The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[rumpelstilzchen]

A few years later would be twenty years ago!

Not necessarily. Read your OP in your timeline thread but imagine Tom is unaware that Sue had stopped paying. If Sue kept Tom in the dark it is possible the first he knew about it was in 2005 when they had mortgage arrears. Some blokes leave all the financial stuff to their wives to sort out and they are unaware of what goes on. She might have led him up the garden path.

[ArthurWankspittle]

If Sue kept Tom in the dark it is possible the first he knew about it was in 2005 when they had mortgage arrears. Some blokes leave all the financial stuff to their wives to sort out and they are unaware of what goes on. She might have led him up the garden path.

Which actually makes what Tom has said worse. Pick a time when he found out, then relate it to what he says about the endowment from about Sept 2012 - April 2013. Even if Sue never told Tom anything about the endowment, covered the whole thing up and therefore made a false claim to the ombudsman, Tom knew in April 2013 that he couldn't repay the capital in August 2013 when it was due. By February 2015 Tom is saying his payments to B&B included the endowment. That would be the endowment that he's never discussed with his wife at any point in the last 27 years.

[AndyPandy]

If Sue kept Tom in the dark it is possible the first he knew about it was in 2005 when they had mortgage arrears. Some blokes leave all the financial stuff to their wives to sort out and they are unaware of what goes on. She might have led him up the garden path.

Which actually makes what Tom has said worse. Pick a time when he found out, then relate it to what he says about the endowment from about Sept 2012 - April 2013. Even if Sue never told Tom anything about the endowment, covered the whole thing up and therefore made a false claim to the ombudsman, Tom knew in April 2013 that he couldn't repay the capital in August 2013 when it was due. By February 2015 Tom is saying his payments to B&B included the endowment. That would be the endowment that he's never discussed with his wife at any point in the last 27 years.

Could be a lot simpler then that, that they simply did not understand the separate endowment policy and what it's significance was. They thought they had an Endowment Mortgage, the separate 'policy' they may have considered was insurance that they didn't need and so cancelled the payment to the policy, when looking to cut costs, without ever realising what they were doing.

With all the postings made I've always had the impression they had no idea what an Endowment (interest only) mortgage actually was.

[letissier14]

From EFOTB page on discussing if the house has been sold or not ......

Paul Mitchell Is it now sold? If so then thats why the infrastructure has gone as its no longer ukar's problem. They will only now be days away from the £. (if sold) Ive been away for a while so I am a bit behind with the current situation so I welcome being put right. Peace.
5 hrs · Like

Dawn Hebblethwaite They won't care now it's sold, it's the new owners problem as far as they're concerned, set of crooks!!
5 hrs · Like

Kev Grainger Occupy the hell out of it. !
5 hrs · Like · 12

Amanda Pike We dont know land registry say there's no change to the deeds but it looks like it is? Even if so once we get a decent judge it'll come back to us x
5 hrs · Like · 2

Lloyd Morris I bet they've raffled it for peanuts
5 hrs · Like · 1

Sally Crocker Sarkozi frown emoticon
5 hrs · Like

Claire Booker Has the garage door been left open I can't tell cos sun is shining on my screen!!!
5 hrs · Like · 1

Kev Grainger I see an opurtunity staring right at us. wink emoticon
5 hrs · Like · 14

Kay Williamson We don't have proof it's been sold yet
5 hrs · Like · 1

Aidan Smith Claire Booker Yeah it was open
5 hrs · Like · 2

Carl Bailey Move back in
5 hrs · Like · 6

Dave Fabian Move back in !
Occupy !
5 hrs · Like · 7

Kev Grainger It needs to be taken back. END OF. It belongs to the Crawfords. The whole bungalow needs to be occupied by as many of us as we can and blocked.
5 hrs · Like · 16

Paul Mitchell LR will take some time to update as the conveyancing will have to take place which is paperwork driven. So. Is it sold, how and when? Must have been auctioned? 28 day completion usually.
5 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

Claire Booker So not only have they damaged the ceiling of the bungalow but they've left the building adjacent to it open to the elements. Excuse my french but what a set of scamming bar stewards. Surely if it had been sold the new owners would want it closed up tight or do they plan to demolish!!!! I'd be asking neighbours I trusted to be taking video evidence of any comings and goings including vehicle registrations...
5 hrs · Like · 1

Monica Bertenshaw If that property has been sold, I wouldn't want to be the purchaser. Surely everybody should know it belongs to Tom and Sue. There would be no happiness in that home!
5 hrs · Like · 7

Rachael Alexander If it has been sold, repossessions are normally required to complete within 21 or 28 days. Once completed sale then u need to wait for a form to say the mortgage has been cleared and they have informed the land registry. Only then can the new owners solicitors send a form to the land reg who will then change the deeds. I work as a conveyancing assistant. Hope this explains why the title deeds at land reg haven't changed if it has indeed been sold x
5 hrs · Like · 7

Paul Mitchell Sold at distance to a distant new owner. Caveat Emptor.
5 hrs · Like · 2

Kay Williamson Or hope they have woken up an realised what bar stools they are n have stolen something they shouldn't have n now we are gonna get it back ,,,,I no never that simple but it's gonna happen x
5 hrs · Like · 3

Kev Grainger I'm willing to take direct action. I will need picking up though. wink emoticon
5 hrs · Like · 4

Paul Mitchell If you do that you will prob be arrested for aggrevated tresspass and squatting as you will know thats now been criminalised excepting commercial property that is.
5 hrs · Like

Wendy Dick although I agree the decision should made by the family
5 hrs · Like · 3

Dena Bull Maybe they're just testing us!? To see what we do? Xx
5 hrs · Like · 2

Carl Bailey Of course we,ll be arrested. Do you think they will give it back because we ask nicely?
5 hrs · Like · 3

Wendy Dick fill the bungalow pack tight with pensioners lol
5 hrs · Like · 4

Paul Mitchell And being arrested will achieve what exactly?
5 hrs · Like

Sally Crocker Sarkozi I'm convinced it's sold after the email I had from land registry
5 hrs · Like · 4

Nick Matthews All the capping stones have gone off the wall
5 hrs · Like · 1

Carl Bailey A dam site more than everyone just winging on here...
U cant stop a bully by hopeing they will change into a decent human being.
Deal with whats in front of you, not what youd like to be in front of you.
5 hrs · Like · 6

Kev Grainger And doing nothing will acheive nothing. It's about making a point. It's about standing together and saying "we will not tolerate this shit" and again ... where is that fucking warrant??
5 hrs · Like · 13

Paul Mitchell Well thats the choice you will make in entering the building. And exactly..... WHERE is/was the Warrant.....? Be in possession of the facts. All the facts, before being in possession of the property.
5 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

Dawn Hebblethwaite Didn't the Police tell Sue it was sold when she visited her friend up near the house? I seem to remember a police officer informed someone not to go near the house or on the land because it would be trespass as it has been sold now. xx
5 hrs · Like · 1

Paul Mitchell Nothing wrong with a bit of Trespass ( non aggrevated) Wonder if plod would be as heavy handed for the new 'owners' as they were for ukar?
5 hrs · Edited · Like · 3

Richard Smufboy Burrows come on people, litterally fed up of asking now, get your feet on the ground and lets go do something like emoticon
5 hrs · Like · 3

Jennifer Allen It's a trap!
5 hrs · Like

Wendy Dick I fear it could be
5 hrs · Like · 1

Claire Booker Doesn't a cop live on the street?
5 hrs · Like

Richard Smufboy Burrows only one way to find out in my opinion
5 hrs · Like

Paul Mitchell No trap. Simply sold. Unfortunate. In my opinion.
5 hrs · Like · 1

Wendy Dick who ever buys it will be handling stolen property
5 hrs · Edited · Like · 2

Matthew Lee Smedley
Matthew Lee Smedley's photo.
5 hrs · Like · 3

Kelly Killian was it a fannie or freddie? also, find out if the sale was listing on the trustee sale. also, check here: https://www.homepath.com/

Fannie Mae REO Homes For Sale - HomePath.com
HomePath.com is the Official foreclosure website...
HOMEPATH.COM
4 hrs · Like

Tom Crawford Thanks so much Aiden you have saved Sue & Nicole a job today smile emoticon
4 hrs · Like · 6

Tom Crawford P s. Still shows our belongings in the garden
4 hrs · Like · 3

Amanda Pike Still shows our whole bleedin house mum/dad! Lol
4 hrs · Edited · Like · 7

Brett Castell What a disgustingly sad picture
4 hrs · Like · 2

Wendy Dick it is heart breaking makes me feel so useless and helpless
4 hrs · Like · 2

Amanda Pike I know frown emoticon
4 hrs · Like · 2

Brett Castell Don't be a dick Ms Dick, your support is of use to them and a great help too
4 hrs · Like · 1

Wendy Dick Brett lol
4 hrs · Like · 1

Jon Dow When is this going to Supreme Court and Queensbench?
4 hrs · Like · 1

Bobby Tomas Kendall Is it sold??? Makes you think have they taken every thing down and moved the men to make you think they have???
4 hrs · Like · 2

Ian Horner So does that mean you can go and pick up your belongings?
3 hrs · Like · 1

Jax Wynn get back in it change locks bolt doors
3 hrs · Like · 2

Teresa Setright Carroll So sad remember happy days xx
3 hrs · Like · 1

Jax Wynn put ur own security fence around it
3 hrs · Like · 2

Jax Wynn nice electrified onw
3 hrs · Like · 2

Jax Wynn one
3 hrs · Like · 1

Wendy Dick high voltage
3 hrs · Like · 2

Jax Wynn we know u dont want a fundme page but one could be set up to fund security to the house
3 hrs · Like · 2

Mandy Deane heartbreaking looking at a abeautiful home, destroyed by thugs and robbers. frown emoticon
3 hrs · Like · 6

Mark Andrew Very sad indeed
2 hrs · Like · 1

David Reilly Apparently any issues with a property such as historical disputes with neighbours and even alleged paranormal activity has by law to be disclosed to any prospective purchaser. So if the estate agent was to receive multiple anonymous threats that ANYONE who buys this house will never be able to relax as malicious random harassment could occur anytime without warning. I doubt Bradford and Bingley would ever recoup the money they claim it is due or the cost of the repo legal and security action to date. Just imagine if that happened...
2 hrs · Like · 6

Wendy Hirst Garage is open
1 hr · Like

Aidan Smith Who was selling the house? Also who was the security occupying the house?
1 hr · Like · 1

Jan Harmer I agree with the earlier comment. Get back in and change the locks. Borrow guard dogs and fence around . Surround fence with supporters . X
24 mins · Like · 1

Sharon Sturgess I think lock should be changed...... And any property worth recovering....??
17 mins · Like

Tara Louise Shaw So so sad
15 mins · Like

[YiamCross]

Ooh, do you thnk they really really might..? No, couldn't be so lucky.

Where's a Ginger Chris live stream reporter when you need one?

[YiamCross]

If Sue kept Tom in the dark it is possible the first he knew about it was in 2005 when they had mortgage arrears. Some blokes leave all the financial stuff to their wives to sort out and they are unaware of what goes on. She might have led him up the garden path.

Which actually makes what Tom has said worse. Pick a time when he found out, then relate it to what he says about the endowment from about Sept 2012 - April 2013. Even if Sue never told Tom anything about the endowment, covered the whole thing up and therefore made a false claim to the ombudsman, Tom knew in April 2013 that he couldn't repay the capital in August 2013 when it was due. By February 2015 Tom is saying his payments to B&B included the endowment. That would be the endowment that he's never discussed with his wife at any point in the last 27 years.

Could be a lot simpler then that, that they simply did not understand the separate endowment policy and what it's significance was. They thought they had an Endowment Mortgage, the separate 'policy' they may have considered was insurance that they didn't need and so cancelled the payment to the policy, when looking to cut costs, without ever realising what they were doing.

With all the postings made I've always had the impression they had no idea what an Endowment (interest only) mortgage actually was.

We going around this little circle again? I thought we'd cleared this one up months ago. Tom knew a long time ago that the endowment wasn't in place. If you stop paying the endowment you get endless letters from the insurance company and the bank warning what happens if you don't sort it. If he didn't realise what that was all about then Sue certainly did and the mortgage was in both their names. And if they were both too stupid to understand what an endowment is then they really had no business taking out a mortgage.

And if all else fails then maybe Tom should sue Sue.

[notorial dissent]

It would appear that certainly Tom, and/or Sue, have been lying to themselves at the very least, if not everyone else for quite some time. The worst part for them, is that they admitted, stipulated, to what actually happened in open court, and it is thoroughly memorialized in the judgment handed down, so they can spin whatever stories they want, but when it comes right down to it, they've admitted to absolute culpability in court and on the record. That judgment that Tom thought was so wonderful until he got out of court and started lying again to be specific. That judgment and the records will stand against anything they want to make up or claim from here on out.

Facts are terribly things they just don't go away for wishing.

[Jeffrey]

That's impossible. Tom would have known about it in 1999 during the repayment nonsense.

[PeanutGallery]

A few years later would be twenty years ago!

Not necessarily. Read your OP in your timeline thread but imagine Tom is unaware that Sue had stopped paying. If Sue kept Tom in the dark it is possible the first he knew about it was in 2005 when they had mortgage arrears. Some blokes leave all the financial stuff to their wives to sort out and they are unaware of what goes on. She might have led him up the garden path.

I think the best case scenario for this is that Tom and Sue were very confused about what their mortgage was and what they needed to do to meet their obligations. Sue cancelled the endowment policy, we don't know if Tom knew at that time or not, but he certainly would have or should have found out that their wasn't a method in place to repay the capital at the end of the mortgage term when the bank wrote to the Crawfords and offered to change the mortgage and gave them advice about their financial affairs.

I get the impression that Tom and Sue aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer and probably didn't pay much attention to the fine print. Equally both have displayed an ability to ignore and misunderstand clear statements of fact, like the Judgement. I don't think it's impossible that they didn't know, even though they certainly should have known. After all we have all witnessed the Crawfords surprise when they actually were evicted, after hearing them crow about how that wasn't going to happen.

They do know that the bank didn't change the mortgage on them, they admitted that in court, their actual claim was that the bank 'lost' the insurance policy that was going to cover the mortgage capital. But the bank didn't lose it, it was never actually lost, accounts were presented that showed exactly what happened to that policy. Tom and Sue have never presented any evidence to contradict or contest the claim that payments towards the insurance ceased in the 1990's and that the policy was automatically surrendered.

They would have or should have known that this happened. I would imagine that when the policy was surrendered they would have received a letter explaining that this was the value of the policy and that it had been credited to the mortgage. They would also have gotten a mortgage statement showing the additional credit. That they claim to have been unaware of this indicates that they have a great amount of ignorance about their own financial affairs.

Significantly though they weren't evicted because of the outstanding capital on the mortgage. They were evicted because of the arrears that had built up once they stopped paying the interest on the mortgage after the term expired. They did this because they decided that they had paid the bank enough money and would tell it to whistle for the rest or any further payments. They never disputed the arrears, by not disputing this they agreed with the court that the bank was entitled to their house.

They didn't dispute this, because they couldn't actually dispute this, it was a simple fact and it's very hard in court to argue against facts. Especially provable ones. The outstanding capital, which will play a part in determining the liabilities and whether the Crawfords will have any further amounts to pay, wasn't the main factor in why they were evicted. The Judgement was clear that it was the decision to stop making any payments that proved disastrous. That is why Tom, Sue, Nicole, Dead Dog RIP, Betty and the sundry fishes are all of no fixed abode.

[notorial dissent]

I get the impression that Tom and Sue aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer and probably didn't pay much attention to the fine print. Equally both have displayed an ability to ignore and misunderstand clear statements of fact, like the Judgement.

I think that is entirely the point, I don't think either of them listen to what anyone is saying, and just hear what they want to hear, and look how far that has gotten them.

[AndyPandy]

Do you get the feeling Letissier, that the appetite to get arrested on behalf of the Crawfrauds is now sadly diminished ??

I love the 'it's a trap' comment, translate - not a chance, I'm not getting up on THAT roof !!

Oh what about 'borrow a guard dog' where the hell would you 'borrow' a guard dog from !!

[Skeleton]

Ooh, do you thnk they really really might..? No, couldn't be so lucky.

Where's a Ginger Chris live stream reporter when you need one?

Good question, Craig claimed the Police stole his phone when he was arrested, I have my doubts because he seems not to have mentioned it since, but if they did one assumes they would have kept Ginger's to. Either that or he has fallen on his head and realised Crawford was lying all along and is refusing to come out to play.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I'm still chuckling about the fannie or freddie trustee sale bit.

[schismatrix]

one assumes they would have kept Ginger's to.

According to his twitter feed he has no phone, because the police took it, and therefore no internet access.

https://twitter.com/sgtgingerchris?lang=en

[Skeleton]

one assumes they would have kept Ginger's to.

According to his twitter feed he has no phone, because the police took it, and therefore no internet access.

https://twitter.com/sgtgingerchris?lang=en

Good spot, i don't twitter, i can barely drive Facebook

[Bones]

one assumes they would have kept Ginger's to.

According to his twitter feed he has no phone, because the police took it, and therefore no internet access.

https://twitter.com/sgtgingerchris?lang=en

Makes you wonder how he is posting on twitter



Erm, try a trained legal professional

[Bones]

Kev Grainger Occupy the hell out of it. !
5 hrs · Like · 12

Kev Grainger I see an opurtunity staring right at us. wink emoticon
5 hrs · Like · 14

Kev Grainger It needs to be taken back. END OF. It belongs to the Crawfords. The whole bungalow needs to be occupied by as many of us as we can and blocked.
5 hrs · Like · 16

Kev Grainger I'm willing to take direct action. I will need picking up though. wink emoticon
5 hrs · Like · 4

Kev Grainger And doing nothing will acheive nothing. It's about making a point. It's about standing together and saying "we will not tolerate this shit" and again ... where is that fucking warrant??
5 hrs · Like · 13

Kev, if you are reading this, please me know your address, I will happily give you and your mates a lift, the last taking of the building previously called Castle Crawford was the best entertainment I had seen in ages. Can't wait for the sequel

[Bones]

We going around this little circle again? I thought we'd cleared this one up months ago. Tom knew a long time ago that the endowment wasn't in place. If you stop paying the endowment you get endless letters from the insurance company and the bank warning what happens if you don't sort it. If he didn't realise what that was all about then Sue certainly did and the mortgage was in both their names. And if they were both too stupid to understand what an endowment is then they really had no business taking out a mortgage.

And if all else fails then maybe Tom should sue Sue.

30. 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 23rd July 1992.

They would have been getting letters for over a year, telling them that payments to the endowment was not being made. It would have been at the very least one letter each month for every payment not being made and several more about the implications of payments not being made. In addition to all of those letters, there would have been several more detailing the surrender of the policy, how the value was calculated and a further letter confirming the closure of the policy.

If that was not enough, as we already know Tom received a mortgage statement showing the value of the policy being credited to his mortgage account - we know this because Tom shows us the mortgage statement, showing the payment in one of his car crash videos

With all those letters and the mortgage statement, it is nigh on impossible to argue they didn't know

[IDIOT]

Anyone know why they surrendered the endowment policy?

[Bones]

Anyone know why they surrendered the endowment policy?

It would not have been the Crawfords. They had an Endowment Policy with Royal Life. After a year of not receiving any payments from Sue, Royal Life closed the policy. As the policy was assigned to B&B, the payout upon closure would have been sent to B&B to be credited to the Crawfords mortgage