

It can be a little morbid but it helps pin down the truth so that others might one day avoid similar mistakes.

Whilst the likes of Ceylon, Taylor, Ebert and now Crawford who has stepped up to the helm are about there will always be marks for them to have their heads filled with false hopes.

Agreed, although I wasn't only referring to those kinds of mistakes. I imagine a lot of parties will review this case to see if anything could be done differently in future.

Sadly Tom playing games might have genuine impact on future, more deserving cases.

It's a bit like the boy who cried wolf.

We all come at this from different angles, for different reasons and with different views so different aspects and even different minutiae will interest different people.

But, yes, there will always be a new recruit ready for a similar journey.

[littleFred]

Second video attempt. This time with chickens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0Dbv2JVYQI

Good video. I agree with the points, with one exception:

For a start they have nor repaid a penny of the original £41,800 that they borrowed from Bradford and Bigley.

Not strictly true. They repaid about £178. Of course, this is dwarfed by the interest on the capital that has accrued since Tom stopped paying, let alone all the other costs.

[Normal Wisdom]

Not strictly true. They repaid about £178. Of course, this is dwarfed by the interest on the capital that has accrued since Tom stopped paying, let alone all the other costs.

To be pedantic, I don't think this is true. The proceeds of the surrendered EP was paid into the mortgage interest account so I think that means it was netted off against the loan interest and not the capital. As you say though, it hardly matters in the scheme of things.

[PeanutGallery]

Second video attempt. This time with chickens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0Dbv2JVYQI

Love the background music.

Agreed. My one complaint/criticism would be that the slide at 10:50 reads "Tom hasn't yet get around to letting anyone else see it." To be a pedant for grammar I would feel that "Tom hasn't gotten around to letting anyone else see it yet." would be a better turn of phrase. It's a very minor criticism, otherwise loved the use of red x and green ticks.

And of course Chickens.